Case laws on IPC-part 1

Report to Police - A rape victim may think seriously before giving the information
to the police about rape as the onslaught of a social stigma may haunt her for life
- Though the delay as such is not serious, but while considering broad
probabilities of the case, the delay in giving the information to the police also
assumes some importance. (Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Apex
Court Judgments 129 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Girl 10 years of
age - As per FIR recorded on statement of prosecutrix, rapist had muffled his face
with his shirt after taking it off - FIR did not show that during this period
prosecutrix had recognised rapist - It is dangerous to rely on testimony of child
witness and more so when her version was improved or contradictory on material
particulars - FIR appeared to be outcome of deliberators and consultations - Pant
of accused with blood stains produced in Court during trial but parcel bearing
seals of hospital where parcel had been sent to State Forensic Laboratory -
Conviction not sustainable. (Tarvinder Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(4)

Criminal Court Cases 791 (H.P.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Girl below
18 years - No evidence that sexual intercourse was without consent and by force -
Conviction u/s 376 IPC cannot be sustained. (Allaudin Vs State of Assam) 2004(3)
Criminal Court Cases 130 (Gauhati)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Girl if
below 16 years of age, the question of consent is wholly irrelevant. (Dhruvendra
Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 307 (Raj.) Indian
Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Husband of prosecutrix reached the spot and found
accused lying on his wife but he did not make an attempt to catch hold of the
accused - After all, accused, to get up and to tie his clothes and then to run,
would have taken some time - Testimony of prosecutrix is unreliable and
untrustworthy - Conviction set aside. (Rambir Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal

Court Cases 396 (P&H)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Identification parade
- Rape case - Magistrate who conducted identification parade in Jail not examined
as a witness - However, memo prepared regarding identification of accused persons
in presence of Magistrate placed on record and that not challenged in cross
examination - Prosecutrix in her cross examination stated that she had disclosed
the four accused persons in the identification parade who had committed rape with
her - Held, accused were identified in identification parade. (Sawailal & Anr. Vs
State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 -
Rape - Identification - Contention that because of darkness it was not possible for
prosecutrix to identify accused - Prosecutrix however in her statement stated that
where rape was committed moon-light was there - Held, that it is unbelievable that
a victim against whose wishes intercourse has taken place will ever forget the face
of the person who had committed rape on her. (Sawailal & Anr. Vs State) 2005(2)
Criminal Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - If
Court is satisfied from the evidence of the victim a conviction can be solely based
on such evidence without looking for further corroboration. (State of Chhattisgarh
Vs Derha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 -
Rape - If Court is satisfied that the evidence of prosecutrix is free from blemish
and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix,
conviction can be recorded. (State of Rajasthan Vs Biram Lal) 2005(1) Apex Court
Judgments 662 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 699 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.376 - Rape - Incident 14 years old - Accused was then 18 years of age -
Accused thereafter married and having family - Sentence reduced from 10 years to 7
years. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Derha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Injuries - Evidence of Doctor that injuries
suffered by prosecutrix could not have been self inflicted - There was blood on
private part of prosecutrix, the hymen was torn and medial side of the labia-minora
was inflamed - This was even 4 days of the incident - Doctor in specific terms
stated that victim is not habituated to sexual intercourse - This by itself goes to
show that injury suffered by the victim was one that could have been caused only by
an act of rape as alleged by the prosecution. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Derha)
2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape -
Injury on the body of victim - Doubt regarding age of ruputure of the hymen - No
other injury found on body of victim - It would be dangerous to pass a conviction

merely on the fact that the hymen of victim was found ruptured. (Suresh Vs State
of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Bombay)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.376 - Rape - Intercourse with consent - A woman would not ordinarily put her
chastity at stake by making a false allegation of rape but though this may be the
general rule, exceptions thereto are not lacking. (Dinesh Vs State of Haryana)
2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 383 (P&H)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape -
Intercourse with consent - Plea of consent not taken - Held, even if plea is not
taken in defence it is still open to Court to infer that a case of sexual
intercourse with consent was made out on the basis of the prosecution evidence.
(Dinesh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 383 (P&H)Indian Penal
Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - It is not possible for a single man to commit sexual
intercourse with a healthy adult female in full possession of her senses against
her Will. (Sukru Gouda Vs State of Orissa) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 673
(Orissa)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Married woman - Doctor could not
give any definite opinion as there was profuse bleeding - This is of no consequence
in view of the unimpeached evidence of the victim. (Sri Narayan Saha & Anr. Vs
State of Tripura) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 638 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.376 - Rape - Married woman - If a prosecutrix is an adult and full understanding
the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown
to be infirm and not trustworthy - If the totality of the circumstances appearing
on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong
motive to falsely involve the person charged, Court should ordinarily have no
hesitation in accepting her evidence. (Sri Narayan Saha & Anr. Vs State of Tripura)
2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 638 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape -
Material witness not examined - Testimony of prosecutrix not suffering from any
infirmity - No adverse inference can be drawn if the case projected by
prosecutrix is otherwise acceptable. (Devinder Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2)
Criminal Court Cases 673 (P&H) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Medical
evidence of prosecutrix being 19 years of age - No injury on any pat of body of
prosecutrix - Main eye witness not supporting prosecution case - Report lodged
after about 12 days - No evidence ofintention - It being essentially a state of
mind it is very difficult to produce direct evidence to prove such intention - It
has to be inferred from the act like, the conduct of the accused or other relevant
circumstances of the case - Inference can be gathered by the manner in which the
accused arrived at the scene, mounted the attack, determination and concert with
which the attack was made, from the nature of injury caused by one or some of them
- It can further be inferred from the subsequent conduct after the attack - Even an
illegal omission on the part of such accused can indicate the sharing of common
intention - Totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving
at the conclusion whether the accused had the common intention to commit an offence
of which they could be convicted. (Ramesh Singh @ Photti Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4)
Criminal Court Cases 674 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common intention -
Joint liability - Prosecution has to establish by evidence that there was plan or
meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit offence - Direct proof of
common intention is seldom available - Intention can be inferred from the
circumstances. (Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court
Cases 570 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common intention - Once it is found
that a criminal act has been committed by several persons in furtherance of common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for the criminal acts as if it
were done by him alone. (Saravanan & Anr. Vs State of Pondicherry) 2005(1) Criminal
Court Cases 745 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common intention - Prior
concert and prearranged plan is its foundation - Two of four accused caused
injuries on the back of deceased whereas two other caused injuries on the head and
only head injuries were found fatal but circumstances indicated common intention
and conviction with aid of S.34 calls for no interference. (Krishnan & Anr. Vs
State Rep. By Inspector of Police) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 281 (S.C.) :
2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 181 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common
intention - Proof - Prosecution must establish by evidence, whether direct or
circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons

