Back
KRISHNA RAO
Anil Dewan @ Anil Kumar Dewan – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. Both the petitioners have filed their respective applications under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 21st August, 2023, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mal, Jalpaiguri in connection with SC Case No. 157 of 2015 arising out of Mal Police Station Case No. 655 of 2014 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Wherein the Learned Judge has rejected the applications of the petitioners filed under Section 227 of the Cr.PC.
2. On the basis of the written complaint of one Anjan Kumar Medhi, the Mal Police Station registered a case being FIR No. 655 of 2014 dated 22nd November, 2014 under Section 302/34 of the IPC, against seven persons and many more 200/250 workers. After registration of the case, the police has started investigation and during investigation, several persons have been arrested and on completion of the investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC, against 13 accused persons out of which three accused persons have been shown as absconded accused.
3. After submission of the charge-sheet, some of the
The court emphasized that to establish a charge of conspiracy, there must be clear evidence of an agreement or meeting of minds among the accused, which was lacking in this case.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of proving criminal conspiracy and the insufficiency of evidence to establish the petitioner's involvement, highlighting the importance of meeting of minds for....
(1) Discharge of accused – At stage of consideration of such application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by accused, cannot be looked at all – Court has to proceed with as....
The court emphasized that mere suspicion is insufficient to establish a conspiracy, requiring credible evidence for proceeding against an accused.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges based on sufficient circumstantial evidence and confessions, emphasizing the admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act.
The court emphasized the necessity for a prima facie case to be established before proceeding to trial, underlining a judge's role in evaluating evidence without conducting a full trial.
Sufficient motive and reasonable grounds for belief are necessary for framing charges in conspiracy cases, distinguishing suspicion from credible evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
