Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
State vs Seema & Ors. on 26 May, 2010 cites

E.K. Chandrasenan vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 1995

21 After going through material on record as collected during investigation and also the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation, it is found that all the accused persons have played their independent role in manufacturing and supply of spurious liquor which was ultimately sold to the deceased by accused Basanta as a result he has died . 22 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused FIR no. 73/09 Page 12 of 17 wherein they had stated that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in prosecution of criminal conspiracy or has agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 23 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala , referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other . 24 The material on record shows that accused Raman and Chaman alongwith some other persons i.e Pawan @ Pujari not yet arrested and Subhash were engaged in the manufacturing of spurious liquor at their premises in Gurgaon. The recovered spirit containing methyl alcohol was being supplied to them by accused Subhash and Suraj @ Bhim after procuring the same from accused Randeep @ Nanhe who used to receive the said rectified spirit from the tanker /truck passing through the road on which his dhaba was situated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 53 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1