Subhash V/S State Of Haryana
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 Case Name: Subhash@ Dhillu V. State of Haryana With  Mukesh@Billu V. State of Haryana  Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.1375 of 2010  Criminal Appeal No. 1328 of 2013 Court: The Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice Pinaki Chandra  Ghose Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Decided on: 25/02/2015 Relevant Acts/Statutes: Indian Penal Code BRIEF FACTSAND PROCEDURAL HISTORY: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 accused persons took out the money and sped away. A FIR was registered at Sonepat Police Station. The accused were charged 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 out of which accused  Mukesh  and  Subhash were  sentenced  to  undergo  10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of  Rs.10,000/-  each,  under  Section  120-B  of  IPC.Aggrieved by the judgment all the accused persons preferred appeals. 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. Subhash and Mukesh, who were convicted only under Section 120-B went for an Appeal before this Court, ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT: Whether the court should interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the present matter. RATIO OF THE COURTThe court took into consideration that in the Trial Court’s judgment, nothing could be found in evidence that was incriminating against the present appellants.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. The Court could not find any specific evidence as to where and when the conspiracy was hatched and what the specific purpose of such conspiracy was. DECISION HELD BY COURT:The Court held that the conviction and sentence of the appellants have to be set aside.The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1328 of 2013 was directed by the Court to be released.The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1375 of 2010 as was already released on bail granted by this Court. His bail bonds stood discharged.There was no order as to costs.
IN THE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1375 OF 2010 SUBHASH @ DHILLU ...APPELLANT STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1328 OF 2013 MUKESH @ BILLU ...APPELLANT STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT O R D E R 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 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 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 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 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 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 Pinaki Chandra Ghose Abhay Manohar Sapre New Delhi February 25 2015. 