Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s life sentence for conspiracy to murder. Evidence of the tea-server and stall-owner reliably established the planning meeting at his house and his role in procuring the killing. His absence from the later assault did not defeat liability for the proved conspiracy. The asserted discrepancies did not undermine the witnesses, and no perversity in the concurrent findings was shown. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the evidence proved the appellant’s participation in the murder conspiracy.
- Whether absence from the actual killing or the alleged witness discrepancies defeated his conviction.
Provisions considered
- Sections 120A and 120B(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860The agreement to commit murder constituted a distinct conspiracy offence, punishable as abetment under section 120B(1). Presence at the later killing was unnecessary once the appellant’s participation in that agreement was proved. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44, 45, 46, 56)
Held
- Concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence ordinarily warranted restraint under Article 136 unless perverse, unsupported or affected by misreading or disregard of material evidence. The Court nevertheless examined the principal witnesses. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- Conspiracy required agreement between at least two persons for an illegal act or illegal means. Every conspirator need not know each detail or participate in every act; the agreement and its object could be proved from the evidence and surrounding circumstances. (¶¶ 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- The witnesses’ evidence naturally and consistently established the meeting, the appellant’s proposal to kill the deceased and agreement of the others, followed by the killing. It proved his active role beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 56)
- The appellant’s absence from the assault did not exculpate him from the proved conspiracy. The alleged discrepancies about hospital visits and casual tea-stall employment were immaterial on these facts and did not discredit the testimony. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55)
- The Court upheld the conviction and life sentence and dismissed the appeal. No case for the lesser category under section 120B(2) had been advanced. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58)
Result
Appeal dismissed; appellant’s conspiracy conviction and life sentence upheld.