LexBALDEV SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 855 ·4 BALDEV SINGH A v. STATE OF PUNJAB ,,, Criminal Appeal No. 553 of 2008 MAY 6, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : • s. 30211208 - Conviction under, of conspirator by courts w .· b~low-:- However, one main accused convicted u/s. 302 and c otheru/s. 302134 along with s.450 and also under Arms Act - Conviction of conspirator, challenged to - Held: Conspirator afOne could not have f)een convicted uls. 30211208,_ when · main accused were not convicted uls.1208 ..., Main accused made confession before prosecution witness ..., Evidence of D prosecution witness was not reliable, thus, could not have _, formed basis of recording conviction against conspirator - Conspirator could not be convicted on basis of purported extra judicial confession by itself- Hence, order of High Court not sustainable and set aside - Evidence. s. 1208 - Conspiracy - Essw1tia/ ingredients of offence E - Stated.· .. Evidence - Extra judicial confession - Reliability of - .. Held.' Evidence of extra judicial confession is generally of a ~ weak nature - To base conviction thereupon, it is to be F corroborated in material particulars - Extra judicial confession must be found to be reliable. The question which arose for consideration in this · .. ·appeal was whether the courts below were justified in G convicting appellant-conspirator for commission of offence uls 302/1208 IPC and sentencing him to under ~- rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50001-. Allowing the appeal, the Court 855 H 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1 An offence of conspiracy which is a separate and distinct offence, thus, would require involvement of more than one person. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately; its ingredients being: agreement between two or more persons B and agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either an illegal act; an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. A conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not C may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. While however doing so, it must be borne in mind that meeting of the mind is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be. [Para 9] [866-D-F] 2.1 The incident took place on 17 .2.2001. Appellant D had left India for Vancouver (Canada), a day prior to the date of incident. He came back to India in August 2004 when he was arrested. The main accused, namely, AS and HS however, were tried separately. HS was found guilty u/s.302 IPC and AS was found guilty u/s.302/34 IPC. They E were also found guilty u/s 450 IPC. Whereas HS was also found guilty u/s. 27 of the Arms Act, AS was found guilty u/s. 25 thereof. [Para 6] [864-C-D] 2.2 AS and HS were not charged for commission of offence u/s. 120BIPC. Both the courts below passed the F judgment of conviction and sentence as against the appellant relying on the evidence of LK-PW-26, who was a taxi driver and is said to have overheard the conversation amongst the accused in regard to hatching of a purported conspiracy as also on the basis of an extra judicial G confession purported to have been made by AS before SS- P.W.22. It is admitted that apart from the said two pieces of evidence, no other evidence was brought on record against the appellant. More so, evidence of PW-26 does not inspire confidence. [Paras 6 and 8] [864-E-G; 865-G] H BALDEV SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB 857 2.3 Neither AS nor HS were charged for commission A of offence punishable u/s.1208. Therefore, appellant alone could' not have been convicted u/s.302/1208 IPC. A purported extra judicial confession was made by AS before SS-PW.22. The distance between the village where AS was residing and that of the SS was said to be 100 B kms. He allegedly visited SS on 18.2.2001 at about 9.00 a.m. For no apparent reason, he had disclosed that he • along with HS had committed the murder of PS. No details • thereof had been furnished. A purported disclosure was , also made that the murder was committed at the instance of the appellant. He was asked to come on the next day. He c neither visited him thereafter nor was he produced before the police by PW.22. There is nothing on record to show that such a purported extra judicial confession by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.