IPC Section 149 — Unlawful assembly — common object

Judgments citing IPC Section 149

1. Tholem Sambaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others on 19 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana19 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Tholem Sambaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others on 19 January, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 19 January, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Revision – Acquittal – Murder – Evidence – Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 & 401 CrPC Key Legal Propositions 1. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 & 401 CrPC is limited to examining legality, correctness, or propriety of findings, not converting acquittal into conviction. 2. An acquittal cannot be interfered with unless there is a clear illegality in the lower court’s decision. 3. Hostility of key witnesses and insufficient evidence are valid grounds for acquittal, and the revisional court will not interfere with such a finding unless it is demonstrably erroneous. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case challenges the acquittal of respondents 2 to 55 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C. No. 545/05. The case involved allegations that the respondents attacked and caused the death of the deceased (D1 and D2), suspecting them of practicing sorcery. The petitioner (PW9), an injured witness, argued that

2. Boya Vatta Nagesh vs The State of Telangana on 13 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Mar 2023

   Case Name: Boya Vatta Nagesh vs The State of Telangana on 13 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 13 March, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Compromise before Lok Adalat – Compoundable Offences Key Legal Propositions 1. A criminal appeal can be disposed of in terms of an award passed by a Lok Adalat, signifying a compromise between the parties. 2. Section 320(9) of Cr.P.C. allows for the compounding of offences, particularly when involving simple hurt and a mutually agreed settlement is reached. 3. Upon successful compounding of offences before a Lok Adalat, convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court can be set aside, and the accused acquitted. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal (No. 723 of 2019) stemmed from a judgment dated 06/09/2019 passed by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. The appellants were convicted under Sections 147, 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for potential resolution. Held: A. On Compounding of Offences & D

3. K.Satyanarayana Singh, S/o K.Bhavani Singh vs The State Of A.P. on 06 October, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Oct 2023

   Case Name: K.Satyanarayana Singh vs The State Of A.P. on 06 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 October, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Lakshman & Justice K. Sujana Subject: Criminal Appeal – Sections 302, 307, 324 IPC, Section 149 IPC, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on inconsistent evidence is improper. 2. Acquittal for a serious offence (Sections 302/307 IPC) does not automatically warrant acquittal for a lesser offence (Section 324 IPC) if sufficient evidence exists for the latter. 3. Corroboration of eyewitness testimony with independent evidence is crucial for establishing guilt. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from a judgment convicting six accused under Section 324 r/w Section 149 IPC, after being acquitted of Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The charges stemmed from an altercation resulting in injuries to the complainant and the deceased, Yellam, who later succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. Held: A. On Sections 302/307 IPC (Appeal No. 805 of 2013 – filed by the complainant s

4. K.Satyanarayana Singh vs The State Of A.P. on 06 October, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Oct 2023

   Case Name: K.Satyanarayana Singh vs The State Of A.P. on 06 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 October, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Lakshman & Justice K. Sujana Subject: Criminal Appeal – Sections 302, 307, 324 r/w 149 IPC – Acquittal & Conviction – Appreciation of Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and cannot be based on assumptions or presumptions. 2. Evidence must be corroborated; a conviction cannot stand solely on the testimony of witnesses whose credibility has been discredited. 3. Acquittal for a more serious offence does not automatically warrant a conviction for a lesser offence if the evidence supporting the latter is insufficient. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from a judgment dated 11.09.2013 in S.C. No. 314 of 2011, wherein the trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence under Section 324 r/w Section 149 of the IPC, while acquitting them of offences under Sections 307 and 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Crl.A.No.805 of 2013 is filed by the defacto complainant against the acquittal for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Crl.A.N

5. Union of India vs Petitioner on 10 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Mar 2023

   Case Name: Union of India vs Petitioner on 10 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 10 March, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Lakshman Subject: Passport Renewal, Article 226 of the Constitution, Passports Act, 1967, Criminal Cases, Natural Justice Key Legal Propositions 1. Mere pendency of criminal cases is not a sufficient ground for refusing passport renewal under the Passports Act, 1967. 2. Passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on ongoing criminal investigations, especially if the applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation and trial. 3. The principles laid down in *Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation* regarding passport refusal for pending criminal appeals apply; conviction or a sentence of imprisonment for not less than two years is generally required. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 (Passport Officer) to renew their expired passport. The renewal application was rejected due to adverse police verification reports indicating the petitioner’s involvement in two criminal cases. The petitioner claimed false implication and submitted an

6. K. Lakshmi vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 September, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh23 Sept 2023

   Case Name: K. Lakshmi vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 23 September, 2023 Bench: Hon’ble Sri Justice B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi Subject: Criminal Appeal – Appeal against Acquittal – Appreciation of Evidence – Section 378 Cr.P.C. Key Legal Propositions 1. An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider the evidence in an appeal against acquittal. 2. Interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the trial court’s conclusion is not a ‘possible view’ based on the evidence. 3. A ‘possible view’ denotes a conclusion reasonably arrived at, regardless of whether a higher court agrees with it, and should not be disturbed unless it is demonstrably erroneous. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused (A-1 to A-8) by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalle, in a case involving allegations of trespass, damage to property, and threats, stemming from a civil dispute over property. The complainant alleged that the accused trespassed onto her property and damaged a wall, motivated by a temporary in

7. The State of A.P. vs. Yaparla Chinna Subbareddy & Others on 22 November, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh22 Nov 2023

   Case Name: The State of A.P. vs. Yaparla Chinna Subbareddy & Others on 22 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 22 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy Subject: Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Assault – Attempt to Murder – Appreciation of Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal against acquittal requires compelling and substantial reasons for interference, as the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 2. A trial court’s acquittal order should not be lightly disturbed unless a perverse finding is established or crucial evidence is ignored or improperly considered. 3. In cases involving charges under Section 307 IPC, establishing a clear motive is crucial, and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative regarding motive can weaken the case. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State of A.P. against the acquittal of eight accused persons by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyala, in S.C. No. 310 of 2006. The charges stemmed from an alleged assault on PWs. 1, 2, and 4 on November 20, 2005, involving hacking with a sickle and att

8. Jaradaddi Giddaiah vs The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool and others on 12 September, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh12 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Jaradaddi Giddaiah vs The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool and others on 12 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 12.09.2023 Bench: Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Sri Justice B. V. L. N. Chakravarthi Subject: Writ Petition – Cancellation of candidature for Police Constable due to suppression of criminal history. Key Legal Propositions 1. Suppression of material facts regarding involvement in a criminal case in application/attestation forms is a serious misconduct, particularly for positions in disciplined forces. 2. Acquittal in a criminal case, especially on technical grounds, does not automatically entitle a candidate to consideration for appointment; the employer retains the right to assess suitability based on antecedents. 3. Authorities are justified in cancelling candidature based on suppression of facts, even if the offence itself was not trivial, and a subsequent direction to reconsider the case is not warranted. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner was selected for the post of Police Constable but his selection was cancelled after it was discovered he had not disclosed his involvement in a criminal case (Sections

9. Nallabothula Ramachandra vs The State of A.P. on 27 November, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh27 Nov 2023

   Case Name: Nallabothula Ramachandra vs The State of A.P. on 27 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati Date of Judgment: 27.11.2023 Bench: Sri Justice V. Srinivas Subject: Criminal Revision – Grievous Hurt – Evidence – Expert Opinion Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction under Section 326 IPC requires conclusive proof of grievous hurt, which necessitates corroboration through expert evidence (radiologist) regarding fractures. 2. Reliance on CT scans and X-rays without examination of the radiologist who conducted the tests is insufficient to establish grievous injuries. 3. Concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the nature of injuries can be interfered with if based on insufficient or improperly admitted evidence. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case challenges the judgment of the Sessions Court which confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 326 IPC, but reduced the sentence. The original conviction stemmed from an incident where the petitioners allegedly caused injuries to the victim (P.W.2). The core issue revolves around whether the prosecution adequately proved the grievous nature of the injuries sustained

10. Yashwant Baghel & Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 January, 2023

    High Court of Chhattisgarh19 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Yashwant Baghel & Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Date of Judgment: 19 January, 2023 Bench: Goutam Bhaduri & N.K. Chandravanshi, JJ Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder, Kidnapping, Conspiracy, Atrocity Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Ocular evidence holds primacy over medical evidence unless the medical evidence completely makes the ocular evidence improbable. 2. Conflicting medical and ocular evidence requires careful consideration of the circumstances, particularly the condition of the body at the time of examination. 3. Common intention and conspiracy can be inferred from the actions of the accused persons in furtherance of a shared objective. Judgment Summary Background: This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Judge (Atrocity) convicting the appellants for offences including murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy, stemming from the death of Devendra Pudo. The prosecution alleged that the appellants kidnapped Pudo and subsequently murdered him, motivated by a relationship between Pudo and the wife of one of the appellants. The trial court convicted all appellants except Rajendra Sahu on cer