to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of S.34, be it pre-
arranged or on the spur of moment but it must be before the commission of the
crime. (Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal
Court Cases 189 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common intention -
Prosecution
has to establish by evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or
meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are
charged with the aid of S.34, be it prearranged or on the spur of moment, but it
must necessarily be before the commission of the crime - True contents of the
provision are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the
position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by
himself. (Babulal Bhagwan Khandare Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court
Cases 503 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common intention - Three accused
came together - Only one of them had grudge against deceased - Two accused caught
hold hands of deceased and third accused stabbed the deceased on vital parts - Two
accused did not prevent third accused from attacking - This leads to an
irresistible and in inescapable conclusion that the accused persons had shared the
common intention. (Ramesh Singh @ Photti Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court
Cases 674 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common intention - To attract the
provision two facts have to be established (1) common intention (2) participation
of the accused in commission of the offence - If the above two ingredients are
satisfied even overt act on the part of some of the persons sharing in the common
intention is not necessary. (Hamlet @ Sasi & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Apex
Court Judgments 333 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common intention - To
bring home charge of common intention prosecution has to establish by evidence,
whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the
accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of
Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be
before the commission of the crime. (Girija Shankar Vs State of U.P.) 2004(3)
Criminal Court Cases 291 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common intention -
To bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by
evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind
of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with
the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must
necessarily be before the commission of the crime. (Hari Ram Vs State of U.P.)
2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 198 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Common
intention - To bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to
establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or
meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are
charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment;
but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. (State of M.P. Vs
Deshraj & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 231 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.34 - Common intention - (i) To attract the applicability of Section 34 IPC
prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common
intention which requires a prearranged plan because before a man can be vicariously
convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in
furtherance of the common intention of all (ii) Common intention can be formed
previously or in the course of occurrence and on the spur of the moment (iii)
Common intention arising at any time prior to the criminal act, can be proved by
circumstantial evidence (iv) The 'act' referred to in the later part of S.34 means
the ultimate criminal act with which the accused is charged of sharing the common
intention (v) The essence of S.34 is simultaneous consensus of the mind of persons
participation in the criminal action to bring about a particular result (vi) Mere
distancing himself from the scene cannot absolve the accused. (Lallan Rai & Ors. Vs
State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 438 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Criminal Court
Cases 48 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Conviction for offence by applying
S.34 IPC in absence of charge cannot be said to be fatal by itself. (State of
Andhra Pradesh Vs K.Srinivasulu Reddy & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 646
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - Conviction for murder with aid of S.34 -

Appellant exhorted other accused to fire at the deceased and other accused fired
shot by his fire-arm - Though carrying weapon, appellant did not fire at anyone -
Two other accused acquitted - Benefit of doubt extended to appellant. (Nirmal Singh
& Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 24 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.34 - Exhortation can constitute common intention in certain circumstances -
Appellant exhorted his companion to fire at deceased - Shot fired at deceased which
killed him - Applicability of S.34 IPC - Deceased was tried for murder of uncle of
appellant - Accused who fired shot was tried for murder of son of deceased -
Parties well known to each other - Held, in the given facts and circumstances of
the case, there is no doubt about the applicability of S.34 IPC - It was pursuant
to the common intention of both that shot was fired resulting in death. (Damodar Vs
State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 960 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34
- Four accused - All the four did not come together - Held, for the applicability
of the provision it is not material how the accused converge on the place of
occurrence - What is material for the applicability of the provision is their
common intention. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Mansingh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court
Judgments 277 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 559 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.34 - Ingredients - Common intention in the sense of a pre arranged plan
between the two and person sought to be so held liable had participated in some
manner in the act constituting the offence - Unless common intention and
participation are both present section 34 cannot apply - Actual presence at the
scene of incident not necessary in all cases. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs State of
Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 -
Murder - Common intention - Appellant caught hold of waist of deceased, took him
towards nulla and threw him on ground and then co-accused inflicted iron rod blows
five times - Appellant did not try to prevent co-accused from assault or exhibited
any intention that co-accused should discontinue the attack - Held, offence would
be deemed to be committed by both accused in prosecution of common intention.
(Dayal & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 403 (Bombay)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - On exhortation of one appellant second appellant
fired gun shot - Conviction of third appellant, who accompanied other two, with aid
of S.34 IPC - Third appellant had carried no weapon and no overt act attributed to
him except that he accompanied other two - Conviction of third appellant set aside.
(Binod Prasad Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 640 (Patna)Indian
Penal Code, 1860, S.34 - With the aid of section 34 a person can be made liable for
an action of an offence not committed by him but by another person with whom he
shared the common intention as section 34 recognises the principle of vicarious
liability in criminal jurisprudence. (Ganga Paswan & Anr. Vs State of Bihar)
2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 593 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 147, 148,
149, 302, 307, 323, 341 - Prosecution of eight accused - Coming together of all not
established - Unlawful object to kill B who lay herself down on J not developed at
any point of time prior to actual occurrence - Incident not occurring in manner as
described by prosecution - Origin of occurrence withheld - Injuries caused not
consistent with shot fired from distance of 30 feet - Not sufficient evidence as to
participation of accused K, G, L, B and H1 - Eye witnesses creditworthy as regards
involvement of M, H2 and J - All of these accused sharing common intention to
commit murder of B and to cause injuries to K - Accused M and J held guilty u/ss
34, 302 and 307 - Accused H2 held guilty u/s 302 IPC - All other acquitted on
benefit of doubt. (Kamal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases
156 (Rajasthan) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 149 - Common intention & common
object - Distinction - Common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily
postulates the existence of a pre-arranged plan implying a prior meeting of the
minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of
minds or preconcert - Though there is substantial difference between the two
sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on
the facts of each case whether the charge under section 149 overlaps the ground
covered by section 34. (Chittarmal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Apex Court
Judgments 191 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 149 & 96 - Free fight - Ss.34 &
149 IPC are inapplicable - Each individual is responsible for his own acts - There

is no constructive or vicarious liability for the act of another. (Majid Khan &
Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 308 (M.P.) Indian Penal Code,
1860, Ss.34, 201, 302 - Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial evidence - No
conclusive evidence of accused and deceased being last seen together - Statement of
witnesses on point of extra judicial confession full of contradictions on material
aspects - Witness to whom extra judicial confession made having no intimacy with
accused as such there is no reason to make confession to such witnesses - Alleged
recovery of weapon of offence not proved to be made at instance of accused - None
of these circumstances proved against accused - Conviction
set aside. (Harbansh & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases
469 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 302/34 - Absence of charge u/s 34
IPC - Accused can be convicted for the offence under S.302 read with S.34 provided
facts and circumstances show that there existed common intention and the accused
committed the act with such intention. (Karnam Ram Narsaiah & Ors. Vs State of
Andhra Pradesh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 472 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.52 - Good faith - A thing shall be deemed to be done in “good faith” where it is
in fact done honestly whether it is done negligently or not. (Mangtu Ram Vs State
of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 623 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.57 - Life imprisonment - Is to be treated as imprisonment for life. (Chacko Vs
State of Kerala) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 239 (Kerala) Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.80 and 304-A - Accused picking gun, unlocked it and put the cartridges and
fired from close range - Neither section 80 nor Section 304-A attracted - Accused
convicted u/s 304 Part II. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar Vs State of Maharashtra )
2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.80 - Burden of
Proof - Presumption is against the accused who pleads exception u/s 80 - Burden of
proof lies on accused. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar Vs State of Maharashtra )
2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.80 - Scope and
Ambit - Requirement - Primordial requirement of section 80 is that the act which
killed other person must have been done with proper care and caution - Care and
circumspection taken by accused must be one taken by prudent and reasonable man -
Where act of the accused is itself criminal in nature protection u/s 80 is not
available. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar Vs State of Maharashtra ) 2004(2) Criminal
Court Cases 782 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - For applicability of the
provision elements necessary are: (i) the accused was of unsound mind at the time
of commission of the act; and (ii) by reason of unsoundness of mind, the accused
was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was
either wring or contrary to law. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3)
Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - Insanity -
Burden of proof - AIR 1984 SC 1563 followed wherein held: (1) Prosecution must
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence with the
requisite mens rea and the burden of proving that always rests upon the
prosecution (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane
when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down in Section 84 - Burden of proof
upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party in civil proceedings, that
is, to prove this defence by a preponderance of probabilities; (3) That even if the
accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he
committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by
the prosecution, may raise a reasonable doubt as regards one or more of the
ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the
Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden
resting on the prosecution has not been discharged. (Smt.Rukhsana (In Jail) Vs
State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 647 (Allahabad) Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.84 - Insanity - Burden of proof - Lies upon the accused. (Evidence Act,
1872, S.105). (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal
Court Cases 642 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - Insanity - Following
circumstance show that accused was of unsound mind and entitled to benefit of S.84
IPC viz. (1) The appellant has a family history - his father was suffering from
psychiatric illness; (2) Cause of ailment not known - hereditary plays a part; (3)
Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 - Diagnosed as

suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; (4) Within a short span, soon after the
incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of
ailment 25 times to hospital; (5) Appellant was under regular treatment for the
mental ailment; (6) The weak motive of killing of wife - being that she was
opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable; (7)
Killing in day light-no attempt to hide or run away. (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs
State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.84 - Insanity - If an act is committed out of extreme anger and not as a
result of unsoundness of mind, accused is not entitled to the benefit of exception
as contained in S.84 IPC. (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra)
2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - Insanity -
Paranoid schizophrenia - What is? - Analysed. (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs State
of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.84 - Insanity - State of mind of accused at the time of commission of the offence
is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception. (Shrikant Anandrao
Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.)Indian
Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - Insanity - To claim defence on the ground of insanity it
must be proved that at the time of committing the act accused was labouring under
such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and
quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was
doing what was wrong or contrary to law. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan)
2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - Lunatic
- Conviction for offence of murder - Appellant at the time of commission of offence
was of unsound mind - Subsequent to commission of crime also civil surgeon found
him to be lunatic - Conviction cannot be maintained - Appeal allowed and accused
acquitted. (Motiram Maroti Dhule Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court
Cases 492 (Bombay) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - Person not of sound mind - Four
type of such persons are: (i) an idiot; (ii) one made non compos by illness; (iii)
a lunatic or madman; and (iv) a drunkard i.e. one who is drunk. (Vidhya Devi Vs
State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.84 - Principles governing applicability of the provision are: (a) every
type of insanity is not legal insanity; the cognitive faculty must be so destroyed
as to render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is
doing is wrong or contrary to law; (b) the Court shall presume the absence of such
insanity; (c) the burden of proof of legal insanity is on the accused though it is
not as heavy as one the prosecution to prove an office; (d) the Court must consider
whether the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time when the offence was
committed; (e) in reaching such a conclusion, the circumstances which preceded,
attended or followed the crime are relevant considerations; and (f) the prosecution
in discharging its burden in the face of the plea of legal insanity has merely to
prove the basic fact and rely upon the normal presumption of law that everyone
knows the law and the natural consequences of his act. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of
Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.84 - Unsoundness of mind - A legal insanity which requires that cognitive
faculties of the accused are such that he does not know what he has done or what
will follow from his act. (Atrup Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court
Cases 646 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - Unsoundness of mind - At the
time of commission of offence - In order to ascertain whether accused was insane
at the time of commission of the offence, it is relevant to consider the state of
such person's mind immediately preceding as well as subsequent to the commission of
the offence - State of mind before and after the act is relevant though not
conclusive. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366
(Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 - 'Schizophrenia' - It is one of the types
of insanity. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366
(Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.84, 302 - Murder - Plea of insanity - After
arrest accused dashed his head against iron bars of prison and a case was
registered but the plea of insanity was rejected - Plea of insanity negatived on
the ground (1) Accused entered into place of incident concealing the axe under his
clothes and after inflicting injury on the head he fled away; (2) After his arrest

accused disclosed that he had hidden the axe under the soil near the hill and on
the basis of his disclosure statement the axe got recovered from the said place by
the I.O.; (3) Explanation of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was that he is falsely
implicated in the case because of group rivalry and the prosecution witnesses
deposed against him as his relations with them were inimical and all the questions
put to appellant were properly answered by him - Held, all these circumstances show
that the accused was not insane, his cognitive faculties were not lost and he was
not incapable of knowing the nature of his act. (Atrup Vs State of Rajasthan)
2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 646 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.84, 302,
304 Part II - Self incriminating FIR by accused of having killed his wife - Defence
of insanity not sufficient to rebut presumption of sanity - Relations between
accused and deceased were cordial as stated by neighbours - Non confessional part
of FIR admissible in evidence enlightening conduct of accused -
Pant and shirt of accused stained with human blood - Six incriminating
circumstances against accused conclusively pointing towards his guilt - Incident an
outcome of sudden spurt of temper - Single hammer blow on head not stated by doctor
to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Accused convicted
u/s 304 Part II. (Ajay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 54
(Raj.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.84, 302, Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 - Attempt to
murder - Unsoundness of mind - To claim exemption from criminal liability on this
ground, it must be shown that unsoundness of mind existed at material time of
commission of offence - Evidence of doctor that accused was treated for
schizophrenia and epileptic fits some years prior to incident and also subsequently
during trial is not sufficient to absolve accused from criminal liability where
direct evidence of eye witnesses shows that accused was not acting under
schizophrenia or epileptic automatism - Accused enraged by lodging of complaint
with police against him, waylaying complainant and inflicted grievous hurt with
lethal weapon - When it is not proved that insanity existed at time of commission
of act, conviction has to be upheld. (Venkatesh alias Tiger Venkatesh alias English
Venkatesh Vs State ) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 173 (Karnataka)Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.85 - Intoxication - Self inflicted - Benefit of S.85 IPC is not available -
To avail benefit of the provision it must be proved that the thing which
intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
(Imtiaz Ahamed alias Imtiaz Pasha Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 217
(Karnataka) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.88 & 89 - Corporal punishment by a teacher
to student - When a criminal offence - If a teacher out of fury and excitement,
inflicts injuries which is harmful to the health of a tender aged student, it
cannot be accepted as a right conferred on such a teacher to inflict such
punishment, because of the express or implied authority granted by parents of that
student - However, when a teacher gave beatings on the gluteal region, only to make
a student adhere the standards of school, the same is done with bona fide intention
and teacher does not commit any criminal offence. (Abdul Vaheed Vs State of
Kerala) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 775 (Kerala)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.91 -
Self defence - Court can consider such a plea on basis of material available even
if accused fails to plead it - Burden is upon accused to establish such plea.
(Mitra Prasad Rai Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 601 (Sikkim)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96, 304 - Right of private defence - Deceased taking
possession of sheep belonging to accused - In a sudden quarrel accused gave
injuries - Deceased fell down - Deceased again gave a blow on neck - Held, accused
exceeded right of private defence - Accused convicted under S.304 Part I and
sentenced 10 years. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police,
T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96,
Evidence Act, 1872, S.105 - Private defence - Not required to be proved by calling
evidence - It can be established by reference to circumstances transpiring from the
prosecution evidence itself. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of
Police, T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.96, Evidence Act, 1872, S.105 - Private defence - Burden of proof - Is on the
accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities
in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. (Sekar @ Raja

Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases
676 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96, Evidence Act, 1872, S.105 - Private
defence - The defence pleaded must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying
the Court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off
the attack or for forestalling any further reasonable apprehension, from the
attacker. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu)
2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96 - Murder -
Right of private defence - Nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of right
of private defence - 'Right of private defence' is not defined - Provision merely
indicates that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of such right -
Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person legitimately acted in the
exercise of the right of private defence is a question of fact to be determined on
the facts and circumstances of each case - No test in the abstract for determining
such a question can be laid down. (Babulal Bhagwan Khandare Vs State of
Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 503 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96 -
Private defence - In a given case, Court can consider it even if the accused has
not taken it, if the same is available to be considered from the material on
record. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu)
2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96 - Private
defence - Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining the
aggressor - Prosecution not to explain injuries sustained by accused if injuries
are minor. (Laxman Singh Vs Poonam Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.) :
2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96 - Private
defence - Right of private defence is purely preventive and not punitive or
retributive - It is not a right to take revenge nor is a right of reprisal.
(Mohammed Nazim Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 340
(Rajasthan)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96, 97 & 100, Evidence Act, 1872, S.105 -
Private defence - If circumstances show that the right of private defence was
legitimately exercised, it is open to Court to consider plea of self defence -
Court can consider it even if accused does not assert such a defence - Accused can
prove right of self defence by reference to circumstances transpiring from the
prosecution evidence itself - Burden of establishing plea of self defence is on the
accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities
in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record. (Laxman Singh Vs Poonam
Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 558
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96, 97 and 100 - Private defence - Principles :
(1) Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the
aggressor was; (2) Right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger
to body arises from an attempt, on threat, to commit the offence although the
offence may not have been committed but not until there is that reasonable
apprehension - The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger
to the body continues; (3) Person apprehending death or injury cannot weigh in
golden scales in the spur of moment in the heat of circumstances, the number of
injuries required to disarm the assailants. (V.Subramani & Anr. Vs State of Tamil
Nadu) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 407 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96 to 100,
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 304 Part I - Private defence - Bandh activists
wanted accused to close mill - Altercation took place - Bandh activists by using
explosives put mill and property on fire - Accused resorted to fire with gun
causing death of two activists and injuring others - Held, accused acted in private
defence - Conviction set aside. (James Martin Vs State of Kerala) 2004(2) Criminal
Court Cases 183 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96 to 100 - Right of private
defence - Burden of proof is on accused who sets up the plea of self defence - To
prove right of private defence it is not necessary to call evidence - Right of
private defence can be proved by reference to circumstances transpiring from the
prosecution evidence - Defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying
the Court that the harm caused by accused was necessary for either warding off the
attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of he
accused - Burden is discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour
of that plea on the basis of material on record. (James Martin Vs State of Kerala)

2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 183 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96, 304 Part II,
323, 447 - Private defence - Land dispute - Accused asserting that field belongs to
them and they will not allow complainant party to plough field - After several
verbal aggression accused started assault on complainant party - Attacks not
premeditated - Plea of right of self defence accepted - Acquittal upheld. (Laxman
Singh Vs Poonam Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court
Judgments 558 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.97 - Private defence - It has to be
established that the accused persons were under such grave apprehension about the
safety of their life and property that retaliation to the extent done was
absolutely necessary. (Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3)
Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97, 100 - Private defence
- Right of causing death - Right of private defence extends to causing death if
there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be the
consequence of the assault. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal
Court Cases 462 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97, 99 - Private defence of
property - Deceased set a hut on fire - Accused reached there and gave a lathi blow
on head of deceased resulting in his death - Held, accused is not entitled to right
of private defence of property
as gave the blow at the stage when act of fire had already taken place. (Jugan Vs
State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 613 (M.P.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Ss.97 and 99 - Private defence of property - Plea of - Can be raised for the first
time in appeal - If accused does not plead self-defence, it is open for the High
Court to consider such a plea if same arises from the material on record - Accused
can get benefit of right of private defence of property on the basis of evidence
led by prosecution. (Jugan Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 613
(M.P.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 102 - Private defence - Not necessary to
plead that action was done in self defence - If the circumstances show that the
right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to Court to
consider such a plea - Court can consider it if available from the material on
record even in absence of such a plea by accused - To prove plea of self defence
burden is on accused - Accused can establish his plea of right of private defence
by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself -
Where right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and
probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused by the accused was
necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further
reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused - Burden of establishing the
plea of self defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing
preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material
on record. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 102 - Private defence - Number of injuries
is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was - Right
commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an
attempt, or threat, or commit the offence, although the offence may not have been
committed but not until there is that reasonable apprehension - The right lasts so
long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to he body continues. (State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code,
1860, Ss.97 to 102 - Private defence - Right of - Right to defend does not include
a right to launch an offensive, particularly when the need to defend no longer
survived. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 102 - Private defence - Right whether
available or not - Injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat of his
safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the
accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to
be considered. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 105 - Private defence - Availability of
right - Relevant considerations are injuries received by accused, the imminence of
threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances
whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities. (Shriram Vs
State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 619 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code,

1860, S.100, 304 Part I - Decreased threw bricks upon accused whereas he went
inside house and brought his gun and fired shots in self defence - Held, there was
no occasion for accused to use gun - Accused exceeded his right of private defence
- Accused is liable for conviction u/s 304 Part I IPC. (Shingara Singh Vs State of
Haryana & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.100 and 302 - Right of self defence - Mere statement of accused u/s 313 - Not
sufficient to raise plea of self defence - Conviction upheld. (Anil Kumar Vs State
of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.100 -
Private defence - Force used while exercising right of private defence to avert the
threat shall not exceed - However, it cannot be said how much force is required for
averting a particular assault - Facts of the case as spoken to by the witnesses
have to be evaluated to consider whether one had exceeded right of private defence.
(Kuriachan Joseph alias Kuriachan Vs State of Kerala) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases
250 (Kerala)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.100 - Private defence - Right of - Both
parties came armed and indulged in free fighting - It resulted in injuries on both
sides - As both parties had come prepared to fight, it is not necessary to go into
the question as to whether any of them was entitled to right of private defence -
Culpability of accused to be determined by reference to their individual acts.
(Kewal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 160 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.100, 88, 302/149, 148 - Murder - Self defence - Assault
exceedingly vindictive and maliciously excessive - - Accused not entitled to right
of private defence. (Bathusingh & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court
Cases 549 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.100, 88, 302/149, 148 - Murder - Self
defence - Right of private defence is essentially one of defence or self protection
and not a right of reprisal or punishment - It is subject to the restrictions
indicated in S.88 which are so important as the right itself. (Bathusingh & Ors. Vs
State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 549 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Ss.101 to 105 - Self defence - Right of - Plea of right comprises the body or
property (i) of the person exercising the right; or (ii) of any other person; and
the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, and in the
case of offence of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at
such offences in relation to property - S.99 lays down the limits of the right of
private defence - Ss.96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain
offences and acts - Right given u/ss 96 and 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by S.99
- To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the
accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds
for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him - Burden
is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to
causing of death - Ss.100 and 101 IPC define the limit and extent of right of
private defence. (Babulal Bhagwan Khandare Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1)
Criminal Court Cases 503 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.102, 105 - Private
defence - Commencement and continuance - Right commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat, or commit the
offence, though offence may not have been committed but not until that there is
reasonable apprehension - Right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the
danger to the body continues. (Laxman Singh Vs Poonam Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court
Cases 667 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Ss.102 & 105 - Private defence - Of body and property - The right commences, as
soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or
threat, or commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed but
not until that there is that reasonable apprehension - The right lasts so long as
the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. (Shriram Vs State
of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 619 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.103 - Private defence of property - Extending to causing of death - Not available
in case of trespass in respect of open land. (Jassa Singh Vs State of Haryana) AIR
2002 S.C. 520Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.104, 325/34 - Crop sown by accused in
disputed field and accused asked PW2 not to remove the crop - Incident took place
in the field and fracture injury caused on both hands of PW2 - Accused had right of
private defence of property in causing grievous hurt to PW2 - Conviction set aside.

