The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy held that to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120B of IPC.
Facts
A police party was escorting four accused to the Central Jail, Jaipur and they were to be produced in the Court of CJM. They reached Railway Station Rewari, in the morning and then boarded the train for Bhiwani. When the train reached at Railway Station Nangal Pathani, four young boys entered their compartment and attacked the police party to rescue the accused, who were in police custody and were to be produced in the Court of CJM. The accused also tried to escape and snatch the official carbine. It is alleged that one of the accused fired upon Head Constable Arjun Singh. It was stated that the police overpowered one person, who had thrown chilli powder in their eyes and the remaining three accused succeeded in fleeing. The apprehended accused disclosed his name and identity of other assailants. Injured Head Constable was shifted to hospital, who succumbed to firearm injuries subsequently.
Procedural History
After completing investigation, all the accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 392, 307, 302, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. They pleaded that they were innocent and that they have been falsely implicated, they were tried for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held all the accused guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Amarjit Singh and Surender Singh @ Dhattu were further held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, apart from conviction for other offences, as referred above. The sentence for various offences was ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, the appellant herein, and four other accused have preferred separate appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. All the appeals were dismissed by common judgment confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. Hence this Appeal. The 3rd Accused Parveen @ Sonu is appellant here.
Contentions made
Appellant- Though there was no concrete proof to establish the participation of the appellant in the alleged crime, the Trial Court as well as the High Court believed the prosecution story in absence of any supporting evidence and convicted him. Except the alleged confessional statements of co–accused, there was no other acceptable evidence to connect the appellant herein to the crime. Apart from the police party who were escorting accused in the train, there were about 50–60 passengers. No independent witness was examined. Out of the four young boys, only one was having a country made pistol and fired. There was no TIP (Test Identification Parade) conducted. The accused, who was apprehended as per the prosecution, was only Vinod and all the other three persons fled away. But the other person who is stated to be identified, was Amarjit who had fired a shot upon the Head Constable. Though there was absolutely no evidence to connect the appellant/accused, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant in absence of any acceptable evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. Even the High Court, except recording the depositions of all the witnesses, did not consider any of the grounds urged, and dismissed the Appeal. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana and the judgment of this Court in the case of Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka.
Respondent- There was sufficient material and evidence on record which clearly established the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. There was credible evidence available on record to believe that appellant was a party to the accused group, who conspired together to rescue the other four accused, who were being taken by the police party to produce before the Court. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors v. State of Kerala and Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that in the prosecution’s cross-examination, he has deposed that several persons were assembled at the place of occurrence, but none of them was ready to join or associate with investigation. Except the vague and bald statement that the appellant herein is a member of alleged conspiracy, there was no other evidence on record to implicate the appellant. They observed that:
“To prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC.”
They further observed:
“On scrutiny of evidence on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case, that the appellant herein, has conspired with other accused for the offences for which he was charged. Except the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, it is not safe to maintain the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant. The findings recorded by the Trial Court in convicting the appellant mainly on the ground that he was one of the conspirators for the crime in question, is erroneous and illegal. The High Court has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.”
Judgment
Conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant was set aside and he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Case Name: Parveen @ Sonu vs The State of Haryana
Citation: Criminal Appeal No.1571 Of 2021
Bench: Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Decided on: 7th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
