SUBHASH @ DHILLU Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001375-001375 / 2010
Diary number: 37304 / 2009
Advocates: R. C. KOHLI Vs
RAO RANJIT
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.