VINAYAK ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

VINAYAK ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Conviction of accused 5 alone for criminal conspiracy under s. 302 read with s. 120B IPC is unsustainable as at least two persons are required for conspiracy. Conviction and sentence of accused 6 under s. 302 read with s. 34 IPC is valid as sufficient corroborative evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties
Appellant, Accused No. 6: Vinayak; Appellant, Accused No. 5: Prakash; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 September 1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Judgment and Order in Criminal Appeal Nos. 7 of 1977 and 605 of 1978
Outcome
Appeal of accused 5 (Prakash) allowed and acquittal granted; Appeal of accused 6 (Vinayak) dismissed and conviction confirmed.
Legal Topics
Criminal Conspiracy, Murder, Retracted Confession, Corroborative Evidence
Criminal Law Criminal Conspiracy Murder Retracted Confession Corroborative Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vinayak

Appellant, Accused No. 6

Prakash

Appellant, Accused No. 5

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Judgment and Order in Criminal Appeal Nos. 7 of 1977 and 605 of 1978

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether one accused can be convicted for criminal conspiracy when the rest are acquitted
  2. 2 Permissibility of relying on retracted judicial confession of one accused against another when acquitted of conspiracy
  3. 3 Sufficiency of corroborative evidence for conviction under s. 302 read with s. 34 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction of accused 5 alone for criminal conspiracy under s. 302 read with s. 120B IPC is unsustainable as at least two persons are required for conspiracy. Conviction and sentence of accused 6 under s. 302 read with s. 34 IPC is valid as sufficient corroborative evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal of accused 5 (Prakash) allowed and acquittal granted; Appeal of accused 6 (Vinayak) dismissed and conviction confirmed.

Orders

  • Acquittal of Prakash, accused 5; set aside conviction and sentence, ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
  • Dismissal of appeal by Vinayak, accused 6; conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under s. 302 read with s. 34 IPC confirmed.