Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, SHYAM C.CHANDAK
Juber (Zuber or Zubari) Bashir Ahmed Idrisi – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARATI DANGRE, J.
1. The three appeals are filed by the appellants (accused nos. 1, 2 and 3) calling in question the legality of the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court at Mumbai on 27/02/2017, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 , Section 397 , Section 342 r/w , and 323 r/w 34 of IPC , and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and other distinct sentences on being convicted for distinct offences, all sentences being directed to run concurrently.
In the trial, the accused no.4 Ajitkumar Fatehlal Bagecha Jain faced accusations under Section 411 of IPC , but was acquitted. Similarly, all the accused are acquitted of charge under Section 201 of .
2. On the Appeals being admitted, they are taken up for final hearing.
Heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for accused No.1, Adv. Tripti Khamkar for accused no.2, and Adv. Veerdhawal Kakade for accused no.3, and learned APP, Ms. Sangeeta Shinde, for the State.
3. Before we appreciate the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants and the public prosecutor representing the State, we shall refer to the case of the prosecution in
Common intention requires proof of a prior agreement to commit an offense, with liability under Section 34 based on shared intent and concerted action among accused.
Section 34 of IPC does not constitute an offence by itself, but creates a constructive liability – Foundational facts will have to be proved by prosecution – Not only occurrence, but common intention....
The court clarified that common intention and premeditation are essential for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, and absence of these elements can lead to a lesser charge.
The court clarified that common intention and premeditation are essential for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, while a single impulsive act may lead to a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC....
In custodial death cases, all involved in the torture share liability under Section 34 IPC regardless of direct participation, as joint culpability is established by shared common intention.
The prosecution must prove common intention for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
