Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of rt K.T.M.S. Mohd. and another vs. Union of India, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 178, have held that conspiracy under Section 120-B can be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It has been held as follows:

" 54. A careful perusal of the complaint leaves an impression that it has been ill-drafted and that necessary ingredients to make out a case for conspiracy are not brought out in the complaint. It is true that in case of conspiracy, an agreement between the conspirators need not be directly proved but it can also be inferred form the established facts in the case. As pointed out by this Court in Bhagwan Swaruop and Ors v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682 = [1964] 2 SCR 378 that the offence of conspiracy can be established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence and this section will come to play only when the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy. The charges levelled in the complaint in paragraphs 25 (i) (ii) and