PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the challan papers and the impugned order dated 6th Jan., 1995 whereby the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur, has ordered for framing the charges for offences under Sections 395,397 read with Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioner.

(2.) Briefly the relevant facts are that at about 8.00 p.m. on 20th May,1994 Mohan Lal was sitting in the shop situated at Mandi Atalbandh, Bharatpur. It is alleged that the accused persons namely; Rajesh, Hari and Arjun Patodi and three others armed with gun entered into his shop, inflicted injuries to him by the but of guns, committed decoity and took-away Rs. 2,000.00 in cash from the box at the point of Guns. The first information report was immediately lodged. During the investigation, the above named accused persons were arrested. The informant Mohanlal his brother Ishwari and Harish chandra, in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. have stated that they had a dispute with Malkhan Singh, Sales Manager, Nath Seeds Ltd., Jaipur, in respect of certain transactions regarding purchase of a shop M/S Gupta Beej Bhandar. The petitioner Pradeep Kumar was in employment of the said Malkhan Singh and that Malkhan Singh and the petitioner in collusion entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused persons mentioned in the firs information report for committing the said decoity, Besides these statements, the 1.0. has not collected any other evidence to show that the petitioner bore enmity with the victims of the decoity or that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with Hari, Rajesh and Arjun Patodi and others who had accompanied them at the time of decoity.

(3.) It is true, that generally direct evidence regarding criminal conspiracy is not available because a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and is not possible to adduce direct evidence of the same. However, the offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code can be proved from the inference drawn form acts or illegal commissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of common design. For this I place reliance on the law laid-down by the Appex Court in the case of Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and ors Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors AIR 1980 SC 439. But active part of each conspirator has to be show or inferred from the evidence collected by the I.O. The 1.0. has not collected any evidence to show that the petitioner had any dispute or animosity with the victims of the alleged dacoity. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to commit an illegal act or the alleged dacoity with the culprits named in the FIR. The presence of the petitioner immediately before the occurrence or thereafter has also not been shown by the evidence collected by the I.O. It is needless to mention that mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof.