Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (3.41 seconds)
Criminal Appeal No.2365-Sb Of 2006 vs State Of Haryana on 20 October, 2009 cites

Malkhan Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1990

Adverting to the facts of the present one, Dinesh as well as Phool Kumar- appellant were strangers to the complainant. There is no gainsaying the fact that the test identification parade was not made in this case. To my mind, if physical description had been given in the FIR that would have been treated as a circumstance pinning down the identity of the appellants. To say the least of it, identification of the appellants in the Court is not being corroborated by any circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court has laid down in clear cut and unambiguous terms that much evidentiary Criminal Appeal No.2365-SB of 2006 & Criminal Appeal No.2406-SB of 2006 & Criminal Appeal No.28-SB of 2007 & Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2007 -15- value cannot be attached to the identification of the accused in Court where identifying witness is a total stranger who had just a fleeting glimpse on a person identifying or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in Court. It is in the evidence of Ajay Kumar PW7 that "Thereafter, Jagdish Bathla accompanied Ashok and had gone to his shop. After about five minutes, four persons came to agency. They were having pistol and one assailant put pistol on my head. They snatched my purse after putting me in the Bathroom. One driving licence and some other documents and Rs.2,000/- were in my purse. They had also taken out the amount from the drawer, which was taken by Jagdish Bathla. They also snatched Mobile No.94160- 18311 and 93549-37163. Two accused identified which are named Dinesh and Phool Kumar. Accused Dinesh put pistol on my head and they both snatched my purse and cash and mobiles from the shop. Thereafter, I knocked the door from inside and Jagdish Bathla came there, who opened the door." This evidence speaks volumes of the fact that Jagdish Bathla was not in attendance at the time of occurrence though the case has been registered at his instance. Curiously enough that Jagdish Bathla as per the above reproduced evidence came and opened the door of the bathroom in which this witness Ajay Kumar was shut. It bears repetition that identifying features of the appellants have not been given in the FIR and that being so, it would be going to far to say that the appellants are the same persons who had robbed the alleged amount. It is in the cross-examination of this witness Ajay Kumar (sic.) that "I went to Police Station after 10/15 days after the Criminal Appeal No.2365-SB of 2006 & Criminal Appeal No.2406-SB of 2006 & Criminal Appeal No.28-SB of 2007 & Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2007 -16- occurrence by calling the police." Appallingly, the police was approached after 10/15 days. It is in the further evidence of this witness that "After apprehension of accused, police called me for identification and I identified the accused in police station. The names and address of accused were disclosed by police to us. My statement was recorded by police in police station." This evidence leaves no room for doubt that the appellants were shown to this witness in police station and that being so, it was not difficult for this witness to say in the Court that they are the same persons who had committed robbery. The prosecution has not apportioned any cogent reason for shying away from holding the test identification parade of the appellants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

K. Hashim vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 November, 2004

The allegations against Jai Bhagwan - appellant are that he had hatched conspiracy with his co-accused. The most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. For the offence of conspiracy, some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. As ruled in re: K. Hasim v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 Surpeme Court 128, (1) the essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily, the offence is complete, when the combination is framed. From this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, 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. Encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another Criminal Appeal No.2365-SB of 2006 & Criminal Appeal No.2406-SB of 2006 & Criminal Appeal No.28-SB of 2007 & Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2007 -18- rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. Offence of criminal 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. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agreed to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 88 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Devender Pal Singh vs State National Capital Territory Of ... on 22 March, 2002

As ruled in re: Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 234, "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 co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete, when the combination is framed. From this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 185 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next