Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Ram Sharan Chaturvedi - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1066 of 2010
Decided on : 25-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 201, 380, 435, 457 and 477 read with Section 120B – Theft, mischief by fire, lurking house trespass, fraudulent destruction of Will, screening of evidence and conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – There is neither any overt act attributable to appellant nor any recovery of stolen property from him – Appellant cannot be solely held accountable for failure to comply with Office Manual and Appellant’s exclusive possession of keys cannot render him culpable of offences as mentioned earlier – Link necessary for proving charge of conspiracy is entirely missing – Charge of conspiracy alleged by prosecution against Appellant must evidence explicit acts or conduct on his part, manifesting conscious and apparent concurrence of a common design with co-accused – It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between accused – However, implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in cases of circumstantial evidence – Prosecution has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to satisfy Court that there was prior meeting of minds between Appellant and co-accused – There is no physical manifestation of such a concurrence extractable from surrounding circumstances, declarations, or conduct of Appellant – In absence of such an agreement, even by inference through circumstantial evidence, Appellant is entitled to be acquitted of charge of criminal conspiracy – Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 12, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Three accused, employees of Guna Branch of Central Bank of India, were prosecuted for offences of theft of Rs. Six Lakhs from safe and strong room of the Bank, house-trespass, destruction of valuable security, and other offences. Present appeal by accused no. 3, challenges the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2006 confirming the conviction of the Appellant imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Guna for offences under Sections 201, 380, 435, 457 and 477 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court also confirmed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Sections 380, 435, 457 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment of two years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 201 IPC. However, the sentence under Section 477 IPC was reduced by the High Court from rigorous imprisonment for six years to four years.
Findings of Court:
Judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2006 dated 05.08.2008 and the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Case No. 228 of 2004, dated 07.03.2006, are hereby quashed and set aside.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The Court held that conspiracy requires an explicit act or conduct manifesting conscious concurrence, and that mere possession of keys alone cannot prove conspiracy without a proven meeting of minds (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court found no evidence of a prior meeting of minds or physical manifestation of agreement between the Appellant and A-1/A-2, thus reversing the conspiracy conviction under Section 120B and acquitting the Appellant (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA J.
1. This appeal by accused no. 31[hereinafter referred to as Appellant.], challenges the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2006 confirming the conviction of the Appellant imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Guna for offences under Sections 201, 380, 435, 457 and 477 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court also confirmed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Sections 380, 435, 457 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment of two years along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 201 IPC. However, the sentence under Section 477 IPC was reduced by the High Court from rigorous imprisonment for six years to four years.
2.1 Three accused, employees of Guna Branch of Central Bank of India, were prosecuted for the above-referred offences of theft (of Rs. Six Lakhs from the safe and strong room of the Bank), house-trespass, destruction of valuable security, and other offences. While the main accused, Pradeep Saxena (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1’) and Vinod (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-2’), were convicted and sentenced concurrently given the oral and documentary evidence, as per which the money is proved to have been recovered from their possession, the Appellant (A-3) was convicted and sentenced for the very same offences only with the aid of Section 120B of the IPC.
2.2 The enquiry against the appellant is therefore confined to the existence or the proof of criminal conspiracy between him and the other accused. The charge of conspiracy against the appellant arose because, as Head Cashier, he was to be in the custody of one of the keys of the dual locker system maintained by the Bank for the safe custody of cash and valuable security.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, upon transfer of the existing Branch Manager Shri R.K. Makore, Senior Manager Shri K.R. Lydia (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-4’) was given the additional charge as Manager-in-Charge. As he was on leave for attending a meeting in the Regional Office, Gwalior, another employee Shri Sushil Kumar Verma (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-10’) was given the additional charge as Manager-in-Charge. Guna is a very small branch of the Central Bank of India but on 11.06.2004 a large amount of Rs. Fifteen Lakhs came into the custody of the Bank, and everybody in the Bank was aware of this fact. The next day, 12.06.2004, happened to be a Saturday, and after the transactions were completed and the branch was closed at 5.45 p.m., it reopened only on Monday, i.e., 14.06.2004 at 10.30 a.m., intervening Sunday being a holiday. As the commission of theft and other offences occurred after Saturday evening at 5.45 p.m. and before 10.30 a.m. on Monday, and the locks of the building were not broken, all the transactions before and after the closure became relevant to detect the crime. The prosecution explained the events as under.
4. On 12.06.2004 at around 3.30 p.m., there was a problem with the computer at the Bank, and PW-10 got involved in rectifying it. As the Bank was about to close, a customer Smt. Seema Jain walked in and sought to use the bank locker, for which PW-10 sought the help of the Appellant. The Appellant, along with Sanjay Daria (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-12’), entered the locker room and helped the customer operate the locker. After the above-referred transaction, the Appellant left the Bank. PW-10, PW-12 and A-1 remained in the premises till 5.45 p.m., and by the end of the day, after A-1 secured the locks of the main gate, PW-10 and PW-12 left for their respective residences.
5. On Monday i.e., 14.06.2004, the sanitation employee Rajendra Premi (PW-9) went to the house of the Appellant to collect the key to the main gate of the Branch. After reaching the Bank, he started his routine work of cleaning when another peon Dashrath Yadav (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-5’), security guard Ram Naresh Bhadoria (PW-7
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge and intent in theft cases. Lack of evidence regarding the accused's knowledge of the stolen property can lead to acquittal.
The judgment establishes the difficulty in proving conspiracy and the importance of inferring conspiracy from surrounding circumstances. It also emphasizes the severe consequences of corruption and t....
A conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion; evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on extra-judicial confessions without corroborative evidence is insufficient for conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
