PARVEEN @ SONU versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 07-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 643
643
PARVEEN @ SONU
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No.1571 of 2021)
DECEMBER 07, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w s.120-B –
Case of prosecution that police party was escorting four accused
to be produced before the Court – Appellant, a party to another
accused group, conspired together to rescue them – One of the
accused was alleged to have fired upon Head Constable who later
succumbed to fire arm injuries – Accused persons convicted and
sentenced – On appeal only by appellant, held: To prove the charge
of conspiracy, within the ambit of s.120-B, it is necessary to establish
that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an
unlawful act – In the present case, except the vague and bald
statement that the appellant is a member of alleged conspiracy, there
is no other evidence to prove that the appellant conspired with other
accused for the offences for which he was charged – Alleged
confessional statements of the co-accused in absence of any other
corroborative evidence, not safe to maintain the conviction and
sentence of the appellant – Conviction recorded and sentence
imposed on the appellant by Trial court and confirmed by High
Court, set aside – Acquitted – Arms Act – s.25.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. PW-20 (Constable who is the eye-witness) has
not referred the name of the appellant/accused in his deposition.
The Trial Court has passed the conviction of the appellant, mainly
relying on the medical reports and depositions of PW-20, PW-22
(Constable who corroborated the Statement of PW-20) and PW-
23(Sub-Inspector who deposed that he recorded the statement
of PW-20). Even according to the case of the prosecution, only
four accused entered the train and one of them who was identified
as Vinod, had thrown chilly powder in their eyes and other accused
Amarjit had fired a shot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is
also clear from the cross-examination of PW-20 that there were
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
about 50–60 passengers in the compartment, but no one was
examined. Even PW-22, disclosed the names of Vinod and Amarjit
Singh only. Except the vague and bald statement that the appellant
herein is a member of alleged conspiracy, there is no other
acceptable evidence on record to prove conspiracy. For the
reasons not known, in a case of this nature, the investigating
agency has not conducted TIP (Test Identification Parade). It is
also brought to Court’s notice that the appellant was prosecuted
for snatching away the Bolero car in Criminal Case No.535 of
2009 in the Court of HCS, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhiwani,
he was acquitted of the charge for offences under Sections 392,
216 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said judgment
has become final. To prove the charge of conspiracy, within the
ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there
was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act.
At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish
conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in
absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the
conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act,
it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section
120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which
prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting
the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.
Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in
absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe
to convict the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove its case,
that the appellant conspired with other accused for the offences
for which he was charged. Except the alleged confessional
statements of the co- accused and in absence of any other
corroborative evidence, it is not safe to maintain the conviction
and sentence imposed upon the Appellant. The findings recorded
by the Trial Court in convicting the appellant mainly on the ground
that he was one of the conspirators for the crime in question, is
erroneous and illegal. The High Court has not considered the
evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
Conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant is
set aside and he is acquitted of the charges le

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