Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Damodar vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 September, 2003
In Damodar v. State of
Rajasthan[7], a two-Judge Bench after referring to the decision in Kehar
Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.
Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988
In Damodar v. State of
Rajasthan[7], a two-Judge Bench after referring to the decision in Kehar
Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc on 12 April, 1996
)[8], State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Thapa[9],
has stated thus: -
Ram Narain Popli vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 14 January, 2003
In Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation[10], while
dealing with the conspiracy the majority opinion laid down that the
elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to 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 cooperate 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. It has been further opined that the essence of a
criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence
is complete when the combination is framed. No overt act need be done in
furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need
not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law
making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb immoderate power to do
mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement
and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises
possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible,
furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign
punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all
its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in
furtherance of the common design. The two-Judge Bench proceeded to state
that for an offence punishable under Section 120-B, the prosecution need
not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause
to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary
implication. Offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an
agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the
intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an
unlawful act by unlawful means.
State Of Kerala vs Capt. Samuel Mathew Parakkat on 12 January, 2010
15. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to certain authorities
which lay down the considerations that should weigh with the Court in
granting bail in non-bailable offences. This Court in State v. Capt.