Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)
State vs (1)Mahesh Verma on 17 January, 2014 cites

K.R. Purushothaman vs State Of Kerala on 25 October, 2005

40 No other evidence has been produced by prosecution to prove its case that there was any prior meetings of mind among accused persons for committing dacoity. Even acquaintance inter se accused persons is not established as no evidence in this regard has been adduced by the prosecution. Moreover, any statement or communication made or exchanged between accused persons is relevant to prove conspiracy if it was made when the conspiracy was on its feet. Any statement or communication made after accomplishment of the goal of the criminal conspiracy is irrelevant to prove conspiracy. Therefore, in the present case also, alleged communication made by accused Rajeev Chopra (already acquitted) to somebody informing him about the dacoity at the house of Satish SC No.83/2006 State Vs. Mahesh Verma etc. Page 25 of 34 Mittal renders not assistance to the case of the prosecution. Thus, prosecution can not derive any help from such statement. 41 It is settled law that conspiracies are hatched in the pitch dark secrecy and security planned and direct evidence of those are hardly available. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.R.Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 35 in which it was observed that to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by an illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every details of the conspiracy. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under Indian Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Mere knowledge, even discussion, of the plan would not per se constitute conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy shall continue till the termination of the agreement. 42 I have also gone through another judgment in case of Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi Versus State of Maharashtra 1980 SCC (Cri.) 493 in which the Hon'ble Supreme has observed that it is manifest that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be SC No.83/2006 State Vs. Mahesh Verma etc. Page 26 of 34 only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design which has been amply proved by the prosecution as found as a fact by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 237 - P P Naolekar - Full Document
1   2 Next