IMPORTANT POINT
The essence of criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act, which must be established by sufficient evidence; mere allegations are inadequate for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. Here is the appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case nos. 154 of 2004 and 245 of 2005, acquitting the respondents-original accused nos. 1 to 6, 8, 10 to 13 and 14 from the offences under Sections 394/397 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (old) (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 25(1B) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (‘B.P. Act’ in short), the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short).

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file this appeal are that, respondents accused were tried for the offence of robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. The original accused nos. 7 and 9 hit witness Bharatbhai PW-1 on his head with iron rod and witness Pravanbhai PW-3 with country-made pistol caused grievous hurt and took away the bag filled with the diamonds, whereby they tried to cause death of the witnesses and committed an offence of robbery with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. In these background facts, it is the case of the prosecution that on 07.10.2003, the act of robbery was executed at the place near Varachha Umiya Temple. The complainant PW-1 was in business of Rough Diamonds at Surat and was used to purchase it from one Jagdishbhai. The accused no. 1, in connivance with the co-accused, have had hatched criminal conspiracy with a common object to rob the huge quantity of diamonds from the employee of the complainant PW-1. They made racky before the execution of the plan. They hired the persons from Uttar Pradesh viz. accused nos. 7 and 9. They imported the arms from the Uttar Pradesh. On the day of execution of the offence, accused no. 7 armed with countrymade pistol along with other were kept vigil and waited at the place of the offence and accused no. 9 armed with iron rod was also accompanied to the accused no. 7. On the day of incident as per the plan, when PW-2 Bharatbhai Sambhubhai and PW-3 Pranav Deepakbhai, while they were passing the road, on their bike, accused nos. 7 and 9 hit the PW-2 Bharatbhai with an iron rod and accused no. 7 Amarsingh sought Pravanbhai PW-3 with country-made pistol and took away the diamonds filled bag. In the circumstances, the complainant PW-1 lodged an FIR for the alleged offence of robbery with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. The Surat Police, during the course of investigation, learnt that the accused no. 1 in connivance with the accused nos. 4, 5 and 6, made a plan to loot the rough diamonds of the complainant and in order to execute the act of robbery, they contacted accused nos. 7, 8, 9 and others, who belong to State Uttar Pradesh and after knowing the rout of transportation of diamonds to be carried by the employee PW-1, executed a plan of robbery on 07.10.2003, in the manner, as narrated above. The police arrested the 14 persons, who were either actively participated in the offence or aided the co-accused in the commission of the offence. The police had recovered the case as well as the rough diamonds from the accused. During the test identification parade, accused nos. 7 and 9 were identified by PWs. 2 and 3.

4. At the end of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against accused nos. 1 to 13 which had culminated into Sessions Case No. 154 of 2004 and thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was being filed against accused no. 14 which was registered as Sessions Case No. 245 of 2005.

5. On the basis of material on record, the charge was framed against the respondents to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried by the trial Court, accordingly.

6. In order to prove the case against the respondent, prosecution has examined 116 witnesses and exhibited 52 documents in support of