Skip to content

Parveen @ Sonu v. State of Haryana

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Criminal Conspiracy A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused.

It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. [Para 12]

Case Law Reference

  1. Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar, (2019) 12 SCC 784
  2. Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31
  3. Uppa @ Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 14 SCC 729
  4. Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596