2008 (4) TMI 803 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeals Allowed: Charges Dropped Due to Insufficient Evidence and Parity with Co-Accused; Discharge Under IPC Sec 302, 120B.

Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Versus State Of Maharashtra

The SC allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and discharging the appellant from charges under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC. The court ... Murder - Criminal conspiracy - Mere Suspicion - Sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not - Application filed by the appellant u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) for discharge - charge-sheet filed against the appellant before the Juvenile Court, being below 18 years of age, and against fifteen other persons, which included his father (A-1), mother (A-2), sister (A-4), a family friend (A-11), manager of his father (A-12), in Sessions Court. All of them have been arraigned as members to the conspiracy to murder Kunal. HELD THAT:- A mere suspicion is not sufficient to hold that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. It is trite that the words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. [See: State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar Samal [1978 (11) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT]. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa & Ors.[1996 (4) TMI 515 - SUPREME COURT], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement. From the material on record, it is manifestly clear that it was the family members of the appellant, one of their employees and a friend who allegedly had all entered into an agreement to eliminate the deceased. However, as noted above, accused A-1, A-2, A-4, A-11 and A-12 already stand discharged from the charges framed against them under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C vide orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Judge respectively. While discharging the said accused, both the courts have come to the conclusion that there is no material on record to show that they had hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Kunal. Thus, the stand of the prosecution to the effect that the parents, sister and friends of the appellants had entered into a criminal conspiracy stands rejected by virtue of the said orders of discharge. Furthermore, in its order, the High Court has opined that the circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution, even if accepted in its entirety, only create a suspicion of motive, which is not sufficient to bring home an offence of murder. As noted above, State's petition for special leave against the said judgment has already been dismissed. We are, therefore, of the view that in the light of the subsequent events, namely, the orders of the High Court in Criminal Writ Petitions discharging appellant's mother, sister and two close associates, accused Nos.2, 4, 11 and 12 respectively passed by this Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State and order passed by the Sessions Judge, discharging the father (A-1) of the appellant, stated to be the mastermind behind the entire conspiracy, for offences under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C., on same set of circumstances and accusations, no sufficient ground survives to proceed against the appellant for the aforementioned offences. Therefore, we are constrained to allow the appeals. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is discharged from the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet. Issues Involved:1. Criminal Conspiracy2. Discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure3. Sufficiency of Evidence for Framing Charges4. Parity in Judicial DecisionsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Criminal Conspiracy:The primary issue revolves around an alleged criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased, Kunal. According to the prosecution, the appellant and his family members hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Kunal due to his relationship and subsequent marriage with the appellant's sister, Hema. The essential elements of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) require an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including threatening calls and the prior relationship between Kunal and Hema. However, the court noted that proving conspiracy often relies on inferred agreements from surrounding circumstances and conduct, as direct evidence is rare.2. Discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The appellant filed for discharge under Section 227 of the Code, arguing that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against him. Section 227 allows a judge to discharge an accused if, upon reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, the judge finds no sufficient ground for proceeding. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Judge, Satara, initially rejected the discharge application, and the High Court upheld these decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the judge must exercise judicial mind to determine if a prima facie case exists. If the evidence only raises suspicion rather than grave suspicion, discharge is warranted.3. Sufficiency of Evidence for Framing Charges:The court examined whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to frame charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant's family, upon learning about Kunal's engagement to another girl, conspired to murder him. The charge-sheet detailed the involvement of various accused persons and the steps taken to execute the conspiracy. However, the court found that the evidence, including the threatening calls, only created a suspicion of motive, which was insufficient for conviction. The High Court and Sessions Judge had already discharged other family members and associates on similar grounds, finding no material evidence of conspiracy.4. Parity in Judicial Decisions:The appellant argued for discharge based on parity with co-accused who had been discharged. The High Court had discharged the appellant's mother, sister, and two associates, and the Sessions Judge had discharged the appellant's father, considered the mastermind of the conspiracy. The Supreme Court noted that the same set of circumstances and accusations applied to the appellant. Given that the co-accused were discharged due to insufficient evidence, the appellant was also entitled to discharge. The court highlighted that the prosecution's case against the appellant's family members had already been rejected, and the State's special leave petition against these discharges was dismissed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and discharging the appellant from the charges. The court concluded that no sufficient ground existed to proceed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC, given the lack of material evidence and the discharge of co-accused on similar grounds.