Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (4) TMI 803 - SC - Indian LawsMurder - Criminal conspiracy - Mere Suspicion - Sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not - Application filed by the appellant u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) for discharge - charge-sheet filed against the appellant before the Juvenile Court, being below 18 years of age, and against fifteen other persons, which included his father (A-1), mother (A-2), sister (A-4), a family friend (A-11), manager of his father (A-12), in Sessions Court. All of them have been arraigned as members to the conspiracy to murder Kunal. HELD THAT:- A mere suspicion is not sufficient to hold that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. [See: State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar Samal [1978 (11) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT]. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa & Ors.[1996 (4) TMI 515 - SUPREME COURT], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement. From the material on record, it is manifestly clear that it was the family members of the appellant, one of their employees and a friend who allegedly had all entered into an agreement to eliminate the deceased. However, as noted above, accused A-1, A-2, A-4, A-11 and A-12 already stand discharged from the charges framed against them under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C vide orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Judge respectively. While discharging the said accused, both the courts have come to the conclusion that there is no material on record to show that they had hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Kunal. Thus, the stand of the prosecution to the effect that the parents, sister and friends of the appellants had entered into a criminal conspiracy stands rejected by virtue of the said orders of discharge. Furthermore, in its order, the High Court has opined that the circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution, even if accepted in its entirety, only create a suspicion of motive, which is not sufficient to bring home an offence of murder. As noted above, State's petition for special leave against the said judgment has already been dismissed. We are, therefore, of the view that in the light of the subsequent events, namely, the orders of the High Court in Criminal Writ Petitions discharging appellant's mother, sister and two close associates, accused Nos.2, 4, 11 and 12 respectively passed by this Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State and order passed by the Sessions Judge, discharging the father (A-1) of the appellant, stated to be the mastermind behind the entire conspiracy, for offences under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C., on same set of circumstances and accusations, no sufficient ground survives to proceed against the appellant for the aforementioned offences. Therefore, we are constrained to allow the appeals. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is discharged from the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet.
|