Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 244 docs - [View All]
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Monopolies And Restrictive Trade ... on 5 July, 1976
State vs Saidu Khan And Anr. on 11 May, 1950
Rajendra @ Raju Netrapal Walmiki vs Convict Prisoner No.C/11309 on 2 December, 2009
Makka And Ors. vs The State on 27 February, 1951
State Of Maharashtra vs George Fernandez And Ors. on 19 April, 1984

[Complete Act]
User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Central Government Act
Section 37 in The Indian Penal Code
37. Co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence.—When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence. Illustrations
(a) A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B intentionally co-operate in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate.
(b) A and B are joint jailors, and as such have the charge of Z, a prisoner, alternatively for six hours at a time. A and B, intend­ing to cause Z’s death, knowingly co-operate in causing that effect by illegally omitting, each during the time of his attend­ance, to furnish Z with food supplied to them for that purpose, Z dies of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z.
(c) A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A, intending to cause Z’s death, illegally omits to supply Z with food; in conse­quence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z’s death. Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder.