Home Up Feedback Contents Search

S 149 IPC
           BROUGHT  TO YOU  BY   RAJEEV BHATJIWALE

                                                                                                                 

 

                                              

ANANT KATHOD PAWAR V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1998  S C C (CRI )199

sudden and free fight between two groups in which members of both groups sustained injuries.  Conviction of members of one of those groups under section 147 odd 148 and for substantive offence with the aid of section 149 is improper.  Accused persons would be liable for their individual acts if specific evidence led by the prosecution in that regard.  The trial court found that there was a free fight between the two groups each one coming armed with weapons. under the circumstances of the case each one would be liable for his own act and would not be liable vicariously.

JIVAN LAL V/S STATE OF M.P. 1997 S.C.C. (CRI) 521

 Where the accused are charged with the aid of  section 149 they can be convicted with the aid of section 34, if no prejudice is caused  to the accuseds for not framing a distinct charge with the aid of section 34.if it is proved that the accused did share common intention of committing the offence no prejudice can be caused to them for not  framing a distinct charge under section 34, as intention which is a question of the fact, has to be gathered from the evidence and the evidence on the record clearly establishes that the accused did share the common intention of committing the offence.

The Supreme Court has previously in DHANNA  V/S STATE OF M. P. 1996 S. C. C. [CRI] 1192 and  NANAK CHAND V/S STATE OF PUNJAB  AI R 1955 S. C. 274 has observed that section 34,114 and 149 of the IPC provide for criminal liability as regards  object or a common intention and the charge is a rolled up one involving the direct liability and the constructive liability without specifying who are directly liable   and who are made constructively liable, in such a situation the absence of a charge under one on other various heads of criminal liability for the offense cannot be said to be fatal by itself and before a conviction for the substantive offence without a charge, can be set aside,prejudice will have to be made out

KANCHHEDI  V/S  STATE OF M.P. 1991 J. L. J  .6

T

 

 

Home ] Up ]

Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
Last modified: April 10, 2001