Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Liability of Multiple Accused in Common Crime - The principle states that when a criminal act is committed in furtherance of a common intention, all participants can be held liable, even if only some are directly involved in the act. The act must be shown to be done by one accused in furtherance of the common intention of all, and liability can be imposed on any accused involved in the joint act ["THE QUEEN v. MAHATUN"].
Effect of Acquittal of Co-accused - Courts have recognized that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing proceedings against others, especially if the evidence does not conclusively link all accused. The Supreme Court and Kerala High Court have held that proceedings can continue unless there is clear evidence that the accused is not involved or that the case against them is weak ["JAISAL vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["JAISAL vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Proceedings Against Multiple Accused - When multiple accused are involved, and some are acquitted, the courts may still proceed with the case against the remaining accused if there is sufficient evidence. The conduct of the accused, such as absconding or entering into a compromise, is relevant but not always determinative for quashing proceedings ["SAJEEV KUMAR K.V vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["RAJA KANNU @ RAJA SINGH vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Common Intention and Section 34 IPC - For liability under Section 34 IPC, it must be proved that the act was done by one accused in furtherance of a common intention. The absence of specific mention of Section 34 in charges does not invalidate the case if the act was committed with common intent ["THE QUEEN v. MAHATUN"].
Case Specifics and Quashing Proceedings - Proceedings against accused can be quashed if the evidence is insufficient or if the accused has been acquitted elsewhere, but generally, proceedings are maintained when the case involves societal impact or serious offenses ["SIYAD vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["AJITHKUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Role of Evidence and Participation - Evidence such as medical reports, witness testimony, and conduct (e.g., absconding, entering into compromises) are crucial in determining individual liability, especially when multiple accused are involved. The courts emphasize that mere presence or association does not establish guilt ["Anurag Goswami, S/o Sri Dimbeswar Goswami VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"], ["Kuruva Sreenivasulu, Kurnool Dist. VS SHO, Ullindakonda P. S. - Andhra Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The provided sources collectively emphasize that in cases involving multiple accused, liability depends on participation, common intention, and evidence linking each accused to the crime. The acquittal of some co-accused does not automatically preclude proceedings against others unless the evidence against them is weak or non-existent. Courts are cautious in quashing proceedings, especially in serious offenses affecting society, and rely heavily on factual and evidentiary assessments to determine individual culpability.
In criminal cases involving multiple accused, a common question arises: what happens when only specific individuals, say accused numbers 2 and 3 out of nine, are ? This scenario raises critical issues about , the role of confessions, and the fate of remaining accused. For instance, if 9 persons are shown as accused in a crime but accused number 2 and 3 alone are —what is the effect? Understanding this requires delving into Indian criminal law principles, particularly under the , , and .
This blog post breaks down the legal implications, drawing from key judicial analyses and precedents. Note that this is general information based on case law and should not be considered specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Chargesheeting, under , occurs when police find sufficient evidence against specific accused after investigation. In cases with multiple suspects, not all may be if evidence is lacking against them. Here, out of nine accused, only Nos. 2 and 3 faced charges, primarily due to their leading to key discoveries.
This selective chargesheeting doesn't automatically absolve others but can impact proceedings. Courts evaluate each accused individually, focusing on evidence like motive, , and conduct. However, acquittals or settlements involving co-accused may lead to for remaining ones if the prosecution's case collapses.
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were implicated through their statements under , which allows admission of facts discovered based on an accused's disclosure. They revealed the spot where the deceased's body was disposed, leading to its recovery at their instance. The court held: The fact disclosed by them, and the discovery made at their instance, was admissible against both accused.
This evidence is crucial as it directly links them to the crime, even without eyewitnesses. leading to discovery are , bolstering the prosecution.
Additional factors strengthened the case:- Motive and Last Seen: Evidence of motive, being last seen with the deceased, and their conduct (carrying a gunny bag in a vehicle) indicated active participation. - Recovery at Their Behest: The dead body's discovery post-disclosure formed a complete chain pointing to guilt. Courts uphold convictions on such circumstantial evidence when it excludes reasonable doubt.
Their role in murder and body disposal was established beyond doubt, leading to conviction.
When only some accused are , the rest may seek under . Precedents show:- Acquittal of Co-Accused: If co-accused are acquitted, it may shatter the . In one case, the acquittal of co-accused had caused the prosecution's case against the petitioner to collapse due to lack of supporting evidence. Proceedings were quashed. - State of Kerala Precedent: Courts consider powers under Section 482 to quash based on co-accused acquittals.
In another instance involving , co-accused acquittals prompted arguments, though outcomes depend on evidence.
For private disputes like assault (), settlements can lead to , even for , if not societally harmful. The court clarified that criminal proceedings for can be quashed based on party settlements if the nature of the dispute is private.
Similarly, in house-trespass and hurt cases (, etc.), compromises supported .
Section 27 Evidence Act is pivotal: only the fact discovered from the accused's statement is admissible, not the entire confession. Courts consistently hold: Statements made by accused persons under Section 27, which lead to the discovery of evidence, are admissible and can be used to establish participation.
In multi-accused scenarios, this applies individually. For others not , lack of such links (e.g., no confession or conduct evidence) justifies exclusion. However, absconding or other conduct may weigh against them.
Related cases highlight challenges:- Delayed FIRs or identification issues can weaken cases against specific accused. - In 12-accused matters, procedural fairness like compliance is key.
Chargesheeting only accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a 9-person case hinges on their admissible confessions and body discovery, sustaining conviction via circumstantial evidence. For others, acquittals of co-accused or settlements may enable , preventing abuse of process.
Ultimately, each case turns on evidence strength. This underscores the nuanced balance in Indian criminal jurisprudence—ensuring justice without overreach. Stay informed, but always seek professional counsel.
#CriminalLawIndia #ChargesheetQuashing #EvidenceAct
Lord Sumner in Barendra Kumar's case 2[2 (1925)A. I. R ,P. C.1 at p. 9.] described a. criminal act as " that unity of criminal behaviour, which results in- something, for which an individual would be punishable, if it were all done by himself alone, that is, in a criminal offence ". ... The dominant concept in the section appears to be the doing of 3 criminal act in furtherance of the common intention of a number or persons. ... If only one bomb was thrown and the pers....
2. The petitioner is the one of the accused in Crime No. ... The above case is chargesheted alleging o 324 read with 34 IPC. It is submitted that the co-accused were already acquitted as per Annexure A3 judgment . ... State of Kerala (2011(2) KHC 812) considered the powers of this court to invoke Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings based on the acquittal of co-accused. ... It will be bene ....
2. The petitioner is the one of the accused in Crime No. ... The above case is chargesheted alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 read with 34 IPC. It is submitted that the co-accused were already acquitted as per Annexure A3 judgment . ... State of Kerala (2011(2) KHC 812) considered the powers of this court to invoke Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings based on the acquittal of co-accused. ... It will be beneficial to extract ....
The above case is chargesheted alleging offences punishable under sections 324,326 and 341 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted him. ... 2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C No. 130/2020 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 426/ 2013 of Museum Police Station. ... ; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absco....
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 188/2021 of Chandera Police Station, Kasargod. Above case is chargesheted alleging offences punishable under sections 341,323 r/w 34 of IPC. ... 3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined victim and assaulted victim. 4. ... ; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a comprom....
2. Petitioners are the accused in C.C No. 65/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala arising from Crime No. 578/2022 of Anchuthengu Police Station. ... The above case is chargesheted alleging offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 427 r/w 34 IPC. 3. ... ; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” .....
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C No 1436/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally arising from crime No.1260/2016 of oachira police station. ... The above case is chargesheted alleging offence punishable under sections 447,294(B), 323 and 324 of IPC. 3. ... ; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” ....
2. Petitioners are the accused in C.C No. 1558 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, arising from Crime No. 1335/2019 of Pandalam Police Station. ... The above case is chargesheted alleging offences punishable under Sections 452, 294 (b), 323, 324, 506 (1) of IPC. 3. ... ; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise e....
2. Petitioners are the accused in C.C No. 1558 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, arising from Crime No. 1335/2019 of Pandalam Police Station. ... The above case is chargesheted alleging offences punishable under Sections 452, 294 (b), 323, 324, 506 (1) of IPC. 3. ... ; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise e....
State of Kerala (2011(2) KHC 812) considered the powers of this court to invoke Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings based on the acquittal of co- accused. ... The evidence of PW5 do not bring out any evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence. So the accused 2 to 13 are entitled to get an Order of acquittal and acquitted under section 232 of the Cr.P.C. Since A1 is not appeared in lower court, case against A1 is not committed. ... 2. ... Above case is #HL_S....
3. After registration of the FIR as a crime case, the third accused person arraigned in the FIR as accused viz. After registration of the FIR as a crime case, the third accused person arraigned in the FIR as accused viz.
For that reason, she was picked-up from her residential place, but she was taken to different places and she was detained at different places as mentioned in the petition by Police Officers. The Crime Number in which the inquiry was made is available and deceased was not shown as accused in that crime. (X) In the say filed by Police Officers, accused, in matters filed for compensation, they have denied that they had picked-up the deceased from her residential place, they had taken her to Kotwali Police station, to LCB Office, to Jamkhed rest house and then to Deepak Hospita....
None of the remaining have spoken even according to the prosecution. 124A if at all the evidence of PW 1 is accepted and the aforesaid speech amounts to sedition. Therefore, at best, accused 2 and 3 alone can be mulcted with the offence u/s. The Court below had implicated accused Nos. 2 and 3 alone to have committed offence u/s. 124A, but they along with accused 1, 4 and 5 were punished for offence u/s. 120B r/w 124A of I.P.C.
Though it has come in the evidence of the eye witnesses as well as in oral testimony of the Investigating Officer that in the night it was raining heavily and the dead body of the deceased was found in the mud but it is not the reason alone but the other reasons as stated above creates some doubt in our mind with regard to the promptness of lodging the FIR and we are of the view that FIR in this case is not only delayed but anti-timed too. According to learned counsel for the appellant, it suggests that at that time first information report was not in existence and the inquest report was per....
3. In Crime as alleged, prosecution claims participation of 12 accused persons. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. One of them is juvenile, 6 are before this Court and 5 are still reported to be absconding.
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
