Parveen @ Sonu vs The State of Haryana

HELD: 1. PW-20 (Constable who is the eye-witness) has not referred the name of the appellant/accused in his deposition. The Trial Court has passed the conviction of the appellant, mainly relying on the medical reports and depositions of PW-20, PW-22 (Constable who corroborated the Statement of PW-20) and PW23(Sub-Inspector who deposed that he recorded the statement of PW-20). Even according to the case of the prosecution, only four accused entered the train and one of them who was identified as Vinod, had thrown chilly powder in their eyes and other accused Amarjit had fired a shot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is also clear from the cross-examination of PW-20 that there were about 50–60 passengers in the compartment, but no one was examined. Even PW-22, disclosed the names of Vinod and Amarjit Singh only. Except the vague and bald statement that the appellant herein is a member of alleged conspiracy, there is no other acceptable evidence on record to prove conspiracy. For the reasons not known, in a case of this nature, the investigating agency has not conducted TIP (Test Identification Parade). It is also brought to Court’s notice that the appellant was prosecuted for snatching away the Bolero car in Criminal Case No.535 of 2009 in the Court of HCS, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhiwani, he was acquitted of the charge for offences under Sections 392,

216 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said judgment has become final. 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. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove its case, that the appellant 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. Conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15][648-G-H; 649-B-H; 651-C-E] Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31 : [2015] 7 SCR 1083; Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 14 SCC 729: 2013 (6 ) SCALE

652 – relied on.

Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala (2001) 7 SCC 596: 2001 AIR 3488; Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar (2019) 12 SCC 784: 2018 AIR 3592 – held inapplicable.