Criminal conspiracy needs irresistible proof of prior agreement, while corroborated approver evidence can sustain a murder conviction.

Criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred from mere intimacy, association, alleged letters, or post-occurrence conduct unless the circumstances irresistibly establish a prior agreement and meeting of minds to commit the offence; on that material, the conspiracy charge against the second accused failed and her acquittal was upheld. Approver evidence is competent to sustain a murder conviction when it is materially corroborated by independent circumstances; here, the approver's account of the killing and disposal of the body was found trustworthy and sufficiently corroborated, so the first accused's conviction for murder and related offences was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the charge of criminal conspiracy against the second accused to commit the murder of the deceased was proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) whether the conviction of the first accused for murder could be sustained on the basis of approver evidence and corroborating circumstances.

Issue (i): whether the charge of criminal conspiracy against the second accused to commit the murder of the deceased was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: Criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, and where it is sought to be proved by circumstances, those circumstances must lead to a conclusive or irresistible inference of a meeting of minds. Mere intimacy between the deceased and the second accused, the deceased being seen in their company, the alleged letters, and post-occurrence conduct were found insufficient to establish that the second accused had agreed with the first accused to cause the death of the deceased. The evidence did not prove the requisite pre-arranged plan or common intent to commit murder.

Conclusion: The charge of criminal conspiracy against the second accused was not proved, and her acquittal on the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the conviction of the first accused for murder could be sustained on the basis of approver evidence and corroborating circumstances.

Analysis: An approver is a competent witness, and conviction may rest on such testimony if it is corroborated in material particulars. The approver's account of the killing, disposal of the body, and the surrounding circumstances was found trustworthy and substantially corroborated by the surrounding evidence. The courts below found that the deceased was homicidally killed and that the first accused was responsible for the murder and for destruction of evidence.

Conclusion: The conviction of the first accused for murder was sustained.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the findings of the courts below. The dismissal of both appeals left intact the acquittal of the second accused on the conspiracy charge and the conviction of the first accused for murder and allied offences.

Ratio Decidendi: To establish criminal conspiracy by circumstantial evidence, the materials must irresistibly show a prior agreement and meeting of minds to commit the offence; approver evidence can support conviction when it is materially corroborated by independent circumstances.

---