Judgment · High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
€i ‘r t t • I • ) 4% 3 a. I Section 143r c ogni’anc c Section 14° fIP(4 and thi Tint ou thc ibo’c n mc I c141 ) brcsa I daic c dfocsact wnifuI ts’,cirb mm timc ant p ic common object of such asembii nffcc S noting and thin in tomm punsh thU undc r °c ti iithin rri cognwance t tic tat I a Sc ttifl ) I mn ittt I bed an rJf(j 1) f PC o That iou thc abo c named a uic c 3 afornaid date ttm and p icc Ix ing the mc mbcrs the atorc said unlaisful assc mbh in prosecution of tt common object of such aqscmbh acte armi I v dcadls eapons iw .ac , p IT ihai) (choppcr) ml ioicn si ommittcd an )ffcncc p i ‘4 14)fIPC 1 I ib Lith I c i 1 t oulc b a embcr of ii Is V I S ) ilicit. C’ti 1,turrs; iid tityic’ the Il)qL iiarncrl d’ c List d ci€tte 1ind iIi’’ ‘ ith the i i’ Pt irdcim.. dccc •‘b d V..s t i Ii€,.i.min • Tt i fluid I “11(1 tV aS 1e’itii •• • a. t •f t ‘. LISt d () J ‘t 1(f)’ Ii . ,,t. I ‘ i b • •t%’ ¾, i i f n (fl’ Ii’s It ..‘ ! p ,sh talILti s’..mitctI tt€ h4 holding a bamboo ‘vi k
mlii his (itt %tfll aid used \.‘. ‘ .‘vh Thc. assaulted the tic ceased With t41’sppcr on ins h, , liclIl(IS. ‘CLI at c’used V. ‘ a& sutit’’d tlic dci t .tsc’ ‘t’oden stick (in his ba k ii1’’ n ‘ii! tIit ati ‘Ne’t Ci mmmii miii cier in imitent ion; 1P lime de eased \ascutt t1iii
tilt thea! lIaflduH itt ‘ar an I a e ,‘.• t’ s : . . ‘e)fltflhittc ci flfl olience pwiish tn! nadt’m Si’% 11011 I % i-’ot iI’( hit’ l)1’tC1 tttion led ii ng ,‘ _‘ .; i. ‘ 31 fi ‘,li . . — •11 1:1 [ ‘lb •. • i’lt’ ‘ I I itt I .‘ () . i 0 I • • tt it i ‘h.i. s ciS iirtik C ,. 1 I) t P . ‘ ‘itt (i %(1 .( . ‘ 51 tt ir .‘‘‘);t’’ . I . It_Lilt • : • • . • qrj •r.• .‘ .‘. ; :‘ .11 I I • . I ‘ • ( •‘. oh • I . ‘II • . , ‘ ‘. , .1 “: I, I — * * a E - C - ( — - r * - — a — - — - J ( I - * t I J ‘ — - ( — - — J — I - — — - — — — _ C - — - - C — D ( — - : — — a / — - — - / — — C - - C C / J - - t ( - h T - ‘ — j E I 1 — C 1 t — ) _ - ( — J r I , - — — - — — — — , - f - * - — — J - a — — a a 9 — H a — — * a — C — — — * — 9 - — — — a 0 a - a - - a * ‘ — a - - * - - - 0 0 / - / — — — D a * / — * - — — — a * - - J — - a — a f a - a a r 7 a 2 a a — 2 0 a a a -- - a — - I — c — J — a 0 C a a * — a a - \ 0 — 0 — - _ ( a 0 a a * - — a 2 a — a 7 a a _ L — — — - - — - 9 9 — — — — a - — r — — - . - - - — a a t a — J — a 9 - f — a ( _ ( c - — — —N - - 0 4 - 4 C ( r C — 4 0 C — ( - - - 4 4 - - 0 - J r C 0 0 _ 4 — 4 - 4 C — — S — D 0 1 - J j 0 4 ( 1 4 . o - 4 ( * — — - 4 - — 0 1 r C 0 — — — Z I p - ) - 4 , - -C 4 C ( - 0 . C5 ( * * r C - 5 I - * h T C ( — f - - 4 C — 0 / 0 * — - - 4 I - 4 /c a - 1 y - 4 0 C 4 - 4 ( C ( 1 — 0 - 4 — 4 I 4 — : - 4 — 0 - 0 - 4 C ( - C 0 - - J I, that cwn iithout intimating thc supc non of thc hospit h took ‘tic ambu1ant and nat to the tiilacc nd rctchc it c I. t thcdcceaqeditk3Otm (‘lul i ‘c Icicil pitt isabo t I)to IlImsf it th csptil TI i. ‘I I’ ‘it th t PW I had infnrracd Ii pA e n ‘thatch aft there ‘no rferencc 13 sha that
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.