11. Shahid Imran vs. State of Chhattisgarh on 25 April, 2023

    High Court of Chhattisgarh25 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Shahid Imran & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh on 25 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Date of Judgment: 25.04.2023 Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 307/148/149/324/395/397 IPC, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Key Legal Propositions 1. The evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be given due weightage, provided there are no material contradictions. 2. For conviction under Section 397 IPC, it must be established that the accused *used* a deadly weapon, not merely that they were armed with one. 3. Section 149 IPC applies even if not all members of an unlawful assembly actively commit the offence, provided they shared a common object or knew the offence was likely to be committed. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from a judgment convicting the appellants for rioting, attempt to murder, causing hurt, and dacoity, stemming from an incident where police personnel were attacked while attempting to seize illicit liquor. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. Held: A. On Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder): Majo

12. Kamruddin & Ors. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. on 26 July, 2023

    High Court of Chhattisgarh26 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Kamruddin & Ors. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. on 26 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Date of Judgment: 26 July 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Subject: Criminal Appeal – Assault, Injury, Attempt to Murder, Rioting Key Legal Propositions 1. For conviction under Section 307 IPC, intention or knowledge to commit murder must be established, not merely the causing of injury. 2. Grievous injuries alone are insufficient for a Section 307 conviction; the prosecution must prove the intent or knowledge of the accused to cause death. 3. Where the prosecution fails to establish intent to commit murder, alteration of the charge from Section 307 to Section 326 IPC may be appropriate if grievous injuries are proven. Judgment Summary Background: These criminal appeals arise from two separate FIRs stemming from the same incident on 18 April 2000. The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, for offences including rioting, assault, and attempt to murder. The appeals challenge the conviction and sentencing. One appellant (Sakeela Khatoon) died during the pendency of the appeal, leading to its dismissal re

13. GHANSHYAM YADAV vs STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR on 02 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi2 Aug 2023

    Case Name: GHANSHYAM YADAV vs STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR on 02 August, 2023 Court: HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment: 02.08.2023 Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA & MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN Subject: Service Law - Rejection of Appointment - Criminal Antecedents - Policy Guidelines - Benefit of Doubt - Suitability for Public Service Key Legal Propositions 1. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt or due to hostile witnesses does not automatically render a candidate suitable for appointment in CAPFs, particularly when charges relate to serious offences or moral turpitude as defined in relevant policy guidelines. 2. Competent authorities possess the discretion to reject candidates with pending criminal cases or acquittals under specific circumstances, even after a policy of acquittal, considering the nature of the charges and the grounds for acquittal. 3. Maintaining the integrity and discipline of a disciplined force like the CISF necessitates a thorough assessment of a candidate’s character and antecedents, and a history of criminal charges, even if resulting in acquittal, can be a valid ground for rejection. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitione

14. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi vs Babita & Ors on 04 September, 2023

    High Court of Delhi4 Sept 2023

    Case Name: The State Govt of NCT of Delhi vs Babita & Ors on 04 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 04.09.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Revision Petition – Framing of Charges – Discharge – Gender Bias – Principles of Natural Justice Key Legal Propositions 1. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court must assess if prima facie case exists based on the material on record, not whether the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The Trial Court cannot rely on unsubstantiated assumptions or presumptions, especially those based on gender, when deciding on framing of charges. 3. Courts must adhere to principles of gender neutrality and assess each individual's involvement in a criminal act independently, based on evidence and statements. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Petition challenges an order of the Trial Court discharging certain accused persons (Babita, Bala, Rekha, and Kavita) in a case involving alleged assault and attempt to murder. The State sought setting aside the discharge order, arguing the Trial Court failed to consider evidence implicating the discharged accused. The Respondents app

15. Rohit vs. Indian Coast Guard & Ors. on 30 November, 2023

    High Court of Delhi30 Nov 2023

    Case Name: Rohit vs. Indian Coast Guard & Ors. on 30 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 30.11.2023 Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva & Justice Manoj Jain Subject: Service Law – Rejection of candidature due to false declaration in application form – Suppression of criminal proceedings – Consideration of subsequent acquittal and disclosure. Key Legal Propositions 1. Suppression of material information regarding pending criminal proceedings in an application form for public employment constitutes sufficient grounds for rejection of candidature. 2. While subsequent acquittal and disclosure of the criminal proceedings are relevant factors, the employer retains the discretion to reject the candidature based on the initial false declaration. 3. Disclosure made in the document verification form due to the requirement of submitting a Character Verification Certificate containing details of the FIR, is not considered a voluntary disclosure. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner challenged the rejection of his candidature for the post of Navik (Domestic Branch) in the Indian Coast Guard, alleging that the rejection was based on a technicality – his initia

