A Few Bits Here & There Relied By Prosecution Aren’t Sufficient To Connect Accused With Criminal Conspiracy: SC Discharges Man In Custodial Death Case
The Supreme Court while discharging a man in custodial death case, said that a few bits here and there on which the prosecution may rely, are not sufficient to connect an accused with the crime of criminal conspiracy.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which it dismissed the application for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed, “There can be no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in privacy and not in secrecy, and such it would rarely be possible to establish conspiracy by direct evidence. A few bits here and a few bits there, on which the prosecution may rely, are not sufficient to connect an accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. To constitute even an accusation of criminal conspiracy, first and foremost, there must at least be an accusation of meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act, which is not illegal in itself, by illegal means.”
The Bench emphasised that merely because rejection of the application of the accused for discharge is concurrent, it cannot be a reason for confirming the impugned order of the High Court confirming the order of the Trial Court.
“… we should bear in mind that exercise of power under Section 227, Cr.PC, is legally permissible only by considering ‘the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith’. Therefore, necessarily, the question is what is the meaning of the expression ‘the record of the case and documents submitted therewith’? According to us, it refers only to the materials produced by the prosecution and not by the accused”, the Court elucidated.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared on behalf of the appellant/accused while Additional Advocate General Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
Facts of the Case -
The dismissal of application under Section 482 CrPC against dismissal of an application for discharge by the appellant/accused under Section 227 CrPC, as per order by the High Court was under challenge in the appeal. The appellant moved the said application for discharge and the charge in essence was about custodial death of a man who happened to be cashier/accountant of the appellant, which in fact was registered based on the complaint of the appellant. The appellant was the owner of Goodwill Enterprises dealing with wood and he registered a case under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He alleged that his cashier/accountant (deceased) and one another person went for collecting his business proceeds from shops and on their way back, the bag containing the collection and some documents was snatched from them at gun point by two persons.
The appellant was given such information over phone and later, on that day itself, he got registered the FIR about robbery and asked for investigation and appropriate legal action in the said incident. The deceased was taken to the police station for inquiry. After the death of the deceased, a chargesheet was filed in which the police personnels and the appellant were made accused for commission of offences under Sections 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B, and 34 of IPC. The appellant sought discharge before the Additional Sessions Judge but the same was rejected. He then approached the High Court and being aggrieved with the dismissal of his application, he was before the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court in view of the above facts noted, “What is the common plan or the common intention? This aspect is also conspicuously absent in the materials produced by the prosecution. In regard to all such aspects, referred above, none of the witnesses has spoken while giving statements under Section 161, Cr.PC. In this context it is also to be noted that according to the Trial Court, a very strong suspicion lingers on account of twin circumstances.”
The Court further observed that the finding of the Trial Court on the ground to proceed against the appellant is based on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution.
“With respect to the first part of the above-extracted recital from the order of the Trial Court, it is to be noted that it is nobody’s case that the appellant was in the Police Station or informed of the sufferance from chest pain. As relates the second suspicion, it is to be noted that the very Trial Court itself, in the very order dated 19.04.2007 itself, stated that in Crime No.351/1993 under Section 392, IPC the deceased Ram Kishore was only a witness and that the amount in cash and the draft involved was that of the appellant”, it also noted.
The Court remarked that when the appellant who lost the money went to Police Station along with the witness thereof, how can it be presumed by the Court as a strong case for suspicion for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy.
“To say the least, there was no consideration of the matter by the High Court in the manner required under law, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. … We are at a loss to understand, how in the absence of ground for a prima facie case revealed from the materials produced by the prosecution a person who lost his money and lodged a complaint based on the information furnished by his employee can be implicated in an offence, that too a grave allegation of commission of an offence of custodial death amounting to murder, merely because he caused the presence of the person concerned before the Police Station unless the ingredients to attract criminal conspiracy to commit any specific offence in relation to Ram Kishore is available”, it added.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the appellant.
Cause Title- Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 522)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, AOR Pallavi Pratap, Advocates Aakriti Priya, Prachi Pratap, and Prashant Pratap.
Respondent: AAG Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR Rajat Singh, and Advocate Sarthak Chandra.
