Supreme Court discharges man accused of criminal conspiracy for his cashier’s custodial death

Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the accused charged with the custodial death of his cashier/accountant (‘deceased’) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), against the dismissal of an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, passed by the Allahabad High Court, the division bench of CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, has discharged the accused, and said that 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.

Background:

The accused is the owner of Goodwill Enterprises dealing in wood and had registered a case under Section 392 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) alleging that his cashier/accountant went with a helper to collect his business proceeds from shops. On their way back, they stopped the car in front of a School. The cashier went to the shop for collection and the helper remained seated in the car with the bag containing the collection and some documents. Soon, two persons came and snatched the said bag after putting the helper at gun point and escaped on a motorcycle. The accused was given such information over the phone. Later, the accused registered the above-mentioned FIR about robbery and asked for investigation and appropriate legal action, in the incident. Later, the accused had called the deceased from his house through one of his employees and took him to the Police Station for inquiry. It was alleged that the deceased was illegally kept in the police station and the police subjected him to torture. Thereafter, while on way to the hospital, he died.

Analysis and Decision:

The Court clarified that exercise of power under Section 227 CrPC, is legally permissible only by considering ‘the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith’, which refers only to the materials produced by the prosecution and not by the accused. Thus, at the stage of consideration of such an application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by the accused, cannot be looked.

The Court agreed with the view taken in B.K. Sharma v. State of U.P., 1987 SCC OnLine All 314, that the standard of test and judgment which is finally applied before recording a finding of conviction against an accused is not to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. It is just a very strong suspicion, based on the material on record, and would be sufficient to frame a charge. Further, the Court added that the strong suspicion to be sufficient to frame a charge should be based on the material brought on record by the prosecution and not on supposition, suspicions and conjectures.

The Court said that it will be within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused concerned has been made out.

The Court viewed that a caution has to be sounded for the reason that the chances of going beyond the permissible jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC and entering the scope of power under Section 232 CrPC, cannot be ruled out as such instances are plenty.

The Court referred to a decision in Kaushalya Devi v. State of M.P., 2003 SCC OnLine MP 672 , wherein it was held that if there is no legal evidence, then framing of charge would be groundless and compelling the accused to face the trial is contrary to the procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court, while agreeing with this, said that the expression ‘legal evidence’ has to be construed only as evidence disclosing prima facie case, ‘the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith.

The Court said that the stage of Section 227 CrPC, is equally crucial and determinative to both the prosecution and the accused. It cannot be said that Section 227 CrPC, is couched in negative terminology without a purpose. The Court remarked that a charge sheet is a misnomer for the final report filed under Section 173 (2) CrPC, which is not a negative report and one that carries an accusation against the accused concerned of having committed the offence mentioned therein.

The Court said that the finding of the Trial Court on the ground to proceed against the accused is based on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution.

The Court also said the High Court has not considered the matter in the manner required under law, in the case’s given facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court gave an important facet of the law of conspiracy, that apart from it being a distinct offence, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each other of the crime or crimes which have been committed because of conspiracy.

After scanning the provisions under Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC, the Court noted that the sine qua non for an offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an offence. It consists of agreement between two or more persons to commit the criminal offence, irrespective of the further consideration whether the offence is committed as the very fact of conspiracy constitutes the offence.

The Court stated 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 Court said that when there is no case for the prosecution that the accused pointed fingers at the deceased how the lodging of the complaint, apprehending custodial death of the deceased who was accused’s clerk for about 13 years, can be taken as a ground for framing charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302, IPC, 120-B with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

The Court further said that it cannot understand that 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 the deceased is available.

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE