The essence of conspiracy lies in the agreement between parties rather than overt acts; circumstantial evidence can suffice in establishing involvement in the crime.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 120-B - Charge of conspiracy to commit murder framed against the petitioner despite no direct evidence linking her to the act. The petitioner argued absence of overt acts, relying on precedents to establish lack of sufficient evidence. (Paras 3, 15, 17)

(B) Conspiracy - Essential elements include agreement among parties rather than commission of the act itself; circumstantial evidence necessary in cases of conspiracy where direct evidence is lacking. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a charge framed for murder conspiracy following the death of Sunita, with allegations based on motive and circumstantial evidence linking the petitioner to the crime. (Paras 1, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence suffices to show the petitioner's coordination with co-conspirators in the murder plan, justifying the charge framing. (Paras 17, 18)

Issues: The issues pertained to whether sufficient evidence existed for the charge and the nature of conspiratorial agreements among the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the essential nature of conspiracy hinges on the agreement of intent to commit a crime, rather than the execution of the crime itself. (Paras 16, 18)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge on framing charge under ipc (Para 1)
2. arguments against evidentiary basis for charge (Para 2 , 3)
3. factual background of the case and evidence gathered (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. interpretation of conspiracy law (Para 15 , 16)
5. court's reasoning on charge confirmation (Para 17 , 18)
6. final dismissal of the petition (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

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 AIR 2010 SC 1812, R. Venkatakrishnan Vs. CBI; AIR 2019 SC 3363, Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. and of this Court reported as MANU/DE/0747/2009, State NCT of Delhi Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors. 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 "Lo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document