SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT
Laxminarayan S/o Radheshyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved, as all these appeals are clubbed together being arising out of a common judgment dated 31.08.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2011 ( State of Chhattisgarh vs. Narayan and Others ) by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) these appeals have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeals No. 937/2013, 947/2013, 966/2013, 969/2013, 970/2013, 1029/2013 and 1068/2013 are preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2013, whereby following 16 appellants-accused persons have been convicted for the offences and sentenced to undergo as under:
| CRA-937-2013: Laxminarayan (A-14) and Rajkumar (A-16) | |
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s. 302/149 of IPC | R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of fine, additional R.I. for 01 year each. |
| U/s. 147 of IPC | R.I. for 03 yea |
Arjun vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Amerika Bai vs. State of Bihar
Allauddin Mian vs. State of Bihar
Arvind Kumar @ Nemichand vs. State of Rajasthan
Baladin vs. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 181 : 1956 Cri. L.J. 345
Bhudeo Mandal vs. State of Bihar
Bajwa vs. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 714
Joseph vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Kuldip Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar
Kishan Chand and Others vs. State of U.P. AIR 2008 SC 133
Lalji vs. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437
Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar
Musa Khan vs. State of Maharashtra
Mohan Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab
Masalti vs. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri. L.J. 226
Muthuramalingam and Others vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh
Nagarjit Ahir vs. State of Bihar
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra
Rajendra Shantaram Todankar vs. State of Maharashtra
Roy Fernandes vs. State of Goa and Others
Rambir vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab
State of Assam vs. Darga Dewani
State of M.P. vs. Killu and Others
Shambhu Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar
Somasundaram @ Somu vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the constitution of an unlawful assembly and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 149 of IPC.
In a case of free fight, individual accountability limits the applicability of collective liability under section 149 IPC, thus questioning the validity of convictions based solely on generalized acc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of members of an unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code, particularly the application of Sections 141, 143, 144, 146, and 149 ....
Murder and rioting – Sans unlawful assembly case of each accused has to be considered according to his individual act.
Section 141 of IPC states that an “unlawful assembly” is an assembly of five or more persons, if their common object is to commit mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.