Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 1041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Angel Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Crl Rev P No. 98 of 2021
Decided On : 20-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
Joginder Tuli, Advocate, Tarang Srivastava, Advocate, Sudhir Gautam, Advocate

In a case of conspiracy, the agreement between the parties is essential, and no overt act is required to be a part of the conspiracy.

Headnote:
Conspiracy - Framing of Charge - IPC 302/120-B - R Venkatakrishnan Vs. CBI, (2010) AIR SC 1812; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, (2019) AIR SC 3363; State NCT of Delhi Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors, MANU/DE/0747/2009
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges the order framing charge against them for an offence punishable under Section 302/120-B IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy to murder Sunita, the wife of Manjeet Sehrawat.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was sufficient material with the prosecution to show the petitioner's involvement in the offence. The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order framing charge against the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was enough evidence to show the petitioner's involvement in the conspiracy to murder Sunita.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a case of conspiracy, the agreement between the parties is essential, and no overt act is required to be a part of the conspiracy. The court also noted that conspiracies are mostly hatched in secrecy, and inferences have to be drawn from the chain of circumstances.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the order framing charge for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B/302 IPC against the petitioner was upheld.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. - The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 7th December, 2019 whereby order directing framing charge was passed against the petitioner and a charge for offence punishable under Section 302/120-B IPC was framed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery whatsoever has been made from the petitioner. Co-accused has not stated even in the disclosure statement that the petitioner ever gave money to them for commission of the crime. Petitioner at no point of time was physically involved with the alleged offence. Petitioner would not be in the knowledge as to what the other accused would be planning and no conversation whatsoever between the petitioner and Manjeet was recorded by the prosecution.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the allegations of the prosecution are only of motive which is not sufficient to frame a charge for conspiracy of the murder. It is further stated that even if the petitioner had knowledge of the offence to be committed, unless petitioner participates therein or commits any overt act, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the offence committed. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as R Venkatakrishnan Vs. CBI, (2010) AIR SC 1812; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, (2019) AIR SC 3363. and of this Court reported as State NCT of Delhi Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors,MANU/DE/0747/2009. Thus, the arguments on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a case of no evidence except the evidence of motive against the petitioner, therefore the petitioner be discharged and the impugned order be set aside.

4. In response to the present petition status report has been filed enlisting sequence of events and the evidence collected during the course of investigation in the murder of one Smt. Sunita, W/o Manjeet Sehrawat. According to the status report on 29th October, 2018 an information was received at PS Bawana informing of "a lady on scooty having been shot" recorded vide DD No. 06A. On reaching the spot i.e. Bawana-Auchandi Road in front of Dayal Vermi Compost an Activa Scooty No. DL-SP-7044, two bags with one halmet, a pair of lady shoes, blood and an empty cartridge were found lying. On enquiry it was revealed that injured had been shifted to the M.V. Hospital by public persons. On reaching the hospital, Sunita, W/o Manjeet, R/o Dada Bhaiya Wali Gali, aged 41 years was found admitted with the history of gunshot and was declared brought dead. As no eye witness was found at the spot or in the hospital, FIR was registered on the DD entry.

5. During the course of investigation, husband and family members of her matrimonial home, who reached the hospital were sought to be examined but they did not give any statement. Information of the death of Sunita was given to the brothers of the deceased who gave their statements, according to which husband of the deceased Manjeet Sehrawat was having illicit relationship with the present petitioner Angel Gupta, d/o Rajiv Gupta and thus they raised suspicion for the death of Sunita on Manjeet Sehrawat, husband of the deceased, Angel Gupta and her family members.

6. Brother of the deceased produced an e-mail forwarded by the deceased to him, which was written by the present petitioner to the husband of the deceased Manjeet Sehrawat on 26.09.2016 along with the photographs attached therewith, which showed close relationship between Angel Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat wherein she referred to Manjeet as "Log Ji" which word is used for husband in Haryanvi. Further, Angel Gupta had started writing Sehrawat as her surname i.e. the surname of Manjeet.

7. Diary of the deceased was produced by her daughter Dakshita wherein deceased had expressed her apprehension regarding an untoward incident, which might be caused to her or to her children. On page 23, written on 19th October, 2016 deceased had noted th