(Devi Singh & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 455 (M.P.)Indian
Penal Code, 1860, S.105 - Private defence of property - Commences when a reasonable
apprehension of danger to property commences - In the instant case the right
commenced when the complainant party entered the property and the right continued
as long as the complainant party remained on the property and the trespass
continued. (Sita Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 517
(P&H)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.107 - Abetment - A person abets the doing of a
thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages
with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy,
and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State
of Madhya Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 647 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.107 - Abetment - Ingredients - Includes instigating any person to do a
thing or engaging with one or more person in any conspiracy for the doing of a
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy
and in order to the doing of that thing, or intentional aid by any act or illegal
omission to the doing of that thing. (Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana ) 2004(2)
Criminal Court Cases 351 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.107 - Abetment - May be
by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid - A1 instigated other accused who way
laid two deceased and caused them injuries by stone picked up from way side - Other
accused
convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC and A1 convicted u/s 304 Part I r/w 109 IPC. (Goura
Venkata Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 112 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.105, 304 Part II - Trespass on land of accused -
Accused stabbed the deceased with spear in chest - Held, accused exceeded right of
private defence - Accused could have stopped the deceased from trespassing by
inflicting lesser injury on legs - Only house trespass may give right to cause
death - Accused is guilty of offence u/s 304 Part II. (Sita Ram & Ors. Vs State of
Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 517 (P&H)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.109 -
Abetment - Ist petitioner charged with offences u/ss 493 & 376 IPC - No offence
committed by him under the said sections - Petitioners 2 to 4 (brother and parents
of lst petitioner) cannot therefore be said to have abetted those offences. (Suram
Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (A.P.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.109, 120-B and 302 - Murder - Abetment and conspiracy -
Distinction as to - Offence of conspiracy is a bare agreement to commit an offence
- It is made punishable u/s 120-B IPC - Offence of abetment created under the
second clause of S.107 requires that there must be something more than mere
conspiracy - There must be some act or illegal omission in pursuance of that
conspiracy. (Ranganayaki Vs State by Inspector of Police) 2005(1) Criminal Court
Cases 564 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.113-B, 302 - Acquittal of accused u/s
302 IPC - Presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act does not stand automatically
rebutted. (Alamgir Sani Vs State of Assam) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 65 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.115, 120-B - Conspiracy - P.W. overheard the accused
persons of a conspiracy to murder a person and his sons due to previous enmity -
Matter reported to police two months later - No explanation for delay - Prosecution
supported by most convenient witness used by police on different

different occasions -
Conviction set aside - Cash amount recovered from them restored. (Amrik Singh &
Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 616 (P&H) Indian Penal
Code, 1860, S.120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Charges under - Manager of Bank
forging Drafts - Other accused receiving amount thereunder - Material on record
constituting ground to presume that accused committed offence - Trial on such
charge cannot mean harassment - No case for quashing charges. (Rajendra Kumar Jain
Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 514 (Rajasthan) Indian Penal
Code, 1860, S.120-B, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S.5(2) r/w S.5(1)(d) -
Investigation by CBI - Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has power of
superintendence and view progress of investigation conducted by CBI - CBI however
is not required to obtain approval of CVC for filing charge-sheet in Court. (Union
of India Vs Prakash P.Hinduja & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 205 (S.C.)Indian

Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B - Conspiracy - For the offence of conspiracy some kind of
physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established - Express
agreement need not to be proved - Evidence as to the transmission of thoughts
sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient - A conspiracy is a continuing offence
which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice
of necessity - During its subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an
act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under S.120-B of the Act. (Damodar
Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court
Judgments 361 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B - Criminal conspiracy - Charge
- General evidence or some connecting link or factors in the evidence collected
with the police are sufficient to frame charge. (Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs State of
Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 514 (Rajasthan) Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.120-B - Criminal conspiracy - Direct evidence is rarely available and the same
can be inferred from the proved circumstances - Before such an inference is drawn,
the facts established must rule out any likelihood of innocence of the accused - If
there are circumstances compatible with the innocence of the accused person, the
prosecution will fail - A clear link has to be established and the chain has to be
completed from the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution otherwise it is too
risky to accept a part of the link as a complete one and to base conviction on the
basis of such incomplete evidence. (Shambhoo Sharan Pandey & Anr. Vs State of U.P.)
2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 48 (All.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B - Criminal
conspiracy - Elements of criminal conspiracy are (a) an object to be accomplished,
(b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish the object, (c) an agreement or
understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become
definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means
embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction
where the statute required an overt act. (K.Hashim Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1)
Criminal Court Cases 635 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B - Criminal
conspiracy - Prosecution has to prove - (1) that the accused agreed to do or cause
to be done an act; (2) that such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal
means; and (3) that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of
the agreement. (Shambhoo Sharan Pandey & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal
Court Cases 48 (All.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B - Criminal conspiracy -
Prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do
or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary
implication - Offence of criminal conspiracy consists not merely in the intention
of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by
unlawful means - So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not
indictable - When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in
itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra
capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for
use of criminal means. (K.Hashim Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court
Cases 635 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B - Criminal conspiracy - To prove
criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that
there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence - Where the
factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from the circumstances, the
prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusion or
irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an
offence - A few bits here and few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot
be held adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of
criminal conspiracy. (Mohd. Hanif & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal
Court Cases 235 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.120-A, 120-B, Evidence Act,
1872, S.10 - Criminal conspiracy - Can be proved by direct evidence or
circumstantial evidence or both - Inference can be drawn from circumstances - Fact
that accused had met other accused several times immediately prior to commission of
murder is relevant fact to draw inference that they conspired together to commit
murder which they committed - Conspiracy to commit offence is itself offence and
person can be separately charged with respect to such conspiracy. (Basappa alias
Basavaraj Vs State Through Gandhi Chowk Police, Bijapur) 2004(1) Criminal Court

Cases 798 (Karnataka)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.120-B, 201, 302, 364, 379 -
Conviction - Appeal against - Circumstantial evidence - PW 23 not able to identify
accused either at identification parade or in Court - Facts disclosed by PW 5 not
finding place in his report or in his statement to police - Deceased last seen in
company of accused not established - PW1 and PW 25 declared hostile - PW 10 denying
that accused brought jeep for repairs at his shop - Fact that accused pointed out
place of murder not established - Disclosure statement, if any, not leading to any
recovery - Recovery of stephny not proved and thus recovery doubtful - Links in
chain of circumstances missing - No case made out for conviction in absence of
corpus delicti - No evidence to connect accused with crime - Conviction set aside.
(Surajbhan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 628 (Rajasthan)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.120-A, 302 - Murder - Conspiracy - Main accused who
hatched the conspiracy and who had motive to kill the deceased discharged - That
matter attained finality - No purpose would be served in proceeding with the case
against remaining accused. (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Akhilesh Singh)
2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 413 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.141, 149 and 302
- Common Object - Unlawful Assembly - Common Intention - U/s 149 prior concert and
a common meeting of minds before attack not required - Whether there were five or
more person and whether they had common objects as specified under section 141 are
the key ingredients to convict accused with the help of section 149 - Common object
may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly even during the
course of incident at spot - It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any
stage - It may be formed by all or few members at any stage and others members may
join it subsequently. (Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ) 2004(1)
Apex Court Judgments 564 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 533 (S.C.)Indian
Penal Code, 1860, Ss.143, 384 & 120-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482
- Collection of goonda tax from shopkeepers - However, no evidence of any victim -
Total evidence was that of police officials - Held, when there is absolutely no
evidence of any victim about the offence committed by the petitioner, the charge
sheet does not stand as such the same quashed. (Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. &
Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 298 (Allahabad)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.144,
148, 302, 326 and 324/149 - Acquittal - Appeal against - Free fight between two
groups - All the injured prosecution witnesses except PW 1 turned hostile and did
not support prosecution case - Injuries on person of accused including one accused
having suffered grievous injury remained unexplained - No material to show what
happened to counter case - Some material to show that it was prosecution party who
came to shop of accused No.5 and was armed with deadly weapons - Acquittal order
calls for no interference. (State Vs Unni) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 88 (Kant.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 148, 149, 302, 506 - Appeal against conviction -
Weapon of offence not recovered - Discrepancy between version of FIR and statement
of witnesses - In FIR no specific role assigned to any of the accused - No inimical
relations between deceased and accused which may lead them to commit murder -
Complete chain of evidence missing - Conviction set aside. (Lallu @ Naresh & Anr.
Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 255 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal
Code, 1860, Ss.147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 - Conviction by trial Court - High
Court maintained conviction of one accused and that too u/s 326 IPC - Accused armed
with deadly weapons sword, axe and lathis with an object to kill PW-1 chased
deceased who tried to escape from house of PW-1 and assaulted him and committed his
murder - PW-1 was then assaulted and his left arm severed and treating him dead ran
away - Prosecution version amply established by evidence of eye witnesses - Nature
of injuries, weapons used and manner of assault, all accused are liable in terms of
S.149 IPC - Gruesome nature of attack demonstrated by injuries noticed on body of
deceased - Conviction u/s 302/149 IPC recorded by trial Court should not have been
disturbed and was liable to be restored - Offence u/s 307/149 is also liable to be
restored. (State of Maharashtra Vs Kashirao & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments
414 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 148, 307, 364, 302/149 - Deceased
alongwith son travelling in bus - Twelve accused came in car, got bus stopped and
deceased forcibly taken in car - PW 1 son was inflicted injuries when he tried to
resist - Motive was that accused had contested election against accused party -

Next day body of deceased found with injuries and one hand severed - Conviction of
A1 and A2 u/s 364 and 302 and A1 to A7 u/s 148 and A8 to A14 u/s 147 IPC - Appeal
against - Contention that no evidence that A1 and A2 committed murder - A3 to A14
were acquitted in respect of abduction for reasons that there was no consistency in
evidence of PW1 as against them but there was consistency in his evidence as
against A1 and A2 - Once it is established that there was abduction of deceased by
accused if deceased was found murdered within short time after abduction,
irresistible presumption is that accused had murdered deceased - No interference
with order of conviction. (Kumar @ Kumarasamy & Ors. Vs State) 2004(4) Criminal
Court Cases 714 (Madras)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 148, 323, 325 and 447 -
Possession delivered in execution of Civil Court decree - Prosecution case of
committing trespass over such land stands falsified - Even if injuries are caused
then the same are in exercise of right of private defence qua their land -
Acquittal calls for no interference. (State of H.P. Vs Amar Singh) 2003(2) Criminal
Court Cases 159 (H.P.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 149, 302 - Deceased first
dragged and then thrown into well - Nothing to affect credibility of PWs 4, 8 and
10 - Delay of few hours in recording statements of witnesses no serious infirmity
in prosecution case - Evidence of these witnesses wholly reliable - Accused not
explaining incriminating circumstances but totally denying from them - Eye
witnesses having no animosity against accused - Ocular evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6
corroborating PWs 8 and 12 as also other circumstances - Conviction upheld.
(Bhanwari & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 114 (Raj.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 323, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 -
Essential ingredients of offence u/s 147 completely missing - Prosecution case not
inspiring any confidence in view of the fact that the complainant has neither
sustained any injury nor specific overtact has been assigned to the petitioners -
Proceedings quashed. (Ganpatlal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal
Court Cases 647 (Rajasthan) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 302/149 - Murder -
Eleven accused - Acquittal by trial Court - Conviction of six by High Court -
Murder while deceased was grazing cattle in field - PW1 nephew and PW2 brother of
deceased eye witnesses - Trail Court found presence of eye witnesses doubtful and
noticing contradictions between ocular evidence and medical evidence acquitted all
accused of offence - Conduct of PW1 hiding himself behind a tree and not joining
PW2 and PW6 who were there in nearby field was unusual which creates doubt of his
presence on spot - Material contradictions between evidence of these witnesses and
medical evidence - Doubt in regard to place of incident as victim had sustained
amputation of hand at wrist but no blood found on spot where body was found lying -
Trial Court's view that prosecution has not established guilt of accused beyond
doubt was correct - Conviction of appellant set aside. (Ramsewak & Ors. Vs State of
M.P.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 354 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147,
302/149 - Murder - Eleven accused - Acquittal by trial Court - Conviction of six by
High Court - Murder while deceased was grazing cattle in field - PW1 nephew and PW2
brother of deceased eye witnesses - Trail Court found presence of eye witnesses
doubtful and noticing contradictions between ocular evidence and medical evidence
acquitted all accused of offence - Conduct of PW1 hiding himself behind a tree and
not joining PW2 and PW6 who were there in nearby field was unusual which creates
doubt of his presence on spot - Material contradictions between evidence of these
witnesses and medical evidence - Doubt in regard to place of incident as victim had
sustained amputation of hand at wrist but no blood found on spot where body was
found lying - Trial Court's view that prosecution has not established guilt of
accused beyond doubt was correct - Conviction of appellant set aside. (Ramsewak &
Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 100 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code,
1860, Ss.148, 149, 302, 304 Part II, 323, 325, 449 - Mutual fight ensued between
the parties - There was no common object - Ss.148 and 149 not attracted -
Prosecution failed to establish charge u/ss 325, 323 and 449 IPC beyond reasonable
doubt - Material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses - Conviction
of 'K' altered from S.302 to that u/s 304 Part II - All others acquitted. (Kajod
Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 16 (Rajasthan)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 149, 302, 304 Part II, 323 & 325 - Conviction of

nine accused - Well in dispute and electricity motor lying therein belonged to
accused - Complainant party was the aggressor - Accused also sustaining injuries
and prosecution not explaining injuries on the person of accused - Genesis of
incident rendered doubtful - Accused 'H' and 'K' held liable to be convicted u/s
304 Part II IPC and all other accused acquitted. (Jaleb Khan & Ors. Vs The State of
Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 33 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Ss.148, 149, 304 Part II, 325 - Appeal against conviction - Injuries by blunt
object - Most of injuries simple - No grievous injury on vital part - Grievous
injury only on legs or forearms - Death after 7 days - Conviction u/s 304 Part II
not justified - PWs.2, 3 and 14 turning hostile - PWs 6 and 7 not present on spot
but made as eye-witnesses but they did not intervene - FIR lodged after two days -
Allegation in FIR that accused “U” had assaulted deceased with kulhari but no
injury caused by sharp weapon found on body of deceased - PW 8 also not truthful
witness - Dying declaration not genuine but manipulated by PW 12 - Investigation
not impartial and amounted to misconduct on part of I.O. - Conviction set aside.
(Dalu & Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 655
(Rajasthan) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 149, 448/149, 364/149 and 302/149 -
Appellant A1 with A2 and five others armed with knife and sticks entered the house
of deceased, beat him and took him away in auto rickshaw and later dead body of
deceased was found lying behind house of A1 - Trial Court found A1 and A2 having
assaulted deceased and A1 was convicted u/s 302 IPC and A2 for other offences and
A3 to A3 not identified by witnesses were acquitted - High Court upheld conviction
- Sister of A1 and wife of deceased committed suicide 2/3 days before incident -
PW2 mother of deceased, eye witnesses gave consistent evidence of incident -
Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related -
Blood stained weapon of offence i.e. knife and wooden reaper recovered pursuant to
confession of accused - Sequence shows that there was no delay in lodging FIR -
Conviction not liable to be interfered. (Ravi Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police)
2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 679 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 149,
448/149, 364/149 and 302/149 - Appellant A1 with A2 and five others armed
with knife and sticks entered the house of deceased, beat him and took him away in
auto rickshaw and later dead body of deceased was found lying behind house of A1 -
Trial Court found A1 and A2 having assaulted deceased and A1 was convicted u/s 302
IPC and A2 for other offences and A3 to A3 not identified by witnesses were
acquitted - High Court upheld conviction - Sister of A1 and wife of deceased
committed suicide 2/3 days before incident - PW2 mother of deceased, eye witnesses
gave consistent evidence of incident - Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected
merely because they are related - Blood stained weapon of offence i.e. knife and
wooden reaper recovered pursuant to confession of accused - Sequence shows that
there was no delay in lodging FIR - Conviction not liable to be interfered. (Ravi
Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 16 (S.C.)Indian
Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 302 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149, 323 r/w 452 r/w 149, 436 r/w
149 - Conviction of nine persons - Affirmed by High Court without reappraisal of
evidence - Appeal to Supreme Court - Complainant party and accused party related
but inimical - FIR lodged late though police station was nearby - Version of PW 2
found to be an improvement on the basis of medical evidence - Prosecution story
found suppressed and unreliable - Injuries on person of accused serious in nature
not explained - Prosecution has failed to establish its case - Appeal allowed.
(Raghunath Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 290 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 304 Part I r/w S.149 - Deceased assaulted severely
by five accused - PW3 who was accompanying him saw the occurrence - On hearing
about assaults, informant, elder brother of deceased and PW2, wife of deceased went
to he spot - FIR lodged immediately in which names of five accused indicated - High
Court held that witnesses on whose evidence prosecution relied on were not truthful
witnesses - Perusal of High Court's judgment revealed that it was based more on
surmises and conjectures - Some of the conclusions were contrary to record - No
delay in lodging FIR - Judgment of acquittal recorded by High Court is not
sustainable. (Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2004(1)
Criminal Court Cases 743 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 342, 396, 397, 398,

458 - Conviction - Identification parade conducted after 29 days but same not fatal
- Recovery and identification of ornaments proved - Accused Om Parkash came with
pistol without concealing his identity - No explanation how accused came in
possession of ornaments - Conviction sustained. (Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs State of
Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Rajasthan)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.149 - Applicability of the provision requires deep scrutiny and detailed and
specific proof for holding that the accused persons were members of an unlawful
assembly with a common object with particular reference to the part played by each
of the accused persons who constituted the unlawful assembly. (Kailash Kumar @
Kalji & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 310 (Rajasthan)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Common object of an unlawful assembly can be
gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of
the assembly at or before scene of occurrence. (State of Rajasthan Vs Nathu & Ors.)
2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 35 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Common
object of unlawful assembly - Can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms
used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence.
(State of U.P. Vs Kishan Chand & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 337 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Common object - Does not require prior concert and
a common meeting of minds before the attack - An unlawful object can develop after
the accused assembled - The existence of the common object of the unlawful assembly
has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case. (Oorkaval
Perumal & Ors. Vs State rep. By Inspector of Police) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases
180 (Madras)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Common object - Has to be
distinguished from the common intention - There is no question of common intention
in S.149 of the Code - When no injury is inflicted pursuant to the common object to
kill the deceased, but caused only when provoked by one of the witnesses, the
members of the unlawful assembly cannot be held guilty for the commission of the
offence of murder. (Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1) Criminal Court
Cases 582 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Common object - Is different from
common intention - In the former no prior consent is required, nor a prior meeting
of minds before the attack would be required whereas an unlawful object can develop
after the people get there and there need not be a prior meeting of minds. (Shri
Gopal & Anr. Vs Subhash & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (S.C.)Indian Penal
Code, 1860, S.149 - Common object - Is different from 'common intention' as it does
not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack - It is
enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and
that they act as an assembly to achieve that object - 'Common object' of an
assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language and utterances of the
members composing it, the nature of arms carried, and from a consideration of all
the surrounding circumstances - It may be gathered also from the course of conduct
adopted by and behaviour of the members of the assembly at or before the actual
conflict - What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage
of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view
the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of
the members at or near the scene of the incident - It is not necessary under law
that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same
must be translated into action or be successful - An assembly which was not
unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful - It is not
necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an
assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset - Time of forming an
unlawful intent is not material - An assembly which, at its commencement or even
for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful - In other
words it can develop during the course of incident at the spot co-instante. (Madan
Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.149 - Common object - May be formed by express agreement after mutual
consultation, but that is by no means always necessary - It may be formed at any
stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join
and adopt it - Once formed, it need not continue to be the same - It may be
modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. (Madan Singh Vs State of Bihar)

2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Common
object - Mere presence in unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless
there was a common object and he is actuated by that - Object has to be common to
persons who compose the assembly - Distinction between common object and common
intention - Common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and
language of the members composing it and from consideration of all the surrounding
circumstances - It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the
members of the assembly - Determination of object of the unlawful assembly at a
particular stage is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in
view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour
of the members at or near the scene of the incident - Section 149 consists of two
parts - Where offence was committed to accomplish the common object and that
offence was such as members knew was likely to be committed - No overt role was
ascribed to a specific accused would not mean non-application of S.149 IPC.
(Bhargavan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 63 (S.C.)Indian
Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Common Object - Object means the purpose and design and
in order to make it common it must be shared by all. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs State
of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 -
Common object - Whenever any offence is found committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or when the
members of that assembly knew that the offence was likely to be committed in
prosecution of that abject then every person, who at the time of committing of that
offence is a member of that group, will also be vicariously held liable and guilty
of that offence. (Oorkaval Perumal & Ors. Vs State rep. By Inspector of Police)
2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 180 (Madras)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Identity
of four out of presence of five persons established - S.149 is applicable - It is
not required that all five persons must be identified - Requirement to establish is
presence of five persons with a common intention of doing an act. (Ram Dular Rai &
Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 80 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.149 - In case of a sudden mutual fight between the two parties, there can
be no question of invoking the aid of Section 149 for the purpose of imposing
constructive criminal liability on an accused - Accused in such a case can be
convicted only for the injuries caused by him by his individual acts. (Budha @
Siris Kumar Bose & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 506
(Orissa)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Large number of persons present - In such a case,
it is safe to convict only those persons against whom overt act is alleged with aid
of S.149 IPC - This is a rule of caution and not rule of law. (Nagarjit Ahir etc.
Vs State of Bihar) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 115 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.149 - To attract the provision it is not necessary that an overact must be
committed by all the accused persons - What is necessary is formation of an
unlawful assembly and knowledge of the persons thereof about consequences arising
from doing an act which amounts to offence. (Shri Gopal & Anr. Vs Subhash & Ors.)
2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful
Assembly - Common object - Determination of common object - Object is entertained
in human mind and it being a mental attitude no direct evidence can be available
and like intention has to be gathered from act which person commits and result
thereof - It can reasonably be collected from nature of assembly, arms it carries
and behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs
State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.149 - Unlawful Assembly - Common object - Common intention - Are different from
each other - Distinction - Common object does not require a prior concert and a
common meeting of minds before the attack - If five or more person with same object
in view act as an assembly to achieve that object would attract section 149. (Dani
Singh & Ors. Vs State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian
Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful Assembly - Common object - Formation - Can be
formed at any stage by all or a few members of assembly and other members may just
join or adopt - Once formed it need not continue to be the same - Effect of section
149 may be different on different members of the same assembly - It can develop

during the course of incident at the spot eo instanti. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs
State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.149 - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - If common object is not proved person
cannot be convicted with the aid of section 149. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs State of
Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 -
Unlawful assembly - Common object - It cannot be laid down as a general proposition
of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a
member of unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of such an
assembly - The only thing required is that he should have understood that the
assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within
the purview of S.141 - The word 'object' means the purpose or design and, in order
to make it 'common', it must be shred by all. (Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan)
2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful
assembly - Common object - Mere presence of accused in unlawful assembly cannot
render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by
common object - Member of assembly should be aware of object and concur in it - For
determining common object, conduct of each member of assembly before and at the
time of attack and thereafter, motive for crime, weapons used are some of the
relevant considerations - Offence would also fall within purview of provision if
offence was such as members knew was likely to be committed. (State of Maharashtra
Vs Kashirao & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 414 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.149 - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Mere presence in an unlawful assembly
does not render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was
actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in section
141 - It is not necessary that common object may be formed by express agreement -
It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and other
members may just join and adopt it - Once formed, it need not continue to be the
same - It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. (Sunil Kumar Vs
State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.149 - Unlawful Assembly - Common object - Offence must be connected immediately
with common object. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court
Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful Assembly - Common object
- Presence - Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable
unless there is common object and that object is one of those set out in section
141. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Though
no hard and fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the
common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of
the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at or before or after the scene of
incident. (Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 649
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly - Common object was only
to cause injuries and in course of incident one of accused inflicted knife blow
which caused death of one of the victims - Only such accused for his individual act
can be convicted for murder and rest of accused cannot be made liable with help of
S.149 IPC. (Babukhan & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 228
(M.P.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly - Definite roles not
ascribed to the accused - It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of
the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act - Mere presence in the
unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability u/s 149 IPC. (Chanakya
Dhibar (Dead) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 743
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly - Evidence established
that accused formed an unlawful assembly common object of which was to kill
deceased - Acquittal of accused who actually fired shot at deceased, would not wipe
out application of S.149 IPC. (Chanda & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2005(1)
Criminal Court Cases 328 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful Assembly -
How to ascertain formation of unlawful assembly - Question of fact - Depends on
facts and circumstances of each case - Acts and language of members - Course of
conduct of assembly - Nature of assembly - Arms carried by members - Behaviour of
members at or near scene of the incident to be seen. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs State

of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 -
Unlawful assembly - If it had common object it is not necessary that all persons
forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act for
the purposes of incurring the vicarious liability for the offence committed by a
member of such unlawful assembly. (Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1)
Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly
- It is not really necessary to determine as to which of the accused persons
forming part of the unlawful assembly inflicted what particular or specific injury
in the course of the occurrence - Actual conviction of less than five, or that,
case projected certain one or more persons as having inflicted injury but the same
could not be proved to have been committed by him or that such persons were
acquitted for some reason or other does not in any manner prejudice the case of the
prosecution or the liability of others who formed the unlawful assembly to be
convicted for having carried out the object by merely being the members of the
unlawful assembly, as long as the participation of others in furtherance of the
common object of the unlawful assembly remained sufficient substantiated. (Chanda
& Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 328 (S.C.)Indian Penal
Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly - Liability of other members - Rests upon the
fact whether other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was
likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object - Such knowledge may
reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms or behaviour at or
before the scene of action - If such knowledge may not reasonably be attributed to
other members of the assembly, then their liability for the offence committed
during the occurrence by a person who was not initially a member does not arise.
(Budha @ Siris Kumar Bose & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases
506 (Orissa) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly - Liability of
other members - Rests upon the fact whether other members knew before hand that the
offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common
object. (Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 582
(S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly - Members of an unlawful
assembly are vicariously liable where it is proved that the offence is committed in
pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly which the members of the
unlawful assembly knew that such offence was likely to be committed in prosecution
of the object of the unlawful assembly. (Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar)
2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful
assembly - Mere presence of an accused in unlawful assembly cannot render him
liable unless there was common object and he was actuated by that common object -
Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, accused persons cannot
be convicted with the
help of S.149 IPC. (Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2004(1)
Criminal Court Cases 743 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly -
Murder by more than five persons - Definite roles not attributed to accused -
Section 149 applies - Not necessary to prove which of the members of the unlawful
assembly did which or what act. (Ram Dular Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4)
Criminal Court Cases 80 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Unlawful assembly -
Of less than five members - There can be unlawful assembly of less than five
members if there is material to come to the conclusion that apart from those named
accused there were also others who were unnamed but who were members of such
assembly and shared the common object of that unlawful assembly. (Hamlet @ Sasi &
Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 333 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code,
1860, S.149 - Unlawful Assembly - Overt act - Not necessary to prove a overt act
against the accused - Accused being a member of unlawful assembly attracts
conviction for acts of such unlawful assembly. (Dani Singh & Ors. Vs State of
Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 -
Unlawfully assembly - Once a person is found to be member of unlawful assembly and
participates in commission of an offence in prosecution of common object of that
unlawful assembly, he cannot escape liability by plea that he did not cause serious
injury. (Rajendran & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 186
(S.C.)Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 - Vicarious liability of the members of

unlawful assembly arises where the offence is committed by another member or
members of unlawful assembly if the commission of such offence is the common object
of that assembly or if the members of the unlawful assembly knew that the offence
of the nature committed was likely to be committed though the common object may be
something different. (Shiva Shankar Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar)

Print Page