Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.43 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Yash Pal Mittal vs State Of Punjab on 3 November, 1977
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:
Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Major E. G. Barsay vs The State Of Bombay on 24 April, 1961
(SCC p.543-44, para 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.
The significance of criminal conspiracy under
Section 120-A is brought out pithily by this Court
in E.G.Barsay v. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR
195 (SCR at p.228) thus: