Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. He submits that under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, anything said, done or written by any one of the persons alleged to be in conspiracy,in reference to their common intention, is a relevant fact against each of the persons to be so conspiring, provided there is independent evidence of existence of the conspiracy to commit an offence. He submits that there is no independent evidence in this case of the existence of the conspiracy. The questioned/disputed documents viz. the answer sheets of Anupam Rajan and Ashraf Jamal cannot be considered as the independent evidence to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy. In this regard, he places reliance on State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Nalini & Others, 1999 Crl.L.J 3124 and L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 Crl.L.J 2559. He submits that the Court is expected to look into the broad probabilities of the case while examining the issue whether, or not, charge should be framed against the accused on the basis of the charge-sheet. In this regard, he places reliance upon Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1962.

7. There has to be some prima facie evidence to show that there was a criminal conspiracy as held by the Supreme Court in Nalini (supra) and by this court in L.K. Advani (supra). According to the case of the prosecution, that evidence is available in as much, as, Sh. Anupam Rajan and the petitioner hail from the same town; they were studying at the same university; residing in the same hostel; had sent their forms for the 1993 Preliminary examinations through the same person, at the same time. Moreover, Sh. Anupam Rajan had taken the 1993 Preliminary examination despite securing the 52nd position in the 1992 examinations.