A study on conspiracy
8. As regards the conviction of accused no.5 – Balla @ Farhat under Section 120-B of IPC is concerned, we find that the High Court has set aside the conviction of all six other accused persons under Section 120B and accused no.5 – Balla @ Farhat is the only accused who has been convicted for the offence under Section 120-B. The ground on which he was convicted was that he was the only person who knew about the availability of huge amounts of money in the Truck. Section 120-A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy. An agreement by two or three persons is required to constitute a criminal conspiracy. There cannot be a conspiracy by only one accused, and it is necessary for the applicability of Section 120-B of the IPC that there must be two or more persons agreeing for the purpose of the conspiracy. This proposition of law finds support in a decision of a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court in Topandas vs. the state of bombay – conspiracy. [Topandas vs. the state of bombay – conspiracy] Therefore, the conviction of accused no.5 – Balla @ Farhat for the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC cannot be sustained.
Discovery not proved
9. As far as Nirmal Kumar (PW-6) is concerned, during the examination-in-chief, he had not deposed that he had seen a sum of Rs.18,000/- being recovered from accused no.5–Balla @ Farhat. He claims that recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- was made from accused no.7-Imran. He stated that he saw that Police had come to the house of accused nos.6-Habib and 7- Imran. However, in the cross-examination, he stated that he did not enter the house of accused nos.6-Habib and 7-Imran and in fact, he stated that he was not aware who was staying in said house. Therefore, this witness has not proved the recovery of the amount from any of the three accused with which we are concerned. As far as Rakesh Jain (PW-7) is concerned, firstly, he has been declared hostile. Secondly, he has not deposed that the aforesaid amounts were recovered in his presence from the appellants in these two appeals. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the alleged stolen cash from accused nos.5 and 7.
Party
Balla @ Farhat Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh – Criminal Appeal No.2256 Of 2011 – August 10, 2023
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/38756/38756_2010_7_105_45874_Judgement_10-Aug-2023.pdf
