PARVEEN @ SONUversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

                          [2021] 9 S.C.R. 643                              643


                        PARVEEN @ SONU                                     A
                                   v.
                    THE STATE OF HARYANA
                  (Criminal Appeal No.1571 of 2021)
                        DECEMBER 07, 2021                                  B
    [R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w s.120-B –
Case of prosecution that police party was escorting four accused
to be produced before the Court – Appellant, a party to another
                                                                           C
accused group, conspired together to rescue them – One of the
accused was alleged to have fired upon Head Constable who later
succumbed to fire arm injuries – Accused persons convicted and
sentenced – On appeal only by appellant, held: To prove the charge
of conspiracy, within the ambit of s.120-B, it is necessary to establish
that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an               D
unlawful act – In the present case, except the vague and bald
statement that the appellant is a member of alleged conspiracy, there
is no other evidence to prove that the appellant conspired with other
accused for the offences for which he was charged – Alleged
confessional statements of the co-accused in absence of any other
                                                                           E
corroborative evidence, not safe to maintain the conviction and
sentence of the appellant – Conviction recorded and sentence
imposed on the appellant by Trial court and confirmed by High
Court, set aside – Acquitted – Arms Act – s.25.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                           F
      HELD: 1. PW-20 (Constable who is the eye-witness) has
not referred the name of the appellant/accused in his deposition.
The Trial Court has passed the conviction of the appellant, mainly
relying on the medical reports and depositions of PW-20, PW-22
(Constable who corroborated the Statement of PW-20) and PW-
23(Sub-Inspector who deposed that he recorded the statement                G
of PW-20). Even according to the case of the prosecution, only
four accused entered the train and one of them who was identified
as Vinod, had thrown chilly powder in their eyes and other accused
Amarjit had fired a shot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is
also clear from the cross-examination of PW-20 that there were             H
                                643
644            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     about 50–60 passengers in the compartment, but no one was
      examined. Even PW-22, disclosed the names of Vinod and Amarjit
      Singh only. Except the vague and bald statement that the appellant
      herein is a member of alleged conspiracy, there is no other
      acceptable evidence on record to prove conspiracy. For the
      reasons not known, in a case of this nature, the investigating
B
      agency has not conducted TIP (Test Identification Parade). It is
      also brought to Court’s notice that the appellant was prosecuted
      for snatching away the Bolero car in Criminal Case No.535 of
      2009 in the Court of HCS, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhiwani,
      he was acquitted of the charge for offences under Sections 392,
C     216 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said judgment
      has become final. To prove the charge of conspiracy, within the
      ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there
      was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act.
      At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish
      conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in
D
      absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the
      conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act,
      it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section
      120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which
      prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting
E     the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.
      Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in
      absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe
      to convict the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove its case,
      that the appellant conspired with other accused for the offences
      for which he was charged. Except the alleged confessional
F
      statements of the co- accused and in absence of any other
      corroborative evidence, it is not safe to maintain the conviction
      and sentence imposed upon the Appellant. The findings recorded
      by the Trial Court in convicting the appellant mainly on the ground
      that he was one of the conspirators for the crime in question, is
G     erroneous and illegal. The High Court has not considered the
      evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously
      confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
      Conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant is
      set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
      [Paras 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15][648-G-H; 649-B-H; 651-C-E]
H
        PARVEEN @ SONU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                 645


      Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31 :                      A
      [2015] 7 SCR 1083; Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State
      of Karnataka, (2013) 14 SCC 729: 2013 (6 ) SCALE
      652 – relied on.
      Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala
      (2001) 7 SCC 596: 2001 AIR 3488; Raju Manjhi v.                          B
      State of Bihar (2019) 12 SCC 784: 2018 AIR 3592 –
      held inapplicable.
                         Case Law Reference
[2015] 7 SCR 1083                  relied on                 Para 8
                                                                               C
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1571 of 2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2020 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA-D No.232-DB of 2010
(O&M).                                                                         D
      Rishi Malhotra, Adv. for the Appellant.
      Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Addl. AG, Siddhesh Kotwal, Ms. Ana
Upadhyay, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Ms. Manya Hasija, Akash Singh,
Vishwa Pal Singh, Rajendra Prasad, Ms. Pallavi, Brijender Singh Dhull,
Advs. for the Respondent.                                                      E
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
      1. Leave granted.
      2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th March,        F
2020 passed in CRA-D No.232 of 2010 by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby, the High Court has dismissed the
Appeal filed by the appellant / accused and upheld the conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.
       3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as called out from the case   G
of the prosecution, are as under.
      On 14.03.2009, the police party was escorting four accused namely
Nadeem, Naushad, Ravi & Sunil from the Central Jail, Jaipur and they
were to be produced in the Court of CJM, Bhiwani. They reached
Railway Station Rewari, in the morning at 04:30 hrs. They then boarded         H
646            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     the train for Bhiwani. When the train reached at Railway Station Nangal
      Pathani, four young boys entered their compartment and attacked the
      police party in order to rescue the accused, who were in police custody
      and were to be produced in the Court of CJM, Bhiwani. The accused,
      who were in custody, also tried to escape. They even tried to snatch the
      official carbine. It is alleged that one of the accused fired upon Head
B
      Constable Arjun Singh. In the complaint, it was stated that the police
      overpowered one person, who had thrown chilly powder in their eyes
      and the remaining three accused succeeded in fleeing. The apprehended
      accused disclosed his name and identity of other assailants. Injured Head
      Constable Arjun Singh was shifted to hospital, who succumbed to fire
C     arm injuries subsequently. After completing investigation, all the accused
      were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 225,
      332, 353, 392, 307, 302, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the
      Arms Act.
             4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as
D     many as 23 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the
      accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As they
      have pleaded that they were innocent and they have been falsely
      implicated, they were tried for the aforesaid offences in the Court of
      Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2009.
      The learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 14.01.2010,
E     held all the accused guilty for commission of offences punishable under
      Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 302 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
      Code. The accused Amarjit Singh and Surender Singh @ Dhattu were
      further held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section
      25 of the Arms Act. By order dated 18.01.2010 on the quantum of
F     sentence, they were sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of
      Rs.5,000/- each for the offences under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B
      of the Indian Penal Code, apart from conviction for other offences, as
      referred above. The sentence for various offences was ordered to run
      concurrently.
G            5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed
      by the Sessions Court, the appellant herein, and four other accused have
      preferred separate appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
      at Chandigarh. All the appeals were dismissed by common judgment
      dated 17.03.2020, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by
      the Sessions Court. Hence this Appeal.
H
          PARVEEN @ SONU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                               647
                   [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

