Page 1

1

NOT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1375 OF 2010 SUBHASH @ DHILLU                ...APPELLANT

:Versus:

STATE OF HARYANA    ...RESPONDENT WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1328 OF 2013 MUKESH @ BILLU               ...APPELLANT

:Versus:

STATE OF HARYANA    ...RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. These appeals have been filed by the accused  persons  who  were  convicted  and  sentenced  to  

rigorous  imprisonment  for  ten  years  by  the  

Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, under Section  

120-B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (IPC).  The  

appellants were convicted along with two other co-

accused who were convicted under Sections 392, 397  

of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the

Page 2

2

accused persons preferred appeals before the High  

Court. The High Court reduced the sentence of the  

accused  for  the  offences  under  Section  397  and  

Section 120 of IPC, from 10 years to 7 years only.  

However, rest of the sentence for other offences  

remained undisturbed.

2. Brief  facts  of  the  case  are  that  the  complainant Bal Kishan and his nephew Sanjay were  

going  on  a  motorcycle  carrying  Rs.46,000/-  with  

them in the dicky, for purchasing a piece of land.  

While they were near a Farm, two accused persons -  

Manjeet and Bijender (not appellants herein) came  

from behind in Maruti car. They brandished country  

made pistol and asked the complainant to stop and  

as  the  complainant  stopped,  the  accused  persons  

asked them to hand over the money. The complainant  

handed over the key of the motorcycle to them. The  

accused persons took out the money and sped away.  

The  complainant  gave  the  information  of  this  

incident to ASI Rajinder Kumar whom he met on the

Page 3

3

way to the Police Station. On the basis of this  

information an FIR was registered at Sonepat Police  

Station. The accused were charge-sheeted for the  

offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 392, 397  

of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The  

Trial Court convicted all the four accused persons  

and sentenced them for various offences. Accused  

Manjeet and Bijender were sentenced to undergo five  

years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of  

Rs.5,000/-  under  Section  392  of  IPC.  They  were  

further  sentenced  to  undergo  10  years’  rigorous  

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each  

under  Section  397  of  IPC.  Accused  Manjeet  was  

further sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous  

imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section  

25  of  the  Arms  Act.  Accused  Mukesh  and  Subhash  

(appellants herein) were sentenced to undergo 10  

years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of  

Rs.10,000/-  each,  under  Section  120-B  of  IPC  as  

according  to  the  Trial  Court,  the  robbery  was  

committed after the conspiracy hatched with them.

Page 4

4

3. Aggrieved  by  the  judgment  and  order  dated  20.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,  

Sonepat, all the accused persons preferred appeals  

before the High Court. The High Court reduced the  

sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years to 7  

years, in respect of the offence under Section 397  

and Section 120-B of IPC. Before us there are only  

two accused persons, namely, Subhash and Mukesh,  

who were convicted only under Section 120-B of IPC  

and no other offence.

4. The allegation against the present appellants  is that they both had informed the other accused  

persons  of  the  fact  that  the  complainant  is  

carrying the money in a motorcycle and that they  

could loot him. It is further alleged that they  

received  a  share  of  Rs.1000/-  each  from  the  

looters. Further, the evidence against the present  

appellants is their own disclosure statement to the  

police  pursuant  to  which,  allegedly,  the  police

Page 5

5

recovered  Rs.500/-  (Mukesh's  share  left  unspent)  

and  Rs.400/-  (Subhash's  share  left  unspent).  

Accused Bijender and Manjeet also made disclosure  

statement before the police thereby alleging the  

role of the present appellants as the informers of  

the group. During the trial the present appellants  

denied  having  made  the  disclosure  statement  and  

pleaded false implication. Further, it is pertinent  

to mention here that in the Trial Court's judgment,  

nothing  can  be  found  in  evidence  that  is  

incriminating against the present appellants. The  

statements made to the police have been denied by  

all the accused persons.

5. To make out the offence under Section 120-B of  IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to prove  

the existence of some agreement between the accused  

persons. There is no specific evidence as to where  

and when the conspiracy was hatched and what was  

the specific purpose of such conspiracy. No such  

evidence  has  been  adduced  in  the  present  case.

Page 6

6

Therefore,  in  our  opinion,  the  conviction  and  

sentence of the appellants have to be set aside.  

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 7.9.2009  

passed by the High Court and the judgment dated  

20.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,  

Sonepat, so far as it relates to convicting the  

appellants,  are  set  aside  and  these  appeals  are  

allowed. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1328 of  

2013 is directed to be released forthwith unless  

required  in  connection  with  any  other  case.  

Appellant  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.1375  of  2010  is  

already released on bail granted by this Court. His  

bail bonds shall stand discharged. There shall be  

no order as to costs.

….....…..…………………..J. (Pinaki Chandra  Ghose)

….....…..…………………..J. (Abhay Manohar Sapre)

New Delhi; February 25, 2015.