Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 1375 of 2010, Judgment Date: Feb 25, 2015

To make out the offence under Section 120-B of  IPC,  the  prosecution
      must lead evidence to prove the existence of  some  agreement  between
      the accused persons. There is no specific evidence  as  to  where  and
      when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific  purpose  of
      such conspiracy. No such evidence has  been  adduced  in  the  present
      case. Therefore, in our opinion, the conviction and  sentence  of  the
      appellants have to be set aside.
Accordingly, the judgment  and  order
      dated 7.9.2009 passed  by  the  High  Court  and  the  judgment  dated
      20.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, so far  as
      it relates to convicting the  appellants,  are  set  aside  and  these
      appeals are allowed.

                                                              NOT REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1375 OF 2010


      SUBHASH @ DHILLU                                       ...APPELLANT
                                  :Versus:

      STATE OF HARYANA                                      ...RESPONDENT

                                    WITH

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1328 OF 2013


      MUKESH @ BILLU                                        ...APPELLANT
                                  :Versus:

      STATE OF HARYANA                                     ...RESPONDENT





                                  O R D E R


   1. These appeals  have  been  filed  by  the  accused  persons  who  were
      convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years by  the
      Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, under Section 120-B of the  Indian
      Penal Code (IPC). The appellants were convicted along with  two  other
      co-accused who were convicted under  Sections  392,  397  of  IPC  and
      Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons preferred  appeals
      before the High Court. The High Court  reduced  the  sentence  of  the
      accused for the offences under Section 397 and  Section  120  of  IPC,
      from 10 years to 7 years only.  However,  rest  of  the  sentence  for
      other offences remained undisturbed.

   2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bal  Kishan  and  his
      nephew Sanjay were going on a  motorcycle  carrying  Rs.46,000/-  with
      them in the dicky, for purchasing a piece of  land.  While  they  were
      near  a  Farm,  two  accused  persons  -  Manjeet  and  Bijender  (not
      appellants herein) came from behind in  Maruti  car.  They  brandished
      country made pistol and asked the  complainant  to  stop  and  as  the
      complainant stopped, the accused persons asked them to hand  over  the
      money. The complainant handed over the key of the motorcycle to  them.
      The accused persons took out the money and sped away. The  complainant
      gave the information of this incident to ASI Rajinder  Kumar  whom  he
      met on the way to the Police Station. On the basis of this information
      an FIR was registered at Sonepat  Police  Station.  The  accused  were
      charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections  120-B,  392,
      397 of the IPC and Section  25  of  the  Arms  Act.  The  Trial  Court
      convicted all the four accused persons and sentenced them for  various
      offences. Accused Manjeet and Bijender were sentenced to undergo  five
      years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a  fine  of  Rs.5,000/-  under
      Section 392 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo  10  years'
      rigorous imprisonment and to pay a  fine  of  Rs.10,000/-  each  under
      Section 397 of IPC. Accused Manjeet was further sentenced  to  undergo
      one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- under  Section
      25 of the Arms Act. Accused Mukesh  and  Subhash  (appellants  herein)
      were sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a
      fine of Rs.10,000/- each, under Section 120-B of IPC as  according  to
      the Trial Court,  the  robbery  was  committed  after  the  conspiracy
      hatched with them.

   3. Aggrieved by the judgment and order  dated  20.3.2002  passed  by  the
      Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, all the accused persons  preferred
      appeals before the High Court. The High Court reduced the sentence  of
      rigorous imprisonment of 10 years  to  7  years,  in  respect  of  the
      offence under Section 397 and Section 120-B of IPC.  Before  us  there
      are only two accused persons, namely, Subhash  and  Mukesh,  who  were
      convicted only under Section 120-B of IPC and no other offence.

   4. The allegation against the present appellants is that  they  both  had
      informed the other accused persons of the fact that the complainant is
      carrying the money in a motorcycle and that they could loot him. It is
      further alleged that they received a share of Rs.1000/- each from  the
      looters. Further, the evidence against the present appellants is their
      own disclosure statement to the police pursuant to  which,  allegedly,
      the police  recovered  Rs.500/-  (Mukesh's  share  left  unspent)  and
      Rs.400/- (Subhash's share left unspent). Accused Bijender and  Manjeet
      also made disclosure statement before the police thereby alleging  the
      role of the present appellants as the informers of the  group.  During
      the trial the present appellants denied  having  made  the  disclosure
      statement and pleaded false implication. Further, it is  pertinent  to
      mention here that in the Trial Court's judgment, nothing can be  found
      in evidence that is incriminating against the present appellants.  The
      statements made to the police have been  denied  by  all  the  accused
      persons.

   5. To make out the offence under Section 120-B of  IPC,  the  prosecution
      must lead evidence to prove the existence of  some  agreement  between
      the accused persons. There is no specific evidence  as  to  where  and
      when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific  purpose  of
      such conspiracy. No such evidence has  been  adduced  in  the  present
      case. Therefore, in our opinion, the conviction and  sentence  of  the
      appellants have to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment  and  order
      dated 7.9.2009 passed  by  the  High  Court  and  the  judgment  dated
      20.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, so far  as
      it relates to convicting the  appellants,  are  set  aside  and  these
      appeals are allowed. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1328 of  2013  is
      directed to be released forthwith unless required in  connection  with
      any other case. Appellant  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.1375  of  2010  is
      already released on bail granted by this Court. His bail  bonds  shall
      stand discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.


                              ....................................J.
                                            (Pinaki Chandra  Ghose)




                              ...................................J.
                                            (Abhay Manohar Sapre)

      New Delhi;
      February 25, 2015.