Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.40 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Saju vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2000
12) & Badri Prasad (PW-13). Furthermore, the prosecution has
also proved the seizure pursuant to the memorandum statements
of Kishore (A-1) & Indrapal (A-2) which has been established as
per the statement of Paklu @ Santram (PW-12). It is not the
case of false implication, as FIR was registered against unknown
person and it is only when the investigation was conducted, it
was revealed that A-5 & A-6 were having grudge against
deceased Santosh Tandan for illegally demanding money from
the retiral dues of ₹ 7 lakhs which A-5 has received from SECL
and therefore they have hatched up a conspiracy with the help of
A-1 to A-4 for committing his murder for ₹ 20,000/- and
furthermore, on the basis of memorandum of A-1 to A-3, knife,
khukhri & motorcycle have been recovered which has duly been
proved by Paklu @ Santram (PW-12). On the basis of
postmortem report Ex.P-8 and statement of Dr. Om Prakash
Aditya (PW-4), death is proved to be homicidal in nature. She
would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
matters of Saju v. State of Kerala3, State of Punjab v. Jugraj
Singh and others4 and Mohd. Rojali Ali and others v. State of
Assam, Ministry of Home Affairs through Secretary 5 to submit
that evidence of related witnesses cannot be discredited and
3 (2001) 1 SCC 378
4 (2002) 3 SCC 234
5 (2019) 19 SCC 567
Cr.A.No.872/2012, 1102/2012, 1004/2012, 779/2012 & 863/2012
Page 10 of 23
their testimony has to be relied upon to prove the case of the
prosecution and as such, all the appeals be dismissed.
State Of Punjab vs Jugraj Singh & Ors on 14 February, 2002
In Jugraj Singh's case (supra), it has been held that related
witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being
relations, their testimony is acceptable when they were natural
witnesses to the event and stood corroborated by medical
evidence.
Md.Rojali Ali . vs The State Of Assam Ministry Of Home ... on 19 February, 2019
In Mohd. Rojali Ali (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court
have pointed out difference between "interested" and "related"
witnesses and it has been held in paragraph 13 by holding that a
related witness cannot be said to be an "interested" witness
merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim, a witness may
be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit
from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal
case would mean that witness has a direct or indirect interest in
seeing accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons,
and thus has a motive to falsely implicate accused.
Chaman Lal & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 31 March, 2009
19. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy
would be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme
embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or
understanding between two or more of the accused persons
whereby, they become definitely committed to co-operate for the
accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the
agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction
where the statute required an overt act. (See Chaman Lal and
others v. State of Punjab and another 6.)
Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2022
21. Recently, in the matter of Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh7, the Supreme Court has held that the principal
ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section
120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence, such an
agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial
evidence, and some kind of physical manifestation of agreement
6 AIR 2009 SC 2972
7 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709
Cr.A.No.872/2012, 1102/2012, 1004/2012, 779/2012 & 863/2012
Page 13 of 23
is required to be established. It has been observed in
paragraphs 22, 25 and 26 as under: -
State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000
In the decision of State of Kerala v. P.
Sugathan and Anr., (2000) 8 SCC 203, this Court
noted that an agreement forms the core of the offence
of conspiracy, and it must surface in evidence through
some physical manifestation:
Ram Narain Popli vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 14 January, 2003
25. It is not necessary that there must be a clear,
categorical and express agreement between the
accused. However, an implied agreement must
manifest upon relying on principles established in the
cases of circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, in the
Cr.A.No.872/2012, 1102/2012, 1004/2012, 779/2012 & 863/2012
Page 14 of 23
majority opinion of Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3
SCC 641, this Court had held:
State Of Rajasthan vs Wakteng on 7 June, 2007
In the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Wakteng 8, the Supreme
Court has considered the issue where the sword recovered was
not sent for forensic examination, no report was exhibited and no
question in that regard was put to the accused and in that regard,
it was held in paragraphs 17 & 18 as under: -