K.R. PURUSHOTHAMAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 25-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
K.R. PURUSHOTHAMAN 
v. 
STA TE OF KERALA 
OCTOBER 25, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-A, 409 and 477A-Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 13(J)(c) and (d) r!w Section 13(2)-
C Prosecution under-Of 4 accused-Acquittal of 2 and conviction of 2 
accused-Death of one of the convicted accused during proceedings-Charge 
of misappropriation of gold used for making ornament of temple-Gold 
proved to be in exclusive custody of convicted deceased accused-Purity of 
gold used not tested-Conviction of appellant-accused by High Court on the 
ground of conspiracy with the deceased accused-On appeal, held: 
D Conspiracy by the accused not proved in the facts of the case-Hence he 
cannot be held responsible for the act done by deceased accused-Conviction 
under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act not justified as it is not 
proved that the accused was entrusted or under control of the property or 
he had obtained the same for himself or for any other person. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'Conspiracy '-Meaning of in the context of Section 120-B Penal Code, 
1860. 
Appellant-accused No.2 alongwith 3 other accused w.ere tried for 
F offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13(2) of 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 409, 477-A and 120-
B IPC for having misappropriated the gold utilized for making Golaka 
(Ornament) for Mekkavu Bhagwathy of Chettanikkara Temple. 
Prosecution case was that A-3, the officer of the Board which 
G administered the Temple, was entrusted the gold for preparation of the Golaka. 
The purity of the gold taken from the Gold Bond was tested while the purity 
of the gold taken from Nadavaravu (offerings) in the form of ornaments and 
coins, was not tested. Entire gold was kept in the exclusive custody of A-3. 
Appellant-A-2 was only overall in-charge of the work. There was shortage of 
II 
498 
K.R. PURUSHOTHAMAN v. STATE OF KERALA 
499 
gold in the gold bar prepared before A-2 joined and the same was detected A 
after A-2 joined. Immediately after it was noticed that the gold was impure 
and it could not be converted into sheets, A-2 sent the report to the Board 
administering the Temple and sought permission to take the gold to another 
place. A-1 after making certain inquires about the loss of gold during the 
process of making the Golaka, felt that wastage of 332 gm. Gold was quite B 
reasonable and accordingly sent a report to the Board which was approved 
and accepted by the Board. Later Local Fund Audit after auditing accounts of 
the Board, in its first report stated that the wastage of 332 gms. was 
unreasonable and in its second report held the accused responsible for the 
loss. 
Trial Court acquitted A-1 and A-4 the Commissioner and maker of the 
Golaka respectively and convicted A-2 and A-3, the appellant and officer of 
the Board respectively. A-3 died during the proceedings. In appeal, High Court 
found A-2 guilty only on the basis that he had conspired with A-3 dishonestly 
or fraudulently to misappropriate the pure gold. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
D 
HELD: I. I To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more 
persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and 
primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know 
each and every detail of conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that every one of E 
the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every 
conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred 
by necessary implications. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are 
usually from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused 
involved in the conspiracy. 1506-C, DI 
1.2. While appreciating the evidence of the conspiracy, it is incumbent 
F 
on the Court to keep in mind the well-known rule governing circumstantial 
evidence viz., each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly 
established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved must form a 
chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of G 
the accused can be safely drawn, and no other hypothesis against the guilt is 
po~sible. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in Penal Code. The 
unlawful agreement is sine quo non for constituting offence under Penal Code 
and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment 
bet

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