The ruling emphasizes the necessity of concrete evidence in establishing criminal conspiracy under IPC Section 120B and the relevance of motive in proving such charges.

O R D E R

The impugned judgment in both the revision petitions is one and the same, i.e., dated 13.7.2009 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2009 of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam which was filed challenging the judgment dated 31.12.2008 in C.C.No.513 of 1995 of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Though the prayers in these two Criminal Revision Petitions are different, as the same are arising out of the same judgment and the question of facts and law are identical, both the cases are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. Crl.R.P.No.2924 of 2009 is preferred by accused Nos.2 and 3, who are appellant Nos. 2 and 3 in the appellate court. Crl.R.P.No.3906 of 2009 is preferred by one Nalini Madhavan who is the wife of the deceased de facto complainant (CW1) challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 7 and challenging the sentence imposed against accused Nos.2 and 3, since, according to her, the same is inadequate.

3. The present revision petitions are arising out of the above appellate court judgment, which arose out of judgment dated :-2-:

31.12.2008 in C.C.No.513 of 1995 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. In the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, though altogether 12 accused have faced the trial for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 323 ,342,357,427,465 and 201 I.P.C. and , 342,357,427,465 and 201 I.P.C. and accused Nos.4 to 6 and 8 to 12 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Accused Nos.1,2,3 and 7 were also acquitted with respect to the offences under Sections 465 and 201 of I.P.C. Thus, the trial court has found that accused Nos.1,2,3 and 7 are guilty of the offences under Sections 120B , 323,342,357 and 427 I.P.C. On such conviction, accused Nos.1,2,3 and 7 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence under , three months simple imprisonment each for the offences under , 342 and 357 of I.P.C., and six months for the offence under Section 427 I.P.C.. It was also ordered that the period of imprisonment should run concurrently. The trial court, after quantifying the damages, directed accused Nos.1,2,3 and 7 to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the legal heirs of CW1 under Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C., in default to undergo simple :-3-:

imprisonment for a further period of one month.

4. It is the above conviction and sentence of accused Nos.1,2,3 and 7, challenged in Crl.A.No.47 of 2009 before the appellate court. No appeal is preferred against the acquittal of accused Nos.4 to 6 and 8 to 12 and also against the acquittal of accused Nos.1,2,3 and 7 for the offence under Sections 465 and 201 I.P.C. either by the prosecution agency or any of the charge witnesses or revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.3906 of 2009, wife of CW1.

5. Thus, while disposing the appeal preferred by the accused by the impugned judgment, the lower appellate court acquitted accused Nos.1 and 7 of all the charges for which they are found guilty by the trial court and partly allowed the appeal preferred by accused Nos.2 and 3, by setting aside their conviction and sentence under Sections 120B , 323 and 357 of I.P.C., but confirming their conviction under Sections 342 and 427 I.P.C. and in modification of the sentence ordered by the trial court, the lower appellate court directed them to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the court under and 427 of I.P.C. and each of them is ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- being the compensation under Section :-4-:

357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. It was also ordered that on realisation of the amount, the same should be paid to the wife of CW1. Thus, in Crl.R.P.No.2924/2009, accused Nos.2 and 3 are challenging their conviction and sentence under Sections

342 and 427 I.P.C. and the order to pay compensation.

6. In this juncture, it is also relevant to note that against th