SANICHAR SAHNI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 26-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 112 
...
A 
SANICHAR SAHNI 
• 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 772 of 2008) 
MAY 26, 2009 
B 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
-> 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s. 120-B - Punishment for criminal conspiracy- Charges 
u/s 120-B only framed against one accused - Other co-
accused charged with s. 302134 but not uls 120-B - Accused 
and co-accused convicted and sentenced by courts below of 
D 
the respective charges - Plea by accused before Supreme 
... 
Court that in the absence of charge against other co-accused 
uls 120-B, he alone could not have been convicted and 
sentenced u/s 120-B - HELD: Both the trial court and the 
High Court recorded concurrent findings of fact that the 
accused hatched the conspiracy and directed his brother and 
E father to eliminate the deceased and consequently the 
deceased was murdered - There is nothing on record to show 
the said findings as perverse warranting interference -
Besides, accused never raised such a grievance either before 
the trial court or the High Court - It could not be shown that 
F 
arw prejudice was caused to him -
Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973- ss. 211and215- Practice and Procedure 
- Framing of charges. 
The appellant-accused was charged with an offence 
G punishable uls 120-8 IPC, whereas his father and brother 
(co-accused) were charged with offences punishable ul 
ss 394 and 302134 IPC in connection with murder of one 
'BC' (deceased). The prosecution case was that the 
appellant hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused to 
H 
112 
SANICHAR SAHNI v. STATE OF BIHAR 
113 
eliminate the deceased as he had refused to pay A 
'Rangdari'. Consequently, the deceased was murdered. 
The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant-
accused u/s 120-B. The father of the appellant was 
convicted and sentenced u/s 302/34 IPC and his brother 
u/ss 302, 394 and 412 IPC as also u/s 27 ofthe Arms Act. B 
The appeals filed by the three accused were dismissed 
by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal it was contended for the 
appellant that there was no evidence to suggest hatching C 
of conspiracy so far as the appellant was concerned; and 
that as no charge u/s 120-B IPC was framed against any 
other accused, it was not permissible in law to convict 
the appellant u/s 120-B since he was also not charged 
with any other offence. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It was established before the trial court 
that the appellant had been demanding 'Rangdari' from 
the deceased on telephone. PW.2 and PW.5 fully E 
supported the prosecution case of conspiracy to 
eliminate the deceased. Both of them stated that in their 
presence the appellant had directed his father and 
brother that if deceased refused to pay the amount he 
should be finished. The trial court found no reason to 
disbelieve the depositions of PW.2 and PW.5, and came 
F 
to the conclusion that the appellant hatched the 
conspiracy and directed his brother and father to finish 
the deceased in case the money was not paid by him and, 
consequently, the deceased was murdered by the co-
accused. [Para 7 and 8] [118-E-H; 119-A-B] 
G 
1.2. In appeal, the High Court dealt with the issue of 
conspiracy elaborately and it also found the evidence of 
PW.2 and PW.5 fully trustworthy, and came to the 
H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 10 S.C.R. 
A conclusion that the deceased was murdered by the co-
ac¢used in conspiracy for non-fulfillment of demand of 
"Rangdari". The concurrent findings of fact recorded by 
the courts below regarding the conspiracy and murder 
of the dec~ased by the co-accused do not require to be 
B interfered with as there is nothing on record to show that 
the said findings are perverse. [Para 9 and 10] [119-B-E] 
2.1. So far as the issue of framing charge u/s 120-B 
IPC against the appellant and non-framing the charge of 
conspiracy against other co-accused is concerned, the 
C law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that 
unless the convict is able to establish that defect in 
framing the charges has caused real prejudice to him and 
that he was not informed as to what was the real case 
against him and that he could not defend himself 
D properly, no interference is required on mere 
technicalities. Conviction order in fact is to be tested on 
the touchstone of prejudice theory. It could not be 
pointed out as to what prejudice was caused to the 
E 
F 
appellant. [Para 11 and 17 and 18) [119-E-F; 123-A-B] 
State of A.P. v. Thak

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