Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It was urged that in order to prima facie substantiate a charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, it was imperative for the prosecution to produce material to show that the circumstances putforth by the prosecution taken together on their face value indicated the meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which was not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relied could not be adequate for connecting the applicant Atul Singh with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. Reliance was placed on State of Kerala vs. P.Sugathan and another, (2000) 8 SCC 203 and K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, 2005 AIR SCW 5437. (7) On the other hand, Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer also placed reliance on State of Kerala vs. P.Sugathan and another, (2000) 8 SCC 203 and K.R.Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, 2005 AIR SCW 5437 while contending that the fact of criminal conspiracy could be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence and since the circumstances putforth by the prosecution prima facie gave rise to an inference of an agreement between Shubhkaran Dwivedi and Atul Singh to eliminate Jagmohan Singh, who was the star witness in the Lalbabu murder case, by bringing Vinod Singh alias Guddu Singh, a professional shooter for the job, the framing of charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant Atul Singh did not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation. - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object." (10) In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682, it was held that the essence of conspiracy is that there should be an agreement between persons who do one or other of the acts described under section. The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts or conduct of the parties. There is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other offence and it can be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In Baburao Bajirao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 432, the Apex Court observed that in an offence of criminal conspiracy there is seldom, if ever, that direct evidence of conspiracy is forthcoming. Conspiracy from its very nature is conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, for otherwise the whole purpose would be frustrated. In Nazir Khan and others vs. State of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 4427, it was observed that privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available, offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy, and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference. In Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur vs. State of Rajasthan, S.L.P. (Criminal) No.2965 of 2006 decided on 14-05-2007, it was held by the Apex Court that an inference as to conspiracy can be drawn from the surrounding circumstances inasmuch as normally, no direct evidence of conspiracy is available. In E.K.Chandrasenan vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1066, the Apex Court held that a criminal conspiracy by its very nature is not hatched in open, it is secretly planned and can be proved even by circumstantial evidence and the lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy has no consequence. In Mohamad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062, it was held that for an offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Direct independent evidence of 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 a purpose in common between the conspirators. In State of Kerala vs. P.Sugathan and another (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. In K.R.Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala (supra) also, it was held by the Apex Court that although the agreement among the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication, the inference can only be drawn on the parameters in the manner of proved facts, in the nature of circumstantial evidence.