Dinesh v. State

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:18.01.2025 17:29:15 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

other cases, his detentioninjail continued.

Today this Court has been informed that Dinesh has since expired, The death certificateof appellantDineshis placedon record by the learned APP. AppellantDinesh had expired on 02.07.2017. His legal heirs have not been brought on, record. The appeal qua Dinesh stands abated.

The arguments have been heard on the role of co-accused Manoj. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the ingredients of Section- 34 of the IPC cannot be attributed to the appellant Manoj as there was no common intention which is elucidated in the evidence. It is pointed out that the only role attributed to the appellant Manoj was that he had manhandled the victim; this was separate from the act of accused (Dinesh) who had used the weapon. Moreoverthis manhandlinghaving been allegedly carried out by the appellant Manoj prior to the act of the co-accused, common intention cannot be attributed^ to the co-accused. To substantiate this submission, learned'counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the version of PW2, PW3 and. PW5. PW2 was the injured. He had on bath stated that after-he had come back from the market upon purchasing a cake for the birthday of his nephew,'the accused Manoj manhandled him stating that he had I . . stolen his scooter since the colour of the scooter of Manoj was identical to the. colour of the scooter used by PW2. This had led-to .the manhandling. PW2 had admittedly driven the scooter of Manoj to buy the cake; he had thought that it was the scooter of his brother. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is

; •

I