Brief facts
- The three appellants (i.e. Accused no.5, Balla alias Farahat, No. 6 Habib, 7 Imran) filed appeals.
- The case against the three appellants in the appeals is of commission of an offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of dishonestly receiving stolen property. The allegation against them is that the stolen currency notes worth Rs.18,000/-, Rs.50,000/ and Rs.20,000/- respectively were seized from them based on memoranda under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The High Court set aside the conviction under section 120B of the IPC of the Accused No. 6 and 7. The Court converted the conviction of them under section 412 IPC into section 411 IPC.
- The High Court convicted the Accused No. 5 under section 120B and the conviction under section 412 was converted into Section 411 IPC.
Issue
- Can a single accused be convicted for the criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the IPC?
- The factors which have to be taken into consideration for commission of offence under the Section 120B IPC?
Held
- The Appellants were acquitted by the Apex Court.
- Section 120-A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy. An agreement by two or three persons is required to constitute a criminal conspiracy. There cannot be a conspiracy by only one accused, and it is necessary for the applicability of Section 120-B of the IPC that there must be two or more persons agreeing for the purpose of the conspiracy.
- The conviction of accused no.5 – Balla @ Farhat for the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC cannot be sustained.
- The witness has not proved the recovery of the amount from any of the three accused with which we are concerned. As far as Rakesh Jain (PW-7) is concerned, firstly, he has been declared hostile. Secondly, he has not deposed that the aforesaid amounts were recovered in his presence from the appellants in these two appeals. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the alleged stolen cash from accused nos.5 and 7.
Relevant Para no.
- 8, 9