Questions and answers on law (Part 72 )

 Q 1:- Why it is necessary that hearing should be held in open court ? 

The principle of holding hearings in open court is a fundamental aspect of the Indian legal system, rooted in principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability.

There are several reasons why hearings should be held in open court:

1. Transparency: Open court proceedings ensure transparency in the administration of justice. By allowing the public to observe court proceedings, it promotes trust in the judicial system and ensures that justice is seen to be done. Transparency is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law.

2) Supreme Court Judgment on two parts of S 149 of IPC and its relevancy in deciding criminal cases

Section 149, IPC consists of two parts. The first part of the section means that the offence to be committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. In order that the offence may fall within the first part, the offence must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused was member. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 141, if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed and this is what is required in the second part of the section. 

Supreme Court of India

Chanda And Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 29 April, 2004

Author: J Arijit Pasayat

Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.

https://www.lawweb.in/2022/09/which-are-two-parts-of-s-149-of-ipc-and.html

3) Supreme Court: Distinction between S 34 and S 149 of IPC

DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTION 34 AND SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

(i) Section 34 does not by itself create any specific offence, whereas section 149 does so;

(ii) Some active participation, especially in crime involving physical violence, is necessary undersection 34, but section 149 does not require it and the liability arises by reason of mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a common object and there may be no active participation at all in preparation and commission of the crime;

(iii) Section 34 speaks of common intention, but section 149 contemplates common object which is undoubtedly wider in its scope and amplitude than intention; and

(iv) Section 34 does not fix a minimum number of persons who must share the common intention, whereas section 149 requires that there must be at least five persons who must have the same common object.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Virendra Singh vs State Of M.P on 9 August, 2010

Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, A.K. Patnaik
Citation:(2010) 8SCC407

https://www.lawweb.in/2016/10/distinction-between-s-34-and-s-149-of.html

Print Page