Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 239 (2.81 seconds)
Documents citing Yash Pal Mittal vs State Of Punjab on 3 November, 1977

Yashpal vs State on 24 September, 2019

2.1 The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 08.07.2012, at about 10.20 PM, on receipt of DD no.23A, regarding an accident, from PCR, SI Surender Singh, along with Ct. Suraj Pal, went to the site of accident at Baba Kharak Singh Marg, opposite DLF multi level parking, where Ct. Rajeev and Ct. Rahul Kumar, along with the bus driver, met him. At the CA No. 145/2018 24.09.2019 Page 2 of 25 Yash Pal v. State spot, one cycle, make Hero Devil, and bus no. UP-12T-3030, white colour, was found. There was lot of blood on the road. It was learnt that the injured had been taken to Dr. RML Hospital. SI Surender Singh left Ct. Rajeev for supervision of driver and Ct. Suraj Pal for safety of the spot and went to Dr. RML Hospital. He obtained MLC no. E/117541/12 of injured Sachin, aged 12 years, on which the doctor had recorded history of RTA and that patient was brought dead. SI Surender Singh telephonically directed the Duty Officer, Connaught Place to send Crime Team and Photographer and informed MACT Cell, New District. He came back to the site of incident and recorded statement of Ct. Rajeev.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2001

To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not legal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. This Court in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 540 held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 214 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Canbank Financial Services Ltd vs The Provisional Liquidator Of Bank Of ... on 14 June, 2019

Firozuddin also placed reliance upon Yash Pal Mittal vs. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 540] which alludes to the same principle viz. it is not necessary that all conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy and the only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be purportedly done in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, even though there may be some 'misfire or overshoot.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A K Menon - Full Document

Vaibhav Jain vs State Of U.P. on 28 September, 2020

"7. To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not legal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. This Court in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 540 held: (SCC p.543-44, para 9) '9. The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V-A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are con-conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy.
Allahabad High Court Cites 124 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Cbi vs Alok Kumar Sharan Etc on 25 March, 2026

132. Next, the material on record does not at all suffice to establish the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B of IPC by any stretch of imagination. The evidence completely falls short of showing meeting of mind between the accused persons. The IO (PW49) when asked about it in his cross- examination stated, "There was no specific document/CDR/ money trail to suggest that the linkage between the accused persons pertaining to the present case. (Vol. However, conspiracy in the matter was inferred from the general circumstances of the case." In other words, despite there being lack of cogent material to show meeting of mind between the accused persons, the IO persisted that the conspiracy could be inferred from general circumstances. The prosecution relied on the judgment of Yash Pal Mittal (supra)160 to contend that for section 120B of IPC it is not necessary that all the parties should agree to do a single act and that conspiracy may comprise of a number of acts.
Delhi District Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Narain Popli vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 14 January, 2003

After referring to some judgments of the United States Supreme Court and of this Court in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, [1977] 4 SCC 540, and Ajay Aggarval v. Union of India, [1993] 3 SCC 609 the Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, [1996] 4 SCC 659 summarized the position of law and the requirements to establish the charge of conspiracy, as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 369 - Full Document

Navaneetha Krishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 24 July, 2015

14. As held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Yash Pal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1977 4 SCC 540, Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yosuf Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1970 1 SCC 696 and Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1964 2 SCR 378, it is true that conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. However, the offence can only be proved largely from inference from the act or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in performance of the common design. To prove the offence of conspiracy the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrator expressly agreed to do an illegal act as such agreement may be proved by necessary implication.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next