LawforAll

▼
Sunday, November 2, 2014

Unlawful Assembly Sec.149 - Once unlawful assembly was proved with a common object - absence of overt act against the other accused does not vitiate the prosecution story entitling for acquittal - Apex court held that In view of the settled principles of law, once it is established that the unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act, rather they can be convicted under Section 149, IPC. We, therefore, find no error in the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court calling our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 775 of 2007 ANUP LAL YADAV & ANR. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR …. RESPONDENT = 2014 - Sept.Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41969

›
Unlawful Assembly Sec.149 - Once unlawful assembly was proved with a common object - absence of overt act against the other accused does no...

Session Case -Prosecutor & Court must be vigilant against mockery Trail - Trail court disposed off the case with in 90 days in a hasty manner and acquitted all accused who poured kerosin on the deceased despite of her Dying Declaration statement and convicted only accused No.1- High court reversed the same and convicted all accused - Apex court held that Court has a greater duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice administration itself. We concur with the findings of the High Court that in the present case, prime duty of the trial court to appreciate the evidence for search of truth is abandoned and in a hurry to dispose of the case or for some other reason, the Sessions Judge had disposed of the trial and acquitted the accused.=CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1973-1974 OF 2008 Patel Maheshbhai Ranchodbhai and others ….. Appellants Versus State of Gujarat ….Respondent =2014 - Sept.Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41967

›
  Session Case -Prosecutor & Court must be vigilant against mockery Trail -  Trail court disposed off the case with in 90 days in a has...

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. - No question was raised before the Trial court that No inculpatory incidents were questioned for giving answer/Explanation- can not be raised at Appellant court - High court remanded the case as the trial court not framed the questions properly under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. - Apex court held that In our considered opinion, the High Court fell in error in coming to the above conclusion. It is an admitted fact that the accused persons immediately after the alleged suicide did not give any report to the police about her unnatural death. There is no denial to this fact and the accused are fully aware about the fact that they have not reported the matter to the police. From bare perusal of the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the Court elaborately put questions to the accused and the same have been answered in detail. The entire incident has been fully apprised to the accused including that the accused Liyakat was confronted with the Exhibit 14,15,16 and 17 to the effect that the accused Liyakat, who was absconding, was finally arrested. In answer, the accused said “not aware”. Same answer was given by the accused Ajeem Khan. The Court apprised the accused persons in a very elaborate manner about the incident that took place, the sequence of events and the material on evidence brought on record. The accused persons were fully aware about all these evidences. The appellants did not raise the question before the trial court that any prejudice has been caused to them in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The burden is on the accused to establish that by not apprising all the incriminating evidences and the inculpatory material that had come in the prosecution evidence against them, prejudice has been caused resulting in miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, we are of the definite view that no prejudice or miscarriage of justice has been done to the appellants.=CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2079 OF 2009 Liyakat and Another ….Appellants Versus State of Rajasthan ….Respondent = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41966

›
Sec.313 Cr.P.C. - No question was raised before the Trial court that No inculpatory incidents were questioned for giving answer/Explanation...