SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

THE QUEEN v. APPUHAMY N.K.A.


The Queen V. Appuhamy, N.K.A.

[IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL. APPEAL]

1960
Present : Sansoni, J. (President), H. N. G. Fernando, J., and
Sinnetamby, J.

THE QUEEN v. N. K. A. APPUHAMY et al.

Appeals 170-172 and 175-177, with Applications 190-192 and 195-197

S.C.5-m.c.Polonnaruwa,15428

Unlawful assembly-" Common object "-Distinction between common object and common intention-Presence of a person at scene of offence--lnference of guilt therefrom---Penal code, s. 138.

Certificate for appeal given by trial Judge-Bearing on the appeal-court of criminal Appeal Ordinance, No. 23 of 1938, s. 4 (b).

The accused-appellants were indicted, on the 1st count, for having been members of an unlawful assembly, the common objects of which were to commit mischief by fire, murder and rape and, on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th counts, for the commission of the offences of mischief by fire, murder and rape in prosecution of the respective common objects.

Held, (i) that a common object in an unlawful assembly is different from a, common intention, in that it does not require prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the offence is committed. If each member of the assembly has the sa














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top