Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an incident on 20 January 1999, when the Informant, Milan Mhatre, a social worker and member of Janata Dal, was assaulted by unknown persons near his shop at Bhayander (West) after returning from celebrating Eid. He had previously filed complaints and a PIL against Accused No.1, the President of Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation and a Congress member, alleging corruption. This led to the corporation's dissolution and Accused No.1 being barred from elections. On the night of the incident, the Informant and his friend Tiwari were attacked by a group with a chopper, causing serious injuries. Tiwari took him to the hospital, and the police registered a case against unknown persons under various IPC sections including 307 and 120B. Investigation led to the arrest of eight accused. During trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. The Informant and Tiwari identified the accused in a Test Identification Parade. The trial court convicted Accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, sentencing them to five years imprisonment, while acquitting the others, including Accused No.1, due to lack of evidence of conspiracy. Accused No.4 appealed against his conviction, arguing that the identification was flawed because the TI parade was delayed and his photo was circulated in media before the parade, and that the recovery of the chopper was not linked to the crime. The State appealed against the acquittals, contending that there was sufficient evidence to convict the acquitted accused. The High Court, while analyzing the appeals, examined the definition of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC, emphasizing that mere motive or grudge is not enough; there must be positive proof of an agreement to commit an offence. The court noted the Informant's long-standing disputes with Accused No.1, but held that ipso facto, it does not prove conspiracy. The final decision of the High Court is not mentioned in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Conspiracy - Proof and Ingredients - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-A and 120-B - The court observed that criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act; mere existence of motive or previous enmity does not establish conspiracy. Positive evidence of an agreement is essential. In the present case, the Informant had made complaints and filed PIL against Accused No.1 leading to dissolution of Municipal Corporation, which could be a motive, but that alone cannot prove conspiracy without further evidence. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B read with Section 307 IPC, and whether the identification of the accused was reliable.
Law Points
- Mere existence of grudge or motive is insufficient to prove criminal conspiracy
- positive evidence of agreement necessary
- Criminal conspiracy defined under Section 120-A IPC
- Identification of accused requires reliable Test Identification Parade and must be free from prior exposure
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (11) 43
Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2001 with Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 2001
S. S. Shinde, Surendra P. Tavade
S. S. Hulke, Bhavin Jain, Ganesh Gole, Kuldeep Patil, Raju M. Yamgar, Sachin K. Hande, Harshad Sathe, Harshad Bhadbhade, Rajendra Sorankar
Ahya @ Alankar Nitin Talekar, The State of Maharashtra
The State of Maharashtra, Gilbert John Mendosa, Mukesh Shantilal Meheta, Pintya @ Vivek Prabhakar Pawar, Ravi @ Ravikumar Ghanshyam Bhabra, Manoj Mahadeo Sawant
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction under Section 307 IPC and acquittal of co-accused in a case of attempt to murder and conspiracy.
Remedy Sought
Accused No.4 sought acquittal; the State sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of acquitted accused.
Filing Reason
Accused No.4 was convicted and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment; the State was aggrieved by the acquittal of Accused Nos. 1-3 and 6-8.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 294 of 1999, convicted Accused Nos. 4 and 5 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine, while acquitting the remaining accused for all charges.
Issues
Whether the prosecution had established the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.
Whether the identification of Accused No.4 by the Informant and eye witness was reliable given the delay in Test Identification Parade and prior media exposure.
Whether the recovery of the chopper from Accused No.4 was legally proved and connected to the crime.
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting Accused Nos. 1-3 and 6-8 despite alleged evidence of motive and participation.
Whether the conviction of Accused No.4 under Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 was sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Accused No.4 argued that the trial court failed to appreciate evidence properly; the Informant had many enemies and a criminal record; eye witness Tiwari did not identify any accused; the incident occurred at night and the FIR lacked description of assailants; the Test Identification Parade was belated and after his photos were flashed in media, making it unreliable; recovery of chopper was not proved and had no nexus with the crime.
The State argued that the trial court wrongly acquitted Accused Nos. 1-3 and 6-8 by not properly considering the evidence; there was sufficient evidence against Accused No.4, and the trial court correctly convicted him; the appeal of Accused No.4 lacked merit.
The acquitted accused contended that neither the Informant nor the eye witness identified them in court; there was no evidence of their involvement; the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and acquitted them.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere existence of motive or previous enmity does not by itself prove criminal conspiracy; positive evidence of an agreement to commit an offence is required. The definition under Section 120-A IPC requires a meeting of minds for an illegal act.
Judgment Excerpts
Merely because Accused No. 1 had grudged against the Informant, it ipso facto cannot prove that Accused No. 1 must have had hatched the conspiracy. There must be positive evidence to prove the conspiracy.
The Informant deposes that he is social worker and he was President of Janta Dal, at the relevant time, he used to make complaints against the revenue officers, employees of Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation and other public servants regarding their alleged illegal activities.
He also deposed that he had filed complaint against the President of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation, namely, Accused No. 1.
Procedural History
On 20 January 1999, an FIR was registered at Bhayander Police Station under Sections 143,144,147,148,149,307,120B IPC and 37(1),135 Bombay Police Act against unknown persons. Investigation led to arrest of eight accused. A Test Identification Parade was conducted where the Informant and eye witness identified the accused. Charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Charges were framed, and the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court, after examining thirteen prosecution witnesses, convicted Accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and acquitted the others on 30 June 2001. Accused No.4 filed Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2001 against conviction, and the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 2001 against the acquittal. Both appeals were heard together and reserved on 20 October 2021, and judgment pronounced on 25 November 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B, 34, 120-A
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 37(1), 135
