Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 277.

(iv) Detailed submissions were made qua each of the PWs and the pleas of the accused persons in defence. On the charge of criminal conspiracy, it was submitted that unlawful agreement was the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy and not its accomplishment. It was submitted that the evidence of conspiracy need not be formal or expressly made out. It could be inferred from the circumstances, especially the declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators. It was further submitted that the offence of criminal conspiracy is a continuing one and is committed whenever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. Reference was made to the decisions in Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1988) 3 SCC 609; Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 609; Abuthagir v. State (2009) 17 SCC 208; K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2005) 12 SCC 631; and Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420.

(iii) Referring to K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (supra), it is submitted that the agreement among conspirators could be inferred by necessary implication. The existence of the conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused persons involved in the conspiracy.

(iv) In respect of Section 149 IPC reference was made to the decisions in Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 773; Md. Ankoos v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (supra); Mukteshwar Rai v. State of Bihar AIR 1992 SC 483; State of A.P. v. Rayaneedi Sitharamaiah (2008) 16 SCC 179; Musakhan v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCC 733; and Ramappa Halappa Pujar v. State of Karnataka (2007) 13 SCC 31.

94. In K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (supra), it was further highlighted as under:

"To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every details of conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial act. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implications. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence; as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deducted from the circumstance of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy."