Judgments - Conspiracy
ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BURUEAU OF INVESTIVATION
State of Tamil Nadu Versus S. Martin Etc.
ABHAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
OM PRAKASH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
RAJIV KUMAR Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means Full Judgment
Jai Singh Sisodiya & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
STATE OF JHARKHAND THR.S.P.,CBI,RANCHI Vs. SAJAL CHAKRABORTY
39. The modus operandi being the same would not make it a single offence when the offences are separate. Commission of offence pursuant to a conspiracy has to be punished. If conspiracy is furthered into several distinct offences there have to be separate trials. There may be a situation where in furtherance of general conspiracy, Full Judgment
SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMU Vs. STATE REP.BY DY.COMM.OF POLICE
…For the present, it may be sufficient to state that the gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy created under Section 120-A is a bare agreement to commit an offence. It has been made punishable under Section 120-B. The offence of abetment created under the second clause of Section 107 requires that there must be something more than a Full Judgment
STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BITTU & ANR. ETC.ETC.
JASBIR SINGH Vs. TARA SINGH & ORS
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) Vs. NITIN GUNWANT SHAH
This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy. It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said Full Judgment
INDRA DALAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
The word 'confession' has no where been defined. However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting the inference of the commission of the crime would amount to confession and, therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also defined to mean Full Judgment
PURUSHOTTAM DASHRATH BORATE & ANR. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R.DINESHKUMAR@DEENA Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.
The question before the High Court was whether the Sessions Court was justified in declining to summon PW64 in exercise of its authority under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. as an additional accused in Sessions Case No.73 of 2009. It is the settled legal position that an offence of conspiracy[3] is complete the moment two or more persons agree to do an illegal act, or agree to Full Judgment
SUBHASH @ DHILLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
To make out the offence under Section 120-B of IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to prove the existence of some agreement between the accused persons. There is no specific evidence as to where and when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific purpose of such Full Judgment