Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Sarvesh Kumar Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal filed against conviction and sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding wrongful conviction and justification of trial court's decision. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and application of law under ipc. (Para 6 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. discussion of common intention and joint liability under ipc. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard, Ms. Megha Sachan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Adil Aziz Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Government Advocate (here-in-after referred as AGA).
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code (here-in-after referred as CrPC) has been filed for setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh by means of the judgment and order dated 28.10.1996 passed in Session Trial No. 44 of 1991; State of Uttar Pradesh versus Sarvesh Kumar Dubey and another, under Section 307 /34, 504 and 109 of Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred as I.P.C.), Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, by means of which th
The court upheld the conviction for instigation and aiding in an assault, affirming the principles of common intention and joint liability under the IPC.
(1) Common intention – An act would mean and include other acts along with it – Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by ....
Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before actual happening of incidence or earlier even during occurrence of incidence.
Point of Law : Mere participation in crime with others is not sufficient to attribute common intention to one of others involved in crime.
Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a pre-arranged plan; mere individual actions by co-accused do not suffice for joint liability in attempted murder.
(1) Common intention – To attract applicability of Section 34, IPC, prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before a person can be vicariously convicted ....
circumstances which un-erringly comes to the conclusion that accused had common intention to cause death only then they must be convicted. We are convinced that the offence which is made out is not u....
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
