RAM SHARAN CHATURVEDI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 25-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 1
1
RAM SHARAN CHATURVEDI
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1066 of 2010)
AUGUST 25, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI
NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 201, 380, 435, 457 and 477 rw s. 120B
– Theft of cash from the Bank – Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution
of three employees of the Bank, for offences of theft of Rs. Six
Lakhs from the safe and strong room of the Bank, house-trespass,
destruction of valuable security, and other offences – Main accused
persons A1 and A2 convicted and sentenced concurrently on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence, as per which the money
is proved to have been recovered from their possession – Appellant,
head cashier in the custody of one of the keys of the dual locker
system maintained by the Bank, convicted and sentenced for the
very same offences only with the aid of s. 120B – Trial court
convicted and sentenced the appellant u/ss. 201, 380, 435, 457
and 477 rw s. 120B – High Court confirmed the conviction, however
reduced the sentence u/s. 201 – On appeal, held: There is neither
any overt act attributable to the appellant, nor any recovery of
stolen property from him – Failure of the prosecution to produce
any evidence whatsoever to satisfy the Court that there was a prior
meeting of minds between the appellant and A-1 and A-2 which is
quintessential for a charge u/s. 120-B – No physical manifestation
of such a concurrence extractable from surrounding circumstances,
declarations, or the conduct of the appellant – Also, the Court has
cautioned against replacing mere suspicion with the legal
requirement of proof of agreement – Furthermore, the prosecution
failed to establish the circumstances in which the appellant, being
the custodian of only one set of the keys for the dual lock system
functional in the Bank, could alone be made responsible for
providing access to the strong room and the safe in the Bank –
Thus, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, even by
inference through circumstantial evidence, the appellant entitled to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
be acquitted of the charge of criminal conspiracy – Order by the
courts below, quashed and set aside.
State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and Anr. (2000) 8 SCC
203 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 409; State (NCT of Delhi) v.
Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 : [2005] 2 Suppl.
SCR 79; Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of
Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156 : [1997] 1 Suppl. SCR 96;
Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641 : [2003]
1 SCR 119 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 409
referred to
Para 22
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79
referred to
Para 23
[1997] 1 Suppl. SCR 96
referred to
Para 24
[2003] 1 SCR 119
referred to
Para 25
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1066 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2008 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.
213 of 2006.
Ms. S. Janani, Adv. for the Appellant.
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Prithiviraj Singh, Mirza Kayesh Begg,
Prakhar Srivastav, Astik Gupta, Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. This appeal by accused no. 31, challenges the judgment of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2006
confirming the conviction of the Appellant imposed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Guna for offences under Sections 201, 380, 435, 457
and 477 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
High Court also confirmed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
four years along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Sections 380, 435, 457 of
1 hereinafter referred to as Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
the IPC and rigorous imprisonment of two years along with a fine of
Rs. 500 under Section 201 IPC. However, the sentence under Section
477 IPC was reduced by the High Court from rigorous imprisonment for
six years to four years.
2.1 Three accused, employees of Guna Branch of Central Bank
of India, were prosecuted for the above-referred offences of theft (of
Rs. Six Lakhs from the safe and strong room of the Bank), house-trespass,
destruction of valuable security, and other offences. While the main
accused, Pradeep Saxena (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1’) and Vinod
(hereinafter referred to as ‘A-2’), were convicted and sentenced
concurrently given the oral and documentary evidence, as per which the
money is proved to have been recovered 

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