Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Parveen @ Sonu against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had upheld his conviction for offences including murder and criminal conspiracy. The case arose from an incident on 14 March 2009 when a police party was escorting four accused from Central Jail, Jaipur to be produced before the CJM, Bhiwani. At Nangal Pathani railway station, four young men entered the compartment and attacked the police to rescue the accused. Head Constable Arjun Singh was shot and later died. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, along with others, under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 302 read with 120-B IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution relied heavily on confessional statements of co-accused and the testimony of police witnesses PW-20 and PW-22, who only named Vinod and Amarjit Singh, not the appellant. No Test Identification Parade was conducted, and no independent witnesses from among the 50-60 passengers were examined. The Court held that to prove conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, an agreement must be established, and confessional statements of co-accused require corroboration. The appellant had also been acquitted in a related case for snatching a Bolero car. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120-B IPC - Proof of Agreement - To prove conspiracy, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act; in absence of evidence showing meeting of minds, it is not safe to hold a person guilty (Paras 12-13). B) Evidence Law - Confessional Statements of Co-Accused - Corroboration - Confessional statements of co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, are not safe to convict the accused (Para 12). C) Criminal Procedure - Test Identification Parade - Necessity - In a case where identity of accused is disputed, failure to conduct TIP weakens the prosecution case (Para 11). D) Evidence Law - Independent Witnesses - Non-Examination - When there were 50-60 passengers present, non-examination of independent witnesses casts doubt on prosecution case (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant can be convicted for offences under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and other charges based solely on confessional statements of co-accused and in absence of any direct evidence or Test Identification Parade.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, and acquitted him of all charges. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Criminal conspiracy requires proof of agreement between parties
- Confessional statements of co-accused require corroboration
- Test Identification Parade is crucial for identity
- Conviction cannot be based solely on vague statements
