SUBHASH @ DHILLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
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.