Full Judgment Text
2023INSC740
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011
BALLA @ FARHAT … Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH … Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No.2257 of 2011
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S.OKA, J.
1. In these two appeals, we are dealing only with accused
no.5-Balla @ Farhat, accused No.6-Habib and accused No.7-
Imran.
2.
It is not in dispute that appellant no.1 - Habib in
Criminal Appeal No.2257 of 2011 is no more and, therefore,
the said appeal insofar as appellant no.1-Habib is concerned
stands abated.
3.
We may refer to the prosecution case in brief. There
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.08.18
16:52:58 IST
Reason:
were twelve accused and out of the twelve, it is alleged that
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011 Page 1 of 7
four were absconding. The trial proceeded against the
remaining eight. The prosecution case is that on 26.11.2001
after getting a consignment of Masoor loaded in a truck at
Silwani for being transported to Indore, Vivek (PW-15)
boarded the truck, which at the relevant time, was allegedly
driven by accused no.5 - Balla @ Farhat. The case of the
prosecution is that Vivek (PW-15) was carrying a cash amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in a bag. He was also
carrying 1350 silver coins in two plastic bags. Further, the
case of the prosecution is that at Silwani, one Manoj (PW-4)
handed over a red bag containing currency notes worth
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) and a list of grocery items
to be handed over to Manohar (PW-5) for purchasing the same
at Indore. It is, however, alleged that after the Truck
reached Gairatganj, accused No.5 - Balla @ Farhat got down
and one Lalmiyan started driving the Truck.
4. In the early morning of 27.11.2001, while the Truck was
passing through Bairagarh, it was overtaken by a white Maruti
Car. The criminals sitting in the car got out and stopped
the truck under the false pretext that the Truck was involved
in an accident. One of them pushed the driver aside and
started driving the Truck himself. The other two persons
entered the truck. They were brandishing weapons. The
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011 Page 2 of 7
allegation is that the offenders picked up all the articles
in the Truck.
5.
The case against the three appellants in these two
appeals is of commission of an offence punishable under
1
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of dishonestly
receiving stolen property. The allegation against them is
that the stolen currency notes worth Rs.18,000/-, Rs.50,000/-
and Rs.20,000/- respectively were seized from them based on
memoranda under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(Exhibit P-11, P-12 and P-13).
6. The Trial Court had convicted the appellants herein for the
offence under Section 120B of the IPC. They were also
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 412 of
the IPC. However, in the appeal so far as accused no.6 -
Habib and accused no.7 - Imran are concerned, the
conviction under Section 120B of the IPC was set aside and
the conviction under Section 412 was converted into Section
411 of the IPC by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide the
impugned judgment dated 22.10.2010. In the case of accused
no.5 - Balla @ Farhat, the conviction for the offence under
Section 120B was maintained. However, the conviction under
Section 412 was converted into Section 411 of the IPC by
1. F or short, “IPC”
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011 Page 3 of 7
the High Court. Except for accused no.5-Balla, no other
accused was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 120-B of IPC. One accused was already acquitted by
the Trial Court. The other accused were convicted by the
High Court for the offences punishable under Section 395
and Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC.
7. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties, we have perused the material on record. It
is not in dispute that PW 6 - Nirmal Kumar and PW 7 - Rakesh
Jain are the only two witnesses, who according to the
prosecution, were the witnesses to the recovery of the
aforesaid cash amounts from the appellants and there is no
other documentary evidence except memoranda at Exhibit P-11,
P-12 and P-13.
8.
As regards the conviction of accused no.5 – Balla @
Farhat under Section 120-B of IPC is concerned, we find that
the High Court has set aside the conviction of all six other
accused persons under Section 120B and accused no.5 – Balla @
Farhat is the only accused who has been convicted for the
offence under Section 120-B. The ground on which he was
convicted was that he was the only person who knew about the
availability of huge amounts of money in the Truck. Section
120-A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy. An agreement by
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011 Page 4 of 7
two or three persons is required to constitute a criminal
conspiracy. There cannot be a conspiracy by only one accused,
and it is necessary for the applicability of Section 120-B of
the IPC that there must be two or more persons agreeing for
the purpose of the conspiracy. This proposition of law finds
support in a decision of a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of
2
this Court in Topandas vs. The State of Bombay . Therefore,
the conviction of accused no.5 – Balla @ Farhat for the
offence under Section 120-B of the IPC cannot be sustained.
9. As far as Nirmal Kumar (PW-6) is concerned, during the
examination-in-chief, he had not deposed that he had seen a
sum of Rs.18,000/- being recovered from accused no.5–Balla @
Farhat. He claims that recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- was
made from accused no.7-Imran. He stated that he saw that
Police had come to the house of accused nos.6-Habib and 7-
Imran. However, in the cross-examination, he stated that he
did not enter the house of accused nos.6-Habib and 7-Imran
and in fact, he stated that he was not aware who was staying
in said house. Therefore, this witness has not proved the
recovery of the amount from any of the three accused with
which we are concerned. As far as Rakesh Jain (PW-7) is
concerned, firstly, he has been declared hostile. Secondly,
he has not deposed that the aforesaid amounts were recovered
2. (1955) 2 SCR 881
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011 Page 5 of 7
in his presence from the appellants in these two appeals.
Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the
alleged stolen cash from accused nos.5 and 7.
10.
Therefore, as far as the appellants herein, namely,
Balla @ Farhat, Habib and Imran are concerned, this is a case
of no evidence. Accordingly, the appeals succeed, and we
pass the following order:
(i) Criminal Appeal No.2257 of 2011 stands abated
as far as appellant no.1 – Habib is concerned.
(ii) Appellant – Balla @ Farhat (accused no.5) in
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011 and appellant
no.2 – Imran (accused no.7) in Criminal Appeal
No.2257 of 2011 are acquitted of the offences
alleged against them. To that extent, the
impugned judgments are modified. Both the
appellants - Balla @ Farhat and Imran are on
bail. Therefore, their bail bonds stand
cancelled.
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011 Page 6 of 7
11. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
………………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
New Delhi;
August 10, 2023
Criminal Appeal No.2256 of 2011 Page 7 of 7