https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170974 Concurrent findings accepting credible eye-witness testimony and the appellants' presence at the scene were not interfered with in special leave jurisdiction, as no manifest illegality, perversity, or serious legal error was shown. Liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was also sustained because common object may be inferred from the facts of a planned armed attack by a large mob, and individual overt acts need not be separately proved where offences were committed in prosecution of that common object. The convictions recorded by the courts below were therefore affirmed and the appeals failed. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:43:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170974 Concurrent findings accepting credible eye-witness testimony and the appellants' presence at the scene were not interfered with in special leave jurisdiction, as no manifest illegality, perversity, or serious legal error was shown. Liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was also sustained because common object may be inferred from the facts of a planned armed attack by a large mob, and individual overt acts need not be separately proved where offences were committed in prosecution of that common object. The convictions recorded by the courts below were therefore affirmed and the appeals failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170974