BALIYA@ BAL KISHAN versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 1154 · Decided: 05-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012] 8 S.C.R. 1154 
BALIYA@ BAL KISHAN 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2001 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 5, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
ss. 302 and 120-8 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence 
- Held: In the absence of credible ocular evidence, the 
prosecution in order to succeed has to establish 
circumstance'S adverse to the accused from which an 
inference to guilt can reasonably follow - In the instant case, 
0 
one of the two eye-witnesses has been declared hostile and 
the evidence of the other has not been found credible -
Prosecution has not been able to prove the ingredients of 
'criminal conspiracy' -Further, there is serious discrepancy 
in the statements of prosecution witnesses about the 
deceased last seen in the company of accused - Therefore, 
E 
conviction of the accused not being sustainable, they are 
acquitted - Circumstantial evidence. 
ss. 120-A -
'Criminal conspiracy' - Ingredients -
Explained - Held: In the instant case, though it has been 
F established that one of the accused asked the other two to do 
away with the deceased, but what is conspicuous by its 
absence is the essential meeting of minds amongst the 
accused. to commit the murder of the deceased - There is 
no evidence to show as to what was the response of the latter 
G 
two accused to the statement made by the former to the effect 
that the author of the pamphlet must be done away with -
In 
the absence of any material to establish the said fact, the vital 
chain or link with regard to an agreement or meeting of minds 
H 
1154 
BALIYA@ BAl KISHAN v. STATE OF M.P. 
1155 
amongst the accused to commit the murder of the deceased 
A 
is lacking. 
A Head Constable of Police (PW 7) found one 'P' lying 
injured by the road side. He took him to the hospital 
where he was declared dead. The investigation led to the 
B 
arrest of four persons, namely, accused-appellants 'B' 
and 'G', accused 'M'(died during trial) and accused 'Chh'. 
The prosecution case was that on the day of occurrence, 
in the afternoon, one Dr. 'SS' complained to accused 'B' 
that a pamphlet indicating her relationship with him and 
C 
casting doubt on her character was circulated. 'B' was 
stated to have told her that he knew as to who authored/ 
published the pamphlet, and asked accused 'G' and 'M' 
that 'P' should be killed. Thereafter in the evening 'P' was 
found by PW7 lying injured. The trial court convicted 
accused-appellants 'B' and 'G' of the offences charged. 
D 
Accused 'Chh' was acquitted. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1. In the absence of any credible ocular 
E 
evidence, the prosecution in order to succeed has to 
establish circumstances adverse to the accused from 
which an inference of guilt can reasonably follow. In the 
instant case, though two alleged eye-witnesses were 
examined by the prosecution, not much reliance can be 
placed on the testimony of either~ PW 3, had been 
declared hostile whereas the evidence of PW 4, suffers 
from material discrepancies if read with the evidence of 
PWs 1 and 5, particularly, in respect of the role of 
accused, 'B'. While PWs 1 and 5 did not mention about 
the presence of accused 'B' at the place of occurrence, 
G 
PW 4 had identified the said accused in court as one of 
the assailants. The said witness, however, could not 
identify any of the accused while they were in police 
custody. In such circumstances, it will not be safe and 
F 
H 
1156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 8 S.C.R. 
A prudent to place any reliance on the evidence of PW 4. 
[Para 9-10] [1162-H; 1163-A-C] 
1.2. A scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, would 
show that in so far as the charge of criminal conspiracy 
B is concerned, the prosecution has sought to establish 
that a pamphlet authored I published by the deceased 
was in circulation casting doubt on the character of Dr. 
'SS' and her relationship with accused '8'. The said 
pamphlet though seized in the course of investigation 
C was not exhibited in the trial. [Para 10] [1163-D-E] 
1.3. The offence of "criminal conspiracy" is defined 
ins. 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereas s.1208 
thereof provides for punishment for the said offence. The 
foundation of the offence of criminal conspiracy is an 
D agreement between two or more persons to cooperate 
for the accomplishment I performance of an illegal act or 
an act which is not illegal by itself, through illegal means. 
Such agreement or meeting of minds creates the offenc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.