- In the Offence of Criminal Conspiracy direct evidence is seldom available and mostly the case is based on circumstantial Evidence.
- Criminal Conspiracy Section :- 120(A) of IPC
- State of Kerala Vs Sughthan 2000 8 SCC 203
- Merely For the Fact of that other accused are associated with principal accused ipso facto can not constitute the offence of Criminal Conspiracy
- 120 B
- State of Tamilnadu Vs Nalini AIR 1999 SC 2640
| Sr.
No. |
Citation | Section / Order | Ratio |
| 1 | state of kerala V/S P. Sugathan (2000) 8 SCC 203) | Criminal Conspiracy (section 120-A) Of IPC | In the offence of criminal conspiracy direct evidence is seldom available and mostly the case is based on circumstantial evidence |
| 2 | State of Tamilnadu V/S Nalini AIR 1999 SC 2640 | 120 B | Merely for the fact that other accused are associated with principal accused ipso facto can not constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. |
| 3 | Ramilaben H Christi V/S State of Gujarat 2003 (3) GLR 783 | Nature of Evidence in Criminal Conspiracy | Demeanor of the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy in deciding whether an accused tantamount to conspirator or not ? |
| 4 | Bombay serial blast case- Adnan Bilal Mulla V/S State of Maharastra 2006 CRI L J 564 ( BOM) | Historic verdict for proving the insignias for conspiracy. It is harped that in the contemporary crime scenario crime takes place in organized manner with hightech means and it is committed by many a persons who consciously involve themselves in the offending or terror act. It is not necessary that in all the serial blast the involvement of an accused has to be proved if it is of same sequence. | |
| 5 | Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi V/S State of Maharastra AIR 1980 SC 439 | Conduct of Accused in Criminal Conspiracy | Ordinarily conduct of the offender can become relevant and admissible against him only but in case of criminal conspiracy act of one of the accused can be used as an evidence for other accused as all accused commit different acts and cohesively the offending act is committed. |
| 6 | State of Kerala V/S P. Sugathan reported in AIR 2000 SC 3323 | For Proving the offence of Criminal Conspiracy | to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence , direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more person to commit an offence. There must be meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of any offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances the prosecution has to show that the circumstances giving rise to conclusive or irresistible inferences of an agreement between the two or more persons to commit an offence |
| 7 | Sidharth Etc. V/S State of Bihar reported in AIR 2005 SC 4352 | Appreciation of Offence of Criminal Conspiracy | the confession of an accused person is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as defined in sec.3. It can not be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. The proper way is first to marshal the evidence against the accused |
| 8 | Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi V/S State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1980 SC 439 | Mode of Conspiracy | It is manifest that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design which has been amply proved by the prosecution as found as a fact by the High court. |
| 9 | Lennart Schussler V/S Director of Enforcement reported in AIR 1970 SC 549 | 120 B | Under section 120 B there must be an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence or where the agreement does not amount to an offence in the doing of an act which is legal in an illegal way there should also be established an overt act.
|
| 10 | Lal Singh V/S State of Gujarat reported in 2001 GLH 369 | 120 B | It is common knowledge that such terrorist activities are carried out with utmost secrecy Many facts pertaining to such activities remaining in personal knowledge of the person concern. Hence, in case of conspiracy and particularly such activities better evidence than acts and statements including that of co-conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy is hardly available. In any case, law requires establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on its bases believe in the existence of the facts in issue. |
| Sr | Subject – Citation | Ratio/ Para |
| Summons
AIR 1983 SC 75 (National Textile Workders Union Vs. P.Rama Krishna Rao): |
“We cannot allow the dead in the past to struggle growth of the living present. Law cannot stand still. It must change within the changing social concepts and values. If the bark that protects the tree fails to court and explained along with the tree, it will either choke the tree or if it is living tree, it will shed that Bark and grow a new living Bark for itself. Similarly, if the law fails to respond to the needs of changing society. Then either it will stiffle growth of the society and choke its progress or if the society is a vigorous enough, it will cast away the law which stands in the way of its growth. Law must therefore suddenly be on the move adapting itself by the past changing society and not lag behind”. | |