LexGULAM SARBAR versus STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 1 GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) (Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2012 etc.) OCTOBER 7, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B s.302 rlw s.120-8 - Murder committed with criminal C conspiracy - conviction and sentence of life imprisonment - Upheld by High Court - Held: The manner in which the crime was committed indicates that it was a pre-planned murder -- There was no material contradiction, embellishment or improvement in the deposition of eye-witness -- High Court 0 reappreciated the evidence and upheld the findings of fact · recorded by trial court obseNing that ocular evidence was in conformity with medical evidence and it was a clear case of conspiracy - In the facts and circumstances of the case, findings recorded by courts below do not warrant interference. E s. 120-B - Criminal r;onspiracy - Ingredients of - Explained. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 134 - Number of witnesses - Held: In the matter of F appreciation of evidence, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement under law of evidence that particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact - Conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eye- G witness -- The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy. 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A Evidence: Arrest -- Recovery of vehicles used in crime - Witness of arrest memo and panch witness of recovery of vehicles not examined - Held: In the absence of putting such an issue to 8 Investigating Officer, appellants cannot seek any benefit of such omission or error by prosecution in conducting of trial - - If prosecution had not examined Panchnama witnes.ses and witnesses to the arrest memos, appellants could have examined them in their defence. C The appellants and other accused persons were prosecuted for committing murder with criminal conspiracy. The prosecution case was that at about 8.00 P.M. on 6.9.1996, when the informant/complainant (PW- 7) was going with the deceased on a motorcycle, six D persons including the appellants stopped them and appellant 'D' and accused •y• pointing their pistols towards deceased asked him as to why he was disturbing the working of the institute of accused 'BK'. During altercation accused 'A' stabbed the deceased and E told his companions to complete the task for which they had come. Accused 'Y' shot at the deceased at point blank range causing his death. The trial court convicted both the appellants alongwith other accused persons u/ s 302 read with s.120-B IPC and sentenced them to F imprisonment for life. The High Court dismissed their appeals. In the instant appeals, it was contended for the appellants that there was nothing on record to prove existence of conspiracy to kill the deceased and none of G the appellants were involved in the affairs of the institute for which there was dispute between the deceased and accused 'BK'; and that neither the witnesses of memo of arrest of the appellants nor the punch witnesses of recovery of the motorcycle and scooter were examined. H GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW 3 JHARKHAND) Dismissing the appeals, the Court A HELD: 1.1 The essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy are (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not 8 illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. What is, therefore, necessary is to show meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. Mere knowledge or discussion or generation of a crime in the mind of the accused, is not sufficient to constitute an offence. The gist C of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, ot effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them between the parties. Agreement is essential. The offence takes place with the meeting of minds even if nothing further is done. It is an D offence independent of other offences and punishable separately. Thus, the prosecution is required to establish the offence by applying the same legal principles which are otherwise applicable for the purpose of proving criminal misconduct on the part of an accused. Criminal E conspiracy is g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.