Mere discussion or knowledge can’t be accounted for Criminal Conspiracy. : Jharkhand High Court
It is necessary to show a meeting of minds between two or more people in order to conduct or cause to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means in order to be charged with criminal conspiracy. The offence occurs with the mind even if nothing else is done. It is a crime that is separate and punishable by other offences, this was referred by Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary of the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Ram Kumar Mehta s/o Late Dhupan versus State of Jharkhand [ Cr. Rev. No. 161 of 2012 ]
This order was passed when the only allegation against the petitioner, according to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner, as the principal of the school, allowed one call to be received by the victim boy (age 13 years), claiming that the call was from his maternal uncle (mama), after which the victim boy left the school and went to his house, and then proceeded furiously. Apart from that, the learned Senior Counsel contends, there is no other evidence against the current petitioner. It is undeniable that, according to the current case documents, the boy has yet to be found.
The learned Senior Counsel also argued that there is a distinction between “suspicion” and “grave suspicion,” and that the petitioner’s motion for release was denied despite the fact that the petitioner was merely charged on suspicion and there is no evidence linking him to the alleged crime. He has cited a Supreme Court decision [Gulam Sarbar Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)] on the basic ingredients for the crime of criminal conspiracy, which is reported in (2014) 3 SCC 401 [Gulam Sarbar Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)].
While opposing the prayer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposing party as the State has stated that the impugned order is a detailed order stating the documents obtained throughout the investigation. He also contends that the absence of a specific reference to the paragraph number of the case diary is insufficient to establish that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. He also claims that this Court ordered the case diary, which is on file, and that the conclusions of the learned court below reflect the materials acquired during the investigation and recorded in the case diary, as well as the counter affidavit filed in this matter.
On hearing both sides court referred to the case of Mohd. Amin v. CBI that knowledge of the overall object/purpose of the conspiracy is sufficient for this section, and that the accused does not need to know the exact steps of the plot. In Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court dealt with a case in which the accused bought Fortwin injection and chloroform. Thus, because the purchase of these materials was a prelude to the commission of the crime, the presence of co-accused Sonia, though not mentioned by witnesses at the time of the kidnapping, did not imply that she was not aware of the conspiracy, and the accused’s conviction under Section 120-B IPC was upheld.
As a result, the Court is of the considered opinion that the contested order is neither perverse nor non-speaking, nor does it include any serious irregularity or illegality warranting intervention in revisionary jurisdiction. As a result, the current criminal revision petition is denied.