2004 (3) TMI 779 - SC - Indian Laws

Legality of the conviction and sentence of Esher Singh u/s 4 of TADA - Acquittal of other accused persons from charges u/s 120B and 302 read with 120B IPC Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 27 of the Arms Act - Maintainability of the appeal filed by Balbir Singh son of the deceased - HELD THAT -No doubt in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore the circumstances proved before during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. There is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other offence it can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. It was held that the expression in reference to their common intention in Section 10 is very comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words in furtherance of in the English law; with the result anything said done or written by a co-conspirator after the conspiracy was formed will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it. Anything said done or written is a relevant fact only. We are aware of the fact that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy may not ordinarily and is generally not available and its existence invariably is a matter of inference except as rare exceptions. The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of a purpose in common between the conspirators. This Court in V.C.Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1980 (4) TMI 309 - SUPREME COURT held that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in a case when taken together on their face value should indicate the meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed all three appeals upholding the conviction and sentence of Esher Singh u/s 4 of TADA and maintaining the acquittal of the other accused persons due to lack of sufficient evidence. The court also confirmed the maintainability of the appeal filed by Balbir Singh.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the conviction and sentence of Esher Singh u/s 4 of TADA.
2. Acquittal of other accused persons from charges u/s 120B and 302 read with 120B IPC, Section 3(3) of TADA, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Maintainability of the appeal filed by Balbir Singh, son of the deceased.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of Conviction and Sentence of Esher Singh u/s 4 of TADA
The trial court found Esher Singh guilty of an offence punishable under Section 4 of TADA, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The court concluded that Esher Singh was involved in giving provocative speeches for the formation of Khalistan and inciting violence, thus establishing the commission of an offence under Section 4 of TADA. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction, noting that the evidence provided by PWs 16, 32, and 21, along with other corroborative testimonies, sufficiently established Esher Singh's guilt. The court emphasized that Section 4 of TADA covers a wide range of disruptive activities, including advocating and facilitating such activities, which were clearly proven in Esher Singh's case.

Issue 2: Acquittal of Other Accused Persons
The trial court acquitted the other accused persons from charges u/s 120B and 302 read with 120B IPC, Section 3(3) of TADA, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, citing insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with this decision, noting that there was no direct evidence linking the other accused to the conspiracy or the actual commission of the crime. The court highlighted that the evidence did not establish a clear agreement or concerted action among the accused to commit the alleged offences. The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and the confessional statement of A-5, which was deemed inadmissible due to his death before the framing of charges, was insufficient to overturn the acquittal.

Issue 3: Maintainability of Balbir Singh's Appeal
The Supreme Court addressed the maintainability of the appeal filed by Balbir Singh, son of the deceased, against the acquittal of the accused. The court affirmed that a private party could invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution against a judgment of acquittal. The court emphasized that its appellate power under Article 136 is plenary and can be exercised to meet the demands of justice, regardless of whether the appeal is filed by the State or a private party. Consequently, the appeal filed by Balbir Singh was deemed maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all three appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence of Esher Singh u/s 4 of TADA and maintaining the acquittal of the other accused persons due to lack of sufficient evidence. The court also confirmed the maintainability of the appeal filed by Balbir Singh.