Some Kind Of Physical Manifestation Of Agreement Is Required To Attract Offence Of Criminal Conspiracy U/Sec 120B IPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that some kind of physical manifestation of agreement to commit an offence is required to attract the offence of Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

In this case, all the accused were employees of Guna Branch of Central Bank of India, and were prosecuted for the above-referred offences of theft (of Rs. Six Lakhs from the safe and strong room of the Bank), house-trespass, destruction of valuable security, and other offences. The appellant-accused was concurrently convicted for offences under Sections 201, 380, 435, 457 and 477 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While the main accused were convicted and sentenced concurrently given the oral and documentary evidence, as per which the money is proved to have been recovered from their possession, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced for the very same offences only with the aid of Section 120B of the IPC. The appellant was the Head Cashier and was in the custody of one of the keys of the dual locker system maintained by the Bank for the safe custody of cash and valuable security.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha noted that the principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence.

"Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the Appellant and other accused...It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence", the bench observed.

The court, referring to evidence on record, found that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to satisfy the Court that there was a prior meeting of minds between the Appellant and other accused.

"There is no physical manifestation of such a concurrence extractable from surrounding circumstances, declarations, or the conduct of the Appellant. The evidence is shorn of even a passive acknowledgment of conspiracy of the Appellant with the accused, let alone heralding a clear and conscientious participation of the Appellant in the conspiracy. As noted above, this Court has cautioned against replacing mere suspicion with the legal requirement of proof of agreement", the bench observed while acquitting the accused.

Case details

Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709 | CrA 1066 of 2010 | 25 August 2022 | Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 120B - The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is an agreement to commit an offence - Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence- Some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established- It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence. (Para 22-25)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment