CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus AKHILESH SINGH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 08-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTI.GA TION 
v. 
AKHILESH SINGH 
DECEMBER 8, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMA~AN, JJ.] • 
•I 
Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B rlw Ss. 302 and 109/Code of Criminal 
. 
Procedure, 1973; Section 482 : 
Murder-Conspiracy-Acquittal of main accused-_Quashing of 
proceeding against co-accused/accomplice by High Court belatedly-
Correctness of-Held : Co-accused/respondent implicated only on the basis 
of alleged conspiracy-Conspiracy not proved-The mater attained finality 
only after dismissal of the against the disch;rge of the main accused by 
D the Supreme •. Court-Application under 482 Cr.P.C. filed thereafter along 
with an application Jo~ condonation of delay-Under these circumstances, 
High Court rightly exercised' its power in condoning the delay and also 
<fUashing the proceedings against the respondent/co-accused-Evidence Act, 
1872-Section JO. 
E 
F 
Respondent was one of the accused in a murder case registered 
against him and other accused persons Section 1208 r/w Section 302 and 
Section 109 IPC. The respondent allegedly entered into a conspiracy 
with main accused and other accused persons to cause the murder of 
one Syed Modi, a badminton player. It was alleged that the wife of the 
deceased had developed intimacy with the main accused, a politician, 
which was objected by her brsband, the deceased. There were fr-:quent 
quarrels 'between the deceased and his wife. The main accused came to 
know about these developments. He decided to eliminate the deceased 
and i~ furtherance of his object he allegedly took assistance of the 
G rest><>'ndent and other three co-accused and hatched ?.conspiracy, and 
on the fateful day the deceased was shot dead by the three co-accused 
persons. Respondent and other three co-accused were arrested and 
charge-sheeted. Though wife of the deceased and the main accused were 
also implicated as accused but bot~ of.them were discharged by the 
H Court of Sessions. Appeal against the discharge was dismissed by the 
780 
C.B.I. v. AKHILESH SINGH 
781 
High Court and Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court. At A 
that stage respondent filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 
along with an application for condonation of delay, which was allowed 
by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that the High Court was not right B 
in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after lapse of 
considerable period of time. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The original accused and wife of the deceased were 
implicated as accused, but both of them were discharged by an order 
passed by the Session Judge and that order of discharge was challenged 
c 
by the State before the High Court unsuccessfully. A Special Leave 
Petition also was also filed before this Court and that too ended in 
dismissal. Therefore the very basis of the alleged conspiracy by the D 
respondent with the main accused lost its substratum. {784-C} 
1.2. The respondent was not present at the place of the incident. 
He was implicated in the case on the basis of the alleged conspiracy 
between himself and the original accused. There is no other material E 
placed before this Court to prove the complicity of the respondent. 
There was no direct evidence to show that the he had supplied the 
weapons and rendered assistance to the assailants in carrying out the 
common object of killing the deceased. Had the conspiracy charge been 
established, at least some of the acts and conduct of the respondent could 
have been made admissible under the provisions of Section 10 of the 
Evidence Act. Once the main accused, who is alleged to have hatched 
F 
the conspiracy and who had the motive to kill the deceased was 
discharged, and when that matter had attained fitmltth dlt lfllll Onii't 
was fully justified in holding that no purpose would be served in further 
proceeding with the case against the respondent. [784-D, E, F) 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 727 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and· Order dated 19.8.96 of the Allahabad High H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Court in CTI.Misc. Case No. 37 of 1995. 
Rajiv Dutta, A.D.N. Rao, Mrs. Aruna Mathur, A Mariarputham and 
P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellant. 
B 
Ram Jethmalani, Ashok Bhan, Sathin Pillania and Ms. Sandhya Goswami 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. : This is an appe

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