Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 801

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
R. SUBHASH REDDY, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Parveen @ Sonu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1571 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020)
Decided on : 07-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Rishi Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Bansuri Swaraj, Ana Upadhyay, Pragya Barsaiyan, Manya Hasija, Akash Singh, Vishwa Pal Singh, Kiran Bala Dewangan, Jhingan Ashwani Omprakash, Dinesh Kumar Mudgal, Brijender Singh Dhull, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) To prove charge of conspiracy, within ambit of Section 120-B, IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was agreement between parties for doing an unlawful act.
(2) Alleged confessional statements of co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict accused.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w Section 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Murder, attempt to murder, robbery and conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – Except vague and bald statement that appellant herein is a member of alleged conspiracy, there is no other acceptable evidence on record to prove conspiracy – In a case of this nature, investigating agency has not conducted Test Identification Parade – Except alleged confessional statements of co-accused, there is no other evidence on record to implicate appellant – To prove charge of conspiracy, within ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was agreement between parties for doing an unlawful act – It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all – In absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between conspirators for 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 accused with commission of crime of criminal conspiracy – Even alleged confessional statements of co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict accused – Prosecution has failed to prove its case that appellant herein, has conspired with other accused for offences for which he was charged – Except alleged confessional statements of co-accused and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, it is not safe to maintain conviction and sentence imposed upon Appellant – Findings recorded by Trial Court in convicting appellant mainly on the ground that he was one of conspirators for crime in question, is erroneous and illegal – High Court has not considered evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously confirmed conviction and sentence imposed on appellant – Appellant acquitted of charges levelled against him. (Paras 11, 12, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th March, 2020 passed in CRA-D No.232 of 2010 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby, the High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant/accused and upheld the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.
Findings of Court:
Conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant is, hereby, set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant be released forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th March, 2020 passed in CRA-D No.232 of 2010 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby, the High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant/accused and upheld the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as called out from the case of the prosecution, are as under.

On 14.03.2009, the police party was escorting four accused namely Nadeem, Naushad, Ravi & Sunil from the Central Jail, Jaipur and they were to be produced in the Court of CJM, Bhiwani. They reached Railway Station Rewari, in the morning at 04:30 hrs. They 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 in order to rescue the accused, who were in police custody and were to be produced in the Court of CJM, Bhiwani. The accused, who were in custody, also tried to escape. They even tried to snatch the official carbine. It is alleged that one of the accused fired upon Head Constable Arjun Singh. In the complaint, it was stated that the police overpowered one person, who had thrown chilly 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 Arjun Singh was shifted to hospital, who succumbed to fire arm injuries subsequently. 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.

4. 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 Cr.P.C. As they have pleaded that they were innocent and they have been falsely implicated, they were tried for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 14.01.2010, 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. By order dated 18.01.2010 on the quantum of sentence, 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.

5. 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 dated 17.03.2020, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. Hence this Appeal.

6. The 3rd Accused Parveen @ Sonu is appellant in the present Appeal. We were informed that no appeals were preferred by other accused in the common judgment of the High Court.

7. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned Addl.AG appearing for the respondent – State of Haryana and carefully perused the material available on record.

8. In this Appeal, it is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that 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. It is submitted that except the alleged confessional stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document