Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had proved a criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased and, on that basis, whether the conviction under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained.
Analysis: The Court held that criminal conspiracy is rarely proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from a chain of proved circumstances, conduct of the accused, and acts done in furtherance of the common design. It affirmed that the existence of the agreement and the requisite mens rea can be established through circumstantial evidence, and that acts, declarations, and writings of one conspirator are relevant against the others under the evidence rule governing conspiracy. The Court found that the trial court and the High Court had carefully examined the evidence, excluded unacceptable portions, and recorded reasoned findings that the appellants had participated in the conspiracy culminating in the murder and in screening the offence.
Conclusion: The conviction and sentence for conspiracy, murder, and causing disappearance of evidence were upheld against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: A criminal conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence showing a concerted agreement and common unlawful design, and once such conspiracy is established, acts done in furtherance of it are attributable to the conspirators.