Tag: Common Intention

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case
26Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case

In this judgment, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants based on the principle of parity. Since co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court—a decision which had attained finality—the Court held the same benefit must extend to the appellants. Facts Of The Case: Vasanthi, sister of respondent No. 2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs from appellant No. 2 (accused No. 5). As security for the said loan, Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No. 1 (accused No. 4) concerning a property measuring 1980 sq. ft. situated at Villanur Revenue Village. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of h...
Read More
Supreme Court Clears Way for Occupation Certificate, Bans Construction on Recreational Plot
21Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clears Way for Occupation Certificate, Bans Construction on Recreational Plot

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent convictions, holding that non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC vitiates a fair trial. The trial court's failure to put each material circumstance individually to the appellants caused prejudice. The Court remanded the matter for de novo examination from the stage of recording Section 313 statements, emphasizing this mandatory procedural requirement. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an incident on March 31, 2016, when the informant, Kachan Pasi, along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi, and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi, were returning from their fields. They were allegedly surrounded by several accused persons, including the three appellants before the Supreme Court—Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi. The accu...
Read More
Bail Orders Without Reasons Are Invalid: Supreme Court Remands Case for Fresh Consideration
14Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Bail Orders Without Reasons Are Invalid: Supreme Court Remands Case for Fresh Consideration

This Supreme Court judgment establishes that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail; it must focus on the accused's specific role. Bail orders must contain reasons, reflecting application of mind to relevant factors like offence gravity. Granting bail solely based on another accused's release, without considering role distinction, renders the order legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The factual matrix of this case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on 22nd April 2024, alleging the murder of the deceased, Sonveer. According to the complainant, Sonveer, along with his brothers Sagar (the appellant) and Pramod, were en route to their fields on a motorcycle when they were confronted by a group of six individuals, including the respondents Rajveer...
Read More
Injured Witness Testimony Crucial: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in 1988 Double Murder Case
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Injured Witness Testimony Crucial: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in 1988 Double Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the appellants' conviction under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, affirming the High Court's judgment. It ruled the case did not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as the assault with sharp weapons in furtherance of common intention established murder, not culpable homicide. The ocular and medical evidence was found reliable. Facts Of The Case: On May 19, 1988, an altercation arose between two groups of relatives over a land boundary dispute in a sugarcane field. The appellants, led by Molhar and Dharamvir, allegedly damaged a ridge (mendh) on the complainant's side. When the deceased Dile Ram objected, a fight ensued. The appellants, armed with lathis, spades, and phawadas, assaulted Dile Ram, Braham Singh, and Bangal Singh (PW-2). Both Dile Ram and Bra...
Read More
The “Unlawful Assembly” Test: Supreme Court Explains When Mere Presence at a Crime Scene Isn’t Enough
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

The “Unlawful Assembly” Test: Supreme Court Explains When Mere Presence at a Crime Scene Isn’t Enough

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that mere presence in a crowd does not automatically constitute membership in an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC. To establish constructive liability, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that each accused shared the common object of the assembly, distinguishing active participants from passive bystanders. Conviction requires cogent and consistent evidence linking the individual to the assembly's objective. Facts Of The Case: On 20 November 1988, at around 8:00 AM, informant Jagdish Mahato (PW-20) and his brother Meghu Mahato went to inspect their settled agricultural land in Baharkhal, Bihar. They allegedly found a large mob of 400-500 persons from the neighboring village of Mahila, many armed with weapons like guns, spears, ...
Read More
Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below on the appellants' involvement in causing the deaths. However, it altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, finding that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without the intention to kill. The sentence already undergone was deemed sufficient. Facts Of The Case: On the morning of August 6, 1986, complainant Ram Gopal (PW-1) went with his father and two uncles to a river ghat to measure agricultural land for partition. There, they encountered the four accused appellants, including the owner of the adjacent land, Raghav Prashad. The accused, who were hiding, suddenly emerged and a dispute over the measurement ensued. This altercation quickly turned vi...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Section 498-A, 377, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the in-laws. It held that general and vague allegations, without specific details of cruelty or unlawful demands, do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated that proceedings without such foundational ingredients amount to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the complainant, sought the quashing of an FIR registered against them. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 377 (unnatural sex), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage between the complainant and the appellants' son/brother took place ...
Read More
When Protest Isn’t Nuisance: Supreme Court Explains Limits of Police Power, Quashes 5-Year-Old Case
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When Protest Isn’t Nuisance: Supreme Court Explains Limits of Police Power, Quashes 5-Year-Old Case

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, applying the Bhajan Lal principles. It held that the allegations, even if accepted entirely, did not prima facie constitute the offences under Sections 290, 341, 171F IPC, and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861, as their essential ingredients were absent. Continuing the prosecution was deemed an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: During the 2019 General Elections, the Model Code of Conduct was in force in Andhra Pradesh. On March 22, 2019, appellants Manchu Mohan Babu, an educational institution chairman, and his son, along with staff and students, conducted a rally and dharna on the Tirupati-Madanapalli Road. They were protesting the state government's failure to provide student fee reimbursements. The gathering, which las...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court clarified the legal principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing that it can be invoked based on evidence collected during trial, even if the person was not charge-sheeted. The Court held that the standard for summoning an additional accused is stricter than a prima facie case but does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must show strong complicity, and the power should be exercised sparingly to ensure fairness. The Court restored the Trial Court's summoning order, underscoring that the High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial at this stage. The judgment reaffirmed that the provision aims to prevent the guilty from escaping justice. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from an incident on 29th November 2017, w...
Read More