সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Legality of the conviction given by the High Court Division under sections 302/109 and 120B of the Penal Code for the murder..(1)
There is no dispute that a conspirator is an agent of his associates in carrying out the object of the conspiracy and that it has to be established by direct evidence the accused and other persons whose acts statements or writings are sought to be given in evidence against him entered into a formal consultation or agreement to commit the offence. It is also not disputed that direct evidence is seldom available in view of the fact that a conspiracy to commit an offence is hatched up in secrecy. Whenever a charge of criminal conspiracy is brought against an accused, the rules of evidence provided in section 10 of the Evidence Act will come into play...(10)
The principle behind section 30 is that a confession may be true so far as it implicates the maker, but may be false and concocted through malice and revenge so far as it affect others. While such a confession is obviously evidence of a very weak type. It does not come within the definition of evidence contained in section 3 of the Evidence Act...(13)
The acts done by any one in referrence to the common intention is considered to be the acts of all. So we find to prove a charge of conspiracy it is required to consider two circumstances: (a) that the act shall be in reference to their common intention; and (b) in respect of a period after such intention was first entertained by one of them. The object of the section is merely to ensure that one person shall not be made responsible for the acts or deeds of another until it is proved that (a) some bond, in nature of agency, has been established between them; (b) the acts words or writing which it is proposed to attribute vicariously to the person charged are in furtherance of the common design, and (c) those acts or deeds done, spoken or written after such design was entertained. The rule of excluding hearsay evidence to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy is not applicable to the statements admissible under this section... (14)
We can review our earlier opinions if the circumstances require such reconsideration that is to say, such previous decision appears to be obviously erroneous or is contrary to law or is against public interest. In the majority opinion it has not been said that previous decisions are not sound or not in conformity with law that require reconsideration. The doctrine of precedents has become a part of our law. And precedents are given a constitutional sanction by Article 111. The binding nature of judicial decisions is derived from statutes or conventions... (26)
Therefore, unless the prima facie evidence of the existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence or statement or confession made by one conspirator in reference to the common object becomes in-admissible against all. Similarly, statements made by an accused person during a trial can hardly be regarded as statements by him as a conspirator in reference to the common intention of the persons who were members of the conspiracy they are therefore, not admissible under section 10 of the Evidence Act...(31)
If the prosecution banks upon a charge of criminal conspiracy, the conspiracy being the sheet anchor of the incident, which was hatched up first and in pursuance of this conspiracy the murder was caused, it is the fundamental principle to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge of conspiracy...(36)
This fact proved that any one can get mobile phone connection in the name of any other person. Therefore ext.16, can not be used by the prosecution as corroborating evidence, since it has not been legally proved and even if it is legally admitted, it can not be used against the appellant as corroborative evidence. These facts are not consistent, conclusive and sufficient to find the appellants guilty of the charge...(57) The distinction between the two offences, say the offence of abetment by conspiracy and the offence of criminal conspiracy, so far as the agreement to commit the offence is concerned, is that for abetment by conspiracy mere agreement is not enough, an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for but in the offence of criminal conspiracy the very agreement or plot is an act in itself and is the gist of offence...(67)
In the above case the motive for killing was rightly inferred by this Division but the facts of this case are quite distinguishable. The appellant did not make any confession and there is no eye witness to implicate him in the incident. His complicity has been revealed say, circumstances must be consistent and consistent only with the guilt of the in the confessional statements of co-accused. The case, so far the appellant is concerned, is entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence, the motive undoubtly plays an important part in order to till the scale against the appellant. The appellant can be convicted on circumstantial evidence only when his guilt is established excluding all other reasonable hypothesis and the circumstances are wholly inconsistenet with his innocence. The prosecution has clearly fallen short of proving this fact against the appellant. The evidence to justify a conviction of an offence of murder which involves the forfeiture of life, must be, best kind obtainable, that is to appellant. If the evidence is consistent with any other rational explanation, then there is an element of doubt of which, the benefit must be given in favour of the appellant...(116).
Yasin Rahman @ Rahman Yasin @ Titu Vs. The State, (Criminal), 10 ADC (2013)-Page 731.
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