      6. The 3rd Accused Parveen @ Sonu is appellant in the present            A
Appeal. We were informed that no appeals were preferred by other
accused in the common judgment of the High Court.
       7. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing
for the Appellant and Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned Addl.AG appearing
for the respondent – State of Haryana and carefully perused the material       B
available on record.
       8. In this Appeal, it is contended by learned Counsel for the
appellant that though there was no concrete proof to establish the
participation of the appellant in the alleged crime, the Trial Court as well
as the High Court believed the prosecution story in absence of any             C
supporting evidence and convicted him. It is submitted that except the
alleged confessional statements of co–accused, there was no other
acceptable evidence to connect the appellant herein to the crime. It is
submitted that as per the case of prosecution, apart from the police
party who were escorting accused in the train, there were about 50–60
passengers. No independent witness was examined. Out of the four               D
young boys who boarded the train, only one was having a country made
pistol and fired. There was no TIP (Test Identification Parade) conducted.
The accused, who was apprehended as per the prosecution, was only
Vinod and all the other three persons fled away. But the other person
who is stated to be identified, was Amarjit who had fired a shot upon          E
Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is submitted that though there was
absolutely no evidence to connect the appellant/accused, the Trial Court
has convicted the appellant in absence of any acceptable evidence to
prove the guilt of the appellant. It is submitted that even the High Court,
except recording the depositions of all the witnesses, has not considered
any of the grounds urged, and dismissed the Appeal. In support of the          F
case of the appellant, learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana1and the judgment
of this Court in the case of Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of
Karnataka 2.
       9. On the other hand, learned Addl.AG appearing for the                 G
respondent – State supported the view taken by the Courts below. She
submitted that there was sufficient material and evidence on record which
clearly establishes the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. It
1
    (2015) 11 SCC 31
2
    (2013) 14 SCC 729                                                          H
648               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     is submitted that there was credible evidence available on record to
      believe that appellant was a party to the accused group, who conspired
      together to rescue the other four accused, who were being taken by the
      police party to produce before the Court. Learned Counsel in support of
      her argument to prove the case of the prosecution of criminal conspiracy,
      has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Firozuddin
B
      Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala3. Further, on the aspect
      of confessional statements made by the co-accused, has relied on the
      judgment of this Court in the case of Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar4.
             10. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, We have
      given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the
C     case and the material placed on record. We have also perused depositions
      of various witnesses which are placed on record. To prove the case, the
      prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses. PW-1, PW-3, PW-
      4, PW-7 and PW-21 are doctors. PW-6 is Sub-Inspector of Police and
      he was on duty on 14.03.2009 at Police Station GRP Rewari. In the
D     statement, he has referred to the disclosure statement of the other
      accused by name Vinod, which was exhibitted as Ex.PS. In his cross-
      examination, he has deposed that several persons were assembled at
      the place of occurrence, but none of them was ready to join or associate
      with investigation. PW-16 is ASI Ajit Singh, who has deposed that accused
      Sunil @ Bachhu made a disclosure statement. PW-18 is Sub-Inspector
E     Pratap Singh, who has deposed that on 11.05.2009, stating that he along
      with other police officials arrested accused Amarjit @ Dana and Surender
      @ Dattu. He referred to the disclosure statement made by accused
      Amarjit. PW-20 is Constable Inder Raj, who is the eye-witness. In his
      deposition, he has stated that when the train reached Railway Station,
F     Nangal Pathani, four boys aged about 20–25 years, entered their
      compartment and one of them was carrying a polythene bag and one
      other was armed with country made pistol. He too has deposed that
      apprehended accused was Vinod and he clearly stated that he had thrown
      chilly powder in their eyes and accused Amarjit, who had fired a shot
      upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. In the cross-examination, he deposed
G     that there were as many as 50–60 passengers in the compartment. It is
      to be noticed that PW-20 Inder Raj has not referred the name of the
      appellant / accused i.e. Parveen @ Sonu in his deposition. PW-22 is
      another Constable by name Satbir, who has corroborated the statement
      3
          (2001) 7 SCC 596
      4
H         (2019) 12 SCC 784
        PARVEEN @ SONU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                 649
                 [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

