P. K. Narayanan vs State Of Kerala - 1994 Supreme(SC) 1076

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1994 Supreme(SC) 1076

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE M.M. PUNCHHI, M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
P. K. NARAYANAN
Versus
STATE OF KERALA.
Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 1990 {From the Judgment and Order dated 30-3-1990 of the Kerala High Court in Crl. A. Nos. 247, 248 and 250 of 1988} with No. 316 of 1990 and SLP (Crl) Nos. 3329-31 of 1994
Decided on 27-10-1994
Advocates appeared:
M.A. Firoz, R. Sasiprabhu, P. Keshava Pillai, E.M.S. Anam and M.T. George, Advocates, for the appearing parties.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B r/ws 302 - Offence of conspiracy - Ingredients of - There should be an agreement to do an illegal act - Proof of;
       Held: The ingredients of this offence are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act of for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be illegal. Therefore the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. But if those circumstances are compatible also with the innocence of the accused persons then it can not be held that the prosecution has successfully established its case. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. (Para 10)
        (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B r/ws 302 - Conviction under - Appeal Convictions based on mere suspicion particularly on, ground that A-1 had motive to eliminate deceased -Grave doubt whether it was a homicidal death - No material to show that accused who are alleged to have conspired did anything to cover up crime - Prosecution has failed to established guilt of A-1 & A-2 - Convictions set aside.
       Held: No doubt in the case of conspiracy there cannot be direct evidence but the view taken by the High Court that the motive, opportunity and possible complicity in the offence are inferential form the available facts and circumstances and on that basis an offence of conspiracy would be made out, is not justified on the basis of the evidence on the record. It may not be necessary for us to discuss that part of the evidence dealing with motive. Assuming that A-1 was apprehensive that the deceased might disclose his trade secrets, that by itself cannot prove the conspiracy. The High Court, however, pointed out that the conduct of the parties would be a relevant circumstance to make out an offence of conspiracy. The conduct of A-1 referred to in this content is that he went to the tourist home at 9 A.M. and that he did not go or meet or console P.W. 1 on that day and that he rewarded A-2 sufficiently to purchase ornaments and make investments. According to the High Court, these circumstances which indicate that A-2 was a close associate of A-1 coupled with the circumstance that A-2 was found running away would be sufficient to make out a case that A-1 and A-2 conspired to eliminate the deceased. Having given our anxious considerations, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High Court. On the other hand, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the conspiracy is wholly insufficient. After having perused the judgments of both the courts below, we find that the convictions are based more on suspicion particularly on the ground that A-1 had motive to eliminate the deceased. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.- In Sessions Case No. 35 of 1987 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, four accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 323, 326, 302 and 201 IPC. The trail court acquitted A-4 and convicted A-l under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC and also convicted A-2 and A-3 under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court acquitted A-3 but confirmed the convictions and sentences of A-l, P.K. Narayanan and A-2, V.V. Salim @ Sasi. Hence, A-l has filed Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 1990 and A-2 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1990 in this Court. The prosecution case is as follows.

2. A-l is the owner and proprietor of Polakulath Tourist Home at Palarivattom, Ernakulam and two such other tourist homes in other places in addition to being an abkari contractor. V.V. Salim @ Sasi, A-2 was his driver and personal bodyguard. A-3 was a room boy in the tourist home and A-4 was the Manager of A-1. The deceased Peethambaran was in employment of A-l since June 1982. He was an honest young man and was a faithful and trusted employee. He was also a personal friend of A-l and enjoyed considerable freedom in the house of A-l. A-l had duplicate accounts of his income and some of them were kept in the house of the deceased. PW 1, father of deceased, had close relations with A-l and he was a member of the administrative committee of the Palarivattom Hariharasutha temple of which A-l was the President. PW 1 was looking after the administration of the temple. Sometime before the present incident which took place in the early hours of 21-4-1983, A-l began to distrust the deceased and he also suspected that the deceased was pilfering money from the cash collection of the tourist home. He therefore directed A-3 to keep a watch on the deceased. Being alerted about the growing hostility about him, the deceased decided to leave the employment in the tourist home and was in search of some other job. A-1 apprehended that if deceased left him he might disclose the inconvenient information regarding unaccounted wealth and so A-l wanted to eliminatethe deceased somehow or the other. On the fateful day the deceased and A-3 were on night duty in the tourist home and they along with another room boy occupied Room No. 411. PW 3 had taken a room on 21-4-1983 and had to leave early in the morning on the new motor cycle to Trivandrum. PW 3 checked out of the tourist home at 4 a.m. and left for Trivandrum on the motor cycle. At that time PW 3 came down to the counter and found the deceased and A-3 sleeping in the visitors room adjoining the counter. They were woken up. PW 3 was the last person who saw the deceased alive before leaving and at that time he was in the company of A-3. Sometime around 4.30 a.m. the residents and employees of the tourist home and some of the neighbours heard cries and simultaneously they heard something heavy falling from the terrace of the tourist home. Hearing the cries and the sound, A-4 and PW 17, the accountant who was staying together in one room and PW 11, a Probationary Sub-Inspector came down to the counter and they found the southern door of the tourist home near the counter locked. As that could not be opened they went to the western door. A-4 opened the door through which some of the inmates entered the southern courtyard and found the body of Peethambaran who was then profusely bleeding. At the same time they saw a person running away towards the north along the main road. PW 4 identified that person as A-2. At the behest of A-4 somebody fetched a car in which the deceased was taken to the hospital. Meanwhile PW 1 also was informed about the incident and PWs 1 and 2 rushed to the City Hospital and from there to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam where they saw PW 17 talking on the phone. PW 17 led PW 1 to the room where the deceased was lying with injuries. PW 10,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document