16. Asif@Sammi vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi on 17 February, 2023

    High Court of Delhi17 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Asif@Sammi vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi on 17 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 17.02.2023 Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh Subject: Criminal Law – Bail Application – Murder – Evidence – Dying Declaration – Corroboration – Joint Recovery Key Legal Propositions 1. A dying declaration, if credible and corroborated by other evidence, can form the sole basis for conviction. 2. A joint recovery of evidence, while not conclusive on its own, can be considered as corroborative evidence when coupled with a dying declaration and other incriminating material. 3. Courts must consider previous rejections of bail applications and the reasons for those rejections when deciding subsequent bail applications. Judgment Summary Background: This is a bail application concerning a First Information Report (FIR) registered under sections 302/147/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to a murder. The FIR was based on the statement of the deceased, Vakil Mehto, alleging an attack by several individuals, including the petitioner, Asif@Sammi. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 09.10.2020. Held: A. On Admissibility and Reliability of Dying Decl

17. YOGESH KUMAR VERMA & ORS. vs THE STATE & ANR. on 21 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi21 Aug 2023

    Case Name: YOGESH KUMAR VERMA & ORS. vs THE STATE & ANR. on 21 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 21 August, 2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Framing of Charges – Arms Act – Unlawful Assembly – House Trespass Key Legal Propositions 1. A court, while framing charges, has the power to sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of determining if a prima facie case exists. 2. If the material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, not properly explained, the court is justified in framing charges. 3. A trial court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial while deciding on framing of charges; it must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges orders framing charges under Sections 323/341/452/506/143/147/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/30 of the Arms Act, 1959, based on an FIR dated 14.03.2013 alleging assault and threats with a weapon. The petitioners argued that some accused were named later, offences of wrongful restraint and house trespass were not made out, and the Arms Act charge wa

18. Naseeb vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) on 04 September, 2023

    High Court of Delhi4 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Naseeb vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) on 04 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 04 September, 2023 Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Bail Application – Offences under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Bail should not be granted as a matter of course, and courts must exercise discretion judiciously, indicating reasons for prima facie conclusions. 2. When considering bail, courts should consider the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, potential for witness tampering, and prima facie satisfaction of the charge. 3. Prolonged detention during trial cannot be punitive in nature, and courts should consider the duration of detention. Judgment Summary Background: The present bail application concerns a case registered under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act following the death of Karan, who sustained gunshot injuries. The prosecution alleges involvement of the petitioner, Naseeb, along with co-accused persons. Key evidence includes eyewitness testimony (later partially retracted), recovery of weapons, and confessions. The petitioner has been in custody since 2019

19. Mohd.Mustaqeem vs State (Govt of NCT) of Delhi on 18 December, 2023

    High Court of Delhi18 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Mohd.Mustaqeem vs State (Govt of NCT) of Delhi on 18 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 18 December, 2023 Bench: Justice Amit Bansal Subject: Criminal Law – Bail Application – Riots – Murder – Evidence – Identification of Accused Key Legal Propositions 1. Identification of an accused by a credible eyewitness, corroborated by other evidence, is sufficient to deny bail, even if there are discrepancies in other aspects of the investigation. 2. The stage of bail is not the appropriate forum to evaluate the conclusiveness of forensic reports; such evaluation is reserved for trial. 3. Refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) can be considered as a factor against the applicant while deciding a bail application. Judgment Summary Background: The present application concerns a bail plea by Mohd.Mustaqeem, accused in FIR No. 75/2020 registered under Sections 302/149/147/148/436/120B/34 of the IPC, stemming from the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The FIR relates to the death of Rahul Solanki due to a gunshot injury. The applicant was not initially named in the FIR but was later implicated based on information received and a supplem

20. Prakashi Devi vs Govt NCT of Delhi on 23 May, 2023

    High Court of Delhi23 May 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Bail applications are often decided on the principle of parity, especially when co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail. 2. The period of custody, coupled with the petitioner being a woman, are relevant considerations for granting bail. 3. Conditions can be imposed on bail to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent flight risk. Judgment Summary Background: This is a regular bail application concerning FIR No. 476/2016 registered under Sections 302/308/452/323/324/341/148/149/174A/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, Prakashi Devi, sought bail, highlighting that co-accused Mamta and Varsha @ Heera had already been granted bail by the same court. Held: A. On Bail Application: Majority View: The Court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the principle of parity with co-accused, her period of custody (since 02.09.2022), and the fact that she is a woman. The Court noted the prosecution’s concession that similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail. Dissenting View: None. B. On Flight Risk: Majority View: While acknowledging the petitioner was previousl