LexSTATE OF KERALA versus P. SUGATHAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STA TE OF KERALA A v. P. SUGATHAN AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-Ss.302 and 120B. Murder-Criminal conspiracy-Proof of-Held, can be established from direct or circumstantial evidence-The circumstances should infer that there C was agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence- Circumstances inferred should be prior to the actual commission of ojfence- Prosecution to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Murder-Criminal conspiracy-Establishment of-Murder of an D erstwhile paramour of Al by Al-Prosecution not establishing beyond reasonable doubt agreement between Al and A2 to commit the crim~Effect of-Held, A2 is entitled to acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Evidence Act, 1872-S. l 33-Witnesses-Murder-Testimony of an accomplice-Duly corroborated by material particulars-Conviction and E sentence-Justified-Penal Code, 1960-S.302. Respondent-accused were prosecuted for offences under Sections 302 and 1208 of the Penal Code. The prosecution case was that 'S' while a student had a love affair with A-2. But after his marriage their relationship broke F down. Thereafter, A-2 developed illicit relationship with A-1, Sub-Inspector of Police. Subsequently, 'S' came across A-2 and wanted to revive his old intimacy and love affair. When A-1 came to know that 'S' was attempting to revive his intimacy with A-2, he made up his mind to put an end to their love affair by causing death of 'S. Thus, according to prosecution A-1 and A-2 hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder 'S' and in pursuance of the said G conspiracy A-2 met 'S' at the bus stop and took him to the official quarter of A-1. They caused the death of 'S' by suffocating him. Later, PW-1 and A- 3 also joined the conspiracy for disposing of the dead body in river waters. Trial Court, relying upon the confessional statement of PW-1 accomplice, duly corroborated by material particulars convicted and sentenced A-1 and H 409 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A A-2 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B and A-3 for offences under Section 201 read with Section 34 of Penal Code. However, on appeal High Court while upholding the conviction and sentence of A-1, set aside the conviction and sentence of A-2 for offences under Section 302 and 1208 of the Penal Code holding that prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy B between A-1 and A-2. However A-2 was convicted and sentenced under Section 201 of Penal Code. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : I.I High Court was justified in acquitting A-2 from the charges C under Section 302 read with Section 1208 IPC by holding that prosecution has failed to prove criminal conspiracy between A-1 and A-2 beyond reasonable doubt (420-F-G] 1.2. The offence of criminal conspiracy can be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Direct independent evidence of D criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is a matter of inference. The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of purpose in common between the conspirators. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding _the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show E that the circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable do.ubt. It h_as to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of F the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an interference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. [416-F; 417-E-F; 418-A] Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State oj Maharashtra, AIR (1965) SC 682; V.C.Shukla v. State, [1980)2 SCC 665; Kehar Singh v. State, AIR G (1988) SC 1883 and State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa AIR (1996) SC 1744, relied on. Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Pwyab, [1977] 4 SCC 540 and Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, AIR (1993) SCW 1866, referred to. H 1.3 In the instant case, the prosecu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.