Q. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, the Supreme Court held that in criminal conspiracy

महाराष्ट्र राज्य बनाम सोमनाथ थापा के मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इसे आपराधिक साजिश माना

A
Direct proof of agreement is always necessary
सहमति का प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण हमेशा आवश्यक होता है
B
Direct proof of agreement is not always necessary
सहमति का प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण हमेशा आवश्यक नहीं होता है
C
Agreement must always be in writing
समझौता सदैव लिखित रूप में होना चाहिए
D
Conspiracy cannot be proved through circumstantial evidence
परिस्थितिजन्य साक्ष्य से साजिश साबित नहीं की जा सकती

Explanation

In this landmark 1996 judgment, the Supreme Court held that direct evidence of agreement in a criminal conspiracy is not mandatory. Since conspiracies are usually secret, they can be proved through circumstantial evidence and conduct of the accused. The inference of agreement can be drawn from acts and conduct that point toward a common design.

Invest in Future Achievers

Your support helps keep Exam Achiever 100% free for students preparing for exams.

Thanks for your support!

More From This Topic

Related Questions

Related Topics

Punishments Offenses Against Human Body Offenses Against Property General Exceptions Offenses Against Public Justice

Comments

Leave a Comment

Invest in Future Achievers

Your support helps keep Exam Achiever 100% free for students preparing for exams.

Thanks for your support!

People Also Search For

Illustration of a clipboard with a checklist and pencil, bright and colorful style

Ready for a Challenge?

Take our Free timed mock tests to sharpen your skills and boost your confidence!