of PW-20. He too has deposed that accused Vinod had thrown chilly              A
powder on them and other accused by name Amarjit had fired at Arjun
Singh, Head Constable. PW-23 is Sub-Inspector Randhir Singh, who
deposed that on 14.03.2009, he recorded the statement of Constable
Inder Raj.
       11. The Trial Court has passed the conviction of the appellant          B
herein, mainly relying on the medical reports and depositions of PW-20,
PW-22 and PW-23. Even according to the case of the prosecution, only
four accused have entered the train and one of them who was identified
as Vinod, had thrown chilly powder in their eyes and other accused
Amarjit had fired a shot upon Arjun Singh, Head Constable. It is also
clear from the cross-examination of PW-20 that there were about 50–            C
60 passengers in the compartment, but no one was examined. Even
PW-22 Constable Satbir, who has corroborated the Statement of PW-
20, disclosed the names of Vinod and Amarjit Singh only. Except the
vague and bald statement that the appellant herein is a member of alleged
conspiracy, there is no other acceptable evidence on record to prove           D
conspiracy. For the reasons not known, in a case of this nature, the
investigating agency has not conducted TIP (Test Identification Parade).
Except the alleged confessional statements of co-accused, there is no
other evidence on record to implicate the appellant. It is also brought to
our notice that the appellant was prosecuted for snatching away the
Bolero car in Criminal Case No.535 of 2009 in the Court of HCS, Judicial       E
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhiwani, he was acquitted of the charge for
offences under Sections 392, 216 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and the said judgment has become final.
       12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy,
within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there     F
was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the
same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by
direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence
to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended
object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty    G
for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits
there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for
connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal
conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused,
in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to
                                                                               H
650            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     convict the accused. In the case of Indra Dalal v. State Of
      Haryana1,this Court has considered the conviction based only on
      confessional statement and recovery of vehicle used in the crime. In the
      said case, while setting aside the conviction, this Court has held in
      paragraphs 16 & 17 as under:
B           “16. The philosophy behind the aforesaid provision is
            acceptance of a harsh reality that confessions are extorted
            by the police officers by practising oppression and torture
            or even inducement and, therefore, they are unworthy of
            any credence. The provision absolutely excludes from
            evidence against the accused a confession made by him to
C           a police officer. This provision applies even to those
            confessions which are made to a police officer who may not
            otherwise be acting as such. If he is a police officer and
            confession was made in his presence, in whatever capacity,
            the same becomes inadmissible in evidence. This is the
D           substantive rule of law enshrined under this provision and
            this strict rule has been reiterated countlessly by this Court
            as well as the High Courts.
            17. The word “confession” has nowhere been defined.
            However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary
E           meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the
            accused to the police suggesting the inference of the
            commission of the crime would amount to confession and,
            therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also
            defined to mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and not
            the admission of any incriminating fact, however grave or
F           conclusive. Section 26 of the Evidence Act makes all those
            confessions inadmissible when they are made by any person,
            whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless such a
            confession is made in the immediate presence of a
            Magistrate. Therefore, when a person is in police custody,
G           the confession made by him even to a third person, that is,
            other than a police officer, shall also become inadmissible.
              13. Further, in the case of Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of
      Karnataka2, this Court has held that when an accused is held guilty and
      sentenced to imprisonment, confirmation of sentence by the High Court
H     is justifiable only in the event of giving sound reasons upon analysis of
        PARVEEN @ SONU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA                                651
                 [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

material evidence. In the case on hand, a perusal of the judgment of the      A
High Court reveals that except referring to depositions, High Court has
not considered the evidence at all and confirmed the conviction and
sentence as ordered by the Trial Court. The judgments relied on by the
learned Addl.AG in the case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others
v. State of Kerala3 and in the case of Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar4,
                                                                              B
are not helpful to support the case of prosecution, having regard to the
facts of the case and evidence on record.
       14. On close scrutiny of evidence on record, we are of the
considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case, that the
appellant herein, has conspired with other accused for the offences for
which he was charged. Except the alleged confessional statements of           C
the co-accused and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, it is
not safe to maintain the conviction and sentence imposed upon the
Appellant. The findings recorded by the Trial Court in convicting the
appellant mainly on the ground that he was one of the conspirators for
the crime in question, is erroneous and illegal. The High Court has not       D
considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
       15. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. Conviction
recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant is, hereby, set aside and
he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant be         E
released forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any
other case.

Divya Pandey                                                Appeal allowed.

                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H