Bombay High Court Quashes Conspiracy Charges in Murder Case: “Mere Presence at the Scene and Vague Allegations Do Not Establish Prima Facie Evidence or Credible Nexus to Alleged Crime”

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, rejecting the discharge application of the Applicant (Accused No. 6). The court found no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support the prosecution’s claim that the Applicant was involved in a conspiracy to commit the murder. The court discharged the Applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Facts:

The case arose from a dispute over the administration of Mangalam Apartments in Nalasopara. The deceased had prior altercations with members of the accused family (Accused Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 7), who allegedly harbored animosity toward him.

On March 29, 2008, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 assaulted the deceased in his flat with wooden sticks, resulting in his death. The prosecution alleged that this attack was part of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by Accused Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 7.

Key allegations against the Applicant (Accused No. 6) included:

1. Being present in the building earlier on the day of the incident.
2. Having allegedly stated, along with his brother, that the deceased needed to be taught a lesson.

The Applicant was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy). He filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that he was neither present at the crime scene during the incident nor involved in any conspiracy. This application was rejected by the trial court.

Issues:

1. Prima Facie Evidence: Was there sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the Applicant?
2. Conspiracy Allegations: Did the Applicant’s alleged presence at the location earlier in the day substantiate his involvement in a criminal conspiracy?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Absence at Crime Scene: The Applicant argued that he was not present at the crime scene during the assault.
2. No Overt Act or Conspiracy: There was no direct evidence linking him to the incident or the alleged conspiracy.
3. Similarity to Co-Accused: The Applicant highlighted that Accused No. 5, who was similarly situated, had been discharged earlier by the High Court.
4. Vague Witness Statements: The prosecution relied on statements that were vague and did not implicate the Applicant in any actionable role.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Seriousness of the Offense: The prosecution stressed the gravity of the case, resulting in the death of the deceased.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: The Applicant’s presence in the building on the day of the incident and prior disputes were cited as indicative of his involvement.
3. Conspiracy Charges: Witness statements suggested animosity between the deceased and members of the accused family, which the prosecution argued pointed to a conspiracy.

Analysis of the Law:

Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.:
This section empowers the court to discharge an accused if, after considering the record and hearing both parties, it finds that there is no sufficient ground to proceed to trial. The burden is on the prosecution to present material evidence establishing a prima facie case.

The court emphasized:

1. Threshold for Prima Facie Evidence: A prima facie case requires credible evidence linking the accused to the alleged offense.
2. Conspiracy Allegations: Mere association with other accused or presence at the location does not suffice to prove conspiracy without material corroboration.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to its earlier decision discharging Accused No. 5, who was similarly implicated. It noted that the discharge of Accused No. 5 set a precedent for the Applicant, as there was no additional evidence against him to differentiate his case.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. No Direct Evidence: The court noted that no direct evidence placed the Applicant at the crime scene during the incident.
2. Weak Witness Statements: The prosecution’s reliance on witness statements, such as those of Ms. Kashmira Mandliya, was insufficient. These statements only indicated the Applicant’s presence in the building earlier in the day but did not establish his involvement in the crime or conspiracy.
3. Absence of Motive or Nexus: There was no evidence of any role played by the Applicant in planning or executing the crime.
4. Conspiracy Charges: The court held that vague and sweeping statements about conspