NASIB Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON July 23, 1998 around 8 A. M. Accused Mohsin inflicted Gupti blows on the chest of Javed Iqbal and killed him. Mohsin was convicted and sentenced by learned Sessions Judge Tonk under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated January 25, 2001 to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer two months imprisonment. Accused Mohsin however did not choose to assail the said judgment for the reasons best known to him. Mohammed Zahid. Nasib and Sayed Mussavir Shah, the appellants herein were also tried alongwith Mohsin before the learned trial Judge for having conspired the killing of Javed Iqbal. Learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty and convicted them under sections 302 read with section 120 B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for two months. The three appellants have called in question the said finding in these appeals.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on July 23, 1998 informant Mateen Adil (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Kotwali Tonk to the effect that on the said day around 8 AM he saw a person inflicting blows with Gupti on the chest of Javed Iqbal and fleeing away. When the informant reached near the injured he told the informant that name of assailant was Mohsin. Injured Javed Iqbal was removed to the Hospital where he was declared dead. On that report case under sections 302 and 120b IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Tonk. Charges under sections 302, 177 and 120b IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 36 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) EVIDENTLY finding of conviction and sentence of the appellants is based on surmises and conjectures. It is settled law that for an offence under Section 120b IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to do be done the illegal act. The agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Section 120a of the IPC provides that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by alleging be illegal means such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. Section 120b is the Penal Section. Direct evidence in criminal conspiracy is seldom available and even when available, it will be tainted, being that if an accomplice and would require corroboration. Generally a conspiracy is a matter of the inference by circumstantial evidence.