Criminal conspiracy requires proof of agreement or meeting of minds; mere possession of keys cannot sustain conviction.

A conviction for criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act, shown either by direct evidence or by cogent circumstantial evidence of conscious participation in a common design. Mere custody of a key under a dual lock system, without any overt act, recovery from the accused, or other conduct indicating concurrence with co-accused, was insufficient to establish a meeting of minds. The evidence disclosed no physical manifestation of agreement, and suspicion could not replace legal proof. The charge of conspiracy was therefore not proved and the conviction could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant for criminal conspiracy could be sustained in the absence of proof of any agreement or meeting of minds with the co-accused.

Analysis: A conviction for criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act, which may be established by direct evidence or by cogent circumstantial evidence showing conscious participation in a common design. Mere possession of a key under a dual lock system, without any overt act, recovery from the appellant, or other conduct showing concurrence with the co-accused, was insufficient. The evidence did not disclose any physical manifestation of agreement, and suspicion could not be substituted for legal proof.

Conclusion: The charge of criminal conspiracy was not proved against the appellant and the conviction could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for criminal conspiracy cannot rest on suspicion or on a single circumstance such as custody of keys; the prosecution must prove, by direct or compelling circumstantial evidence, a conscious agreement or meeting of minds between the accused persons.

---