IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that to establish a charge of conspiracy, there must be clear evidence of an agreement or meeting of minds among the accused, which was lacking in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. Both the petitioners have filed their respective applications under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 21st August, 2023, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mal, Jalpaiguri in connection with SC Case No. 157 of 2015 arising out of Mal Police Station Case No. 655 of 2014 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Wherein the Learned Judge has rejected the applications of the petitioners filed under Section 227 of the Cr.PC.

2. On the basis of the written complaint of one Anjan Kumar Medhi, the Mal Police Station registered a case being FIR No. 655 of 2014 dated 22nd November, 2014 under Section 302/34 of the IPC, against seven persons and many more 200/250 workers. After registration of the case, the police has started investigation and during investigation, several persons have been arrested and on completion of the investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC, against 13 accused persons out of which three accused persons have been shown as absconded accused.

3. After submission of the charge-sheet, some of the accused persons have filed an application for bail before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court being CRM No. 4352 of 2015. By an order dated 30th June, 2015, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the investigation has not done properly and enough clues are already available in the case diary. The Hon’ble Court has directed to change the Investigating Officer and to appoint a proper and competent person to investigate into the matter and rejected the bail application.

4. As per the order of the Hon’ble Court, another Investigating Officer was appointed and has started further investigation into the matter. On completion of further investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet is filed against further five accused persons including the petitioners for the offence under Section 302/120B of the IPC. The petitioners have obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.

5. The petitioners have filed applications under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mal, Jalpaiguri but the said applications were dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 21st August, 2023 and now the petitioners have filed the present application.

6. Mr. Sanjay Banerjee, Learned Advocate representing the petitioners submits that there is no materials against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 302/120B of the IPC. He submits that neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses describes the name of the petitioners connected with the alleged offence is available.

7. Mr. Banerjee submits that there is no materials are available on record to show that there was any meeting of mind between the persons named in the first charge sheet and the petitioners.

8. Mr. Banerjee submits that to attract the ingredients of the Section 120B of the IPC, the prosecution has to show that there was an agreement or meeting of mind between the conspirators. He submits that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners were present at the place of occurrence on the date of alleged incident.

9. Mr. Banerjee submitted that it was the specific case of the prosecution since inception that due to non-payment to the labours, the labourers have agitated and dragged the deceased and beat him to death on the spot and there is no evidence to say that the petitioners have any agreement with the said labourers who alleged to have caused death of the deceased.

10. Mr. Banerjee submits that the police has submitted supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioners by incorporating Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, only on the basis of the statement of the wife of the deceased under Section 164 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein