2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ajay Digpaul, J
Mahanand Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
CRL.A. 1521/2025|CRL.A. 1578/2025|CRL.A. 1590/2025|CRL.A. 1591/2025|CRL.A. 1561/2025

The court held that an accused's failure to testify as a defense witness cannot support adverse inferences. Additionally, prosecution for criminal conspiracy does not require prior sanction when the object offenses carry a penalty of imprisonment exceeding two years, upholding the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 430; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 389 - Suspension of sentence pending appeal - Criteria - Requirement of recording reasons in writing for suspension; discretionary relief requires careful consideration of relevant aspects rather than treating it as a matter of routine. (Paras 4, 33-36)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 196(2) - Sanction for prosecution - Criminal conspiracy - Applicability of sanction for conspiracy to commit offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years - The requirement of prior consent under Section 196(2) is not attracted where the object of the conspiracy involves offences carrying punishment of more than two years. (Paras 34, 35)

(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 315 - Right of accused to be a competent witness - Failure to depose - Adverse inference - Explicit statutory prohibition against court commenting upon the failure of an accused to testify or drawing any presumption against them - Right against self-incrimination preserved. (Paras 71-74)

(D) Criminal Conspiracy - Nature of offence - Secretive execution - Differential entry of participants - Combination to pursue unlawful object requires proof of agreement, but individual participation in every act is not a prerequisite for successful prosecution. (Para 91)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted by the trial court for criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery concerning the fraudulent revival and mismanagement of a cooperative housing society. Following their conviction and sentencing, they filed applications seeking suspension of execution of their sentences during the pendency of their respective appeals, challenging several jurisdictional and evidentiary findings of the trial court.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the jurisdictional objection regarding the lack of prior sanction for conspiracy charges was without merit as the alleged offences carried sentences exceeding two years. The Court further clarified that the silence of an accused during trial cannot be utilized to draw adverse inferences or establish guilt, as the right to testify or remain silent is protected. Observing that the legal issues raised necessitated a detailed re-evaluation of evidence during the final appeal, the Court deemed it appropriate to suspend the sentences.

Issues: Whether prior sanction is required for prosecuting criminal conspiracy charges under the Code; whether the failure of an accused to testify as a defense witness warrants an adverse presumption; and the scope for suspending sentences pending appeal in complex conspiracy matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement for prior sanction under Section 196(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable when the object offenses carry a penalty of imprisonment exceeding two years. Furthermore, the court held that the statutory right of an accused to provide defense testimony is a shield, and no adverse inference can be drawn from an accused's failure to enter the witness box.

Result: Applications for suspension of sentence allowed, subject to conditions.