Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: August 26, 2022 at 17:06 IST
The Supreme Court observed that the criminal conspiracy offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code requires some sort of physical demonstration of an agreement to commit an offence.
All of the accused in this case were employed by the Central Bank of India’s Guna Branch and were prosecuted for theft (of Rs. 6 Lakh from the bank’s safe and strong room), house-trespass, destroying property of value, and other offences. The appellant-accused was concurrently found guilty of crimes under Sections 201, 380, 435, 457, and 477 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 120B.
The main accused were found guilty and received sentences simultaneously based on oral and documentary evidence that the money had been taken from their possession; however, the appellant was only found guilty and received a term for the same offences by using Section 120B of the IPC. The appellant, a Head Cashier, held one of the dual locker system’s keys, which the Bank kept under lock and key for the safe keeping of cash and expensive security.
An agreement to commit an offence is the main ingredient of the criminal conspiracy offence under Section 120B of the IPC, according to the Apex Court bench made up of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha.
The Bench said,
“Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the Appellant and other accused…It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence.“
According to the court, the evidence in the case, the prosecution has failed to present any evidence that would persuade it that the appellant and the other accused had prior had a meeting of minds.