2022 (8) TMI 1606 - SC - Indian Laws

Criminal conspiracy: lack of proved agreement and dual lock evidence led to acquittal and convictions quashed

Criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an offence, evidenced by direct or circumstantial materials showing a meeting of minds; ... Criminal Conspiracy - offences of theft, house-trespass, destruction of valuable security, and other offences from the bank's strong room and safe - High Court confirmed conviction of appellant - system of dual locking adopted by the Bank - HELD THAT:- The Office Manual of the Bank provides that cash was to be stored in the strong room of the Bank, guarded by a Dual Control System, where locks are secured by two keys operable successively and separately. The Branch Manager and the Cashier-in-Charge are to be in the joint custody of the sets of keys to the strong room and the safe. Returning to the charge under Section 120B of the IPC, the evidence available on record will only show that when on Monday morning, i.e. 14.06.2004, PW-5 and Manager-in-charge PW-10, along with the Appellant, sought to open the main gate, grill gate of the strong room, as well as the safe, the locks allegedly could not be opened with the set of keys in possession of PW-10, but could be opened through the set of keys in custody of the Appellant. Precisely what caused the locks to not open with the keys of PW-10 is not explained. The fact that these locks could be opened by the key in possession of the Appellant cannot by itself lead to an inference that he alone was responsible for enabling A1 and A-2 to access the safe to commit the offences. The very purpose and object of the dual lock system is to prevent any single custodian from accessing the strong room and the safe - Apart from the fact that the Appellant by himself could not have operated the strong room and the safe of the Bank without the presence of the officer who was in the custody of the other set of keys, it is also important to note that the prosecution completely failed in adducing any evidence to indicate the existence of any agreement between the Appellant on the one hand and A-1 and A-2 on the other. The link necessary for proving the charge of conspiracy is entirely missing. The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence. Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the Appellant and A-1 and A-2. In the decision of State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and Anr. [2000 (9) TMI 1086 - SUPREME COURT], this Court noted that an agreement forms the core of the offence of conspiracy, and it must surface in evidence through some physical manifestation. The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to satisfy the Court that there was a prior meeting of minds between the Appellant and A-1 and A-2. There is no physical manifestation of such a concurrence extractable from surrounding circumstances, declarations, or the conduct of the Appellant. The evidence is shorn of even a passive acknowledgment of conspiracy of the Appellant with the accused, let alone heralding a clear and conscientious participation of the Appellant in the conspiracy. This Court has cautioned against replacing mere suspicion with the legal requirement of proof of agreement. The judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna are hereby quashed and set aside - the criminal appeal is allowed. Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was a party to a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for enabling the theft from the bank's strong room and safe.Analysis: The Court examined the evidence on record including the Bank's dual lock/dual control system and the testimonies relating to custody and use of keys. The legal framework requires proof of an agreement (express or implied) between accused persons to constitute criminal conspiracy; such an agreement must be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence and typically requires some physical manifestation or conscious concurrence to exclude mere suspicion. The Court applied authorities emphasizing that in circumstantial cases the proved circumstances must form a complete chain from which the only irresistible inference is conspiracy. The record showed no overt act by the Appellant, no recovery of stolen property from him, no evidence of a meeting of minds or any physical manifestation of concurrence with the other accused, and no explanation for why the other key did not operate; joint responsibility under the Bank's manual and the absence or non-use of key movement records further undermined a sole culpability inference.Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish an agreement or sufficient circumstantial link implicating the Appellant in criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC; the Appellant is entitled to acquittal of the charge of criminal conspiracy and associated convictions are quashed and set aside.