• 06 September, 2025
What Are You Looking For?
Logo

© Copyright 2025 Vidhoon. All Rights Reserved.

Judgments Police Corner

  • 17 Oct, 2023

  • 1250 Views

CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH V/S STATE OF MP (2023)

Distinction made out between common intention u/s 34 IPC and common object u/s 149 IPC.

  1. Common intention u/s 34 IPC implies a prearranged plan with a prior meeting of the minds among individuals, indicating a shared intent to commit a crime together.
  2. In contrast, common object u/s 149 IPC does not demand a prior meeting of minds; it focuses on a group of individuals pursuing a common unlawful objective without a prearranged plan.
Share:
Twitter Facebook WhatsApp LinkedIn
Latest Articles
Recommended Articles

  • Himachal Pradesh Electronics Process Rules 2025: Transforming Justice Through Digital Governance

  • Himachal Pradesh eSakshya Management Rules, 2025 – Full Text Explained

  • Hash Value Tutorial for Police & Investigation Officers

  • BNSS Sec-176,105, 185 - Videography during search and seizure

  • Important Forms for IOs

  • पुलिस कर्मचारियों के लिए हैन्ड्बुक

  • PERUMAL VERSUS STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  • Umesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand

  • Bhavna Gupta and others vs State of Punjab

  • Significant Provisions in Newly Introduced Laws

  • पुलिस तफ्तीश में इस्तेमाल होने वाले उर्दू शब्द और उनके अर्थ

  • Judgment Rearding Section 164 CrPC (2023)