Penal Code, 1860 – s. 120-B – Conviction under – Prosecution case was that the nine accused (A-1 to A-9) hatched a criminal conspiracy in the house of appellant (A-6) to murder the victim – Trial Court convicted A-1 to A-9 u/s.120-B IPC, A-1 to A-5 u/ss.
148 and 302 IPC, and A-1 u/s. 332 IPC – High Court upheld the conviction of the accused, except that of accused (A-9) who was acquitted and conviction of accused (A-2) u/s.120-B IPC was set aside – A-6 alone filed appeal against his conviction u/s.120-B IPC – Held: In order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must – However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy, which is being hatched and nor it is necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting – In other words, their presence and participation in such a meeting alone is sufficient – In instant case, evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 proved the factum of meeting being held at the appellant’s house with other accused wherein a decision was taken to kill the victim – Presence of PW-3 in appellant’s house while serving tea to all the accused was proved by the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 – Further, evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 proved the exchange of talk between the accused confirming that they would kill victim and that the victim was indeed killed five days after the meeting – The complicity of the appellant in conceiving a plan to kill victim was therefore duly proved with the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must. In other words, it is sine qua non for invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused. However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy, which is being hatched and nor it is necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting. In other words, their presence and participation in such meeting alone is sufficient. It is well known that a criminal conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and is never an open affair to anyone much less to public at large. It is for this reason, its existence coupled with the object for which it was hatched has to be gathered on the basis of circumstantial evidence, such as conduct of the conspirators, the chain of circumstances leading to holding of such meeting till the commission of offence by applying the principle applicable for appreciating the circumstantial evidence for holding the accused guilty for commission of an offence. [Paras 32-34] [788-G-H; 789-A-B]
2. Perusal of evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 would go to show that PW-4 was running his small tea stall under a tree near appellant’s house. It was around 70 feet away from the house and one could see the appellant’s house from the tea stall. PW-3 was working as a tea boy in PW-4’s tea stall on daily wages during the relevant time. [Para 37] [789-F-G]
3. There is no good ground to discard the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4. Their testimony is found natural, consistent and does not suffer from any contradictions much less major contradictions so as to brush aside as being wholly unreliable. The two courts below, therefore rightly relied on their testimony to sustain appellant’s conviction under Section 120-B, IPC. [Para 40] [790-F-G]
4. The test laid down by this Court as to how a case under Section 120-A, IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC is required to be made out by the prosecution with the aid of evidence is found proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in this case and this is said for following reasons. First, there was adequate foundation laid for holding a meeting by the accused and the said foundation was an incident of pasting of posters in public places all over the city and second, a public meeting in which victimdeceased uttered filthy language against the members of the community to which the accused belonged. These two facts did constitute a foundation for the commission of offence in question and they were duly proved with adequate evidence by the prosecution. Second, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 has proved the factum of holding a meeting in appellant’s house with other accused wherein a decision was taken to kill/eliminate victim within 10 days. Third, the presence of PW-3 in appellant’s house while serving a tea to all the accused is proved by the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4. Similarly the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 further proved the exchange of talk between the accused confirming that they will kill/eliminate victim, the fact that victim was killed/eliminated five days after the meeting was held and lastly, his death was proved as homicidal. The complicity of the appellant in conceiving a plan to kill/eliminate victim was therefore duly proved with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. [Paras 41-45] [790-G-H; 791-A-E]
Lachman Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 167 : [1952] SCR 839; Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay [1962] 2 SCR 195 – relied on.
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 6 SCC 564: [2009] 7 SCR 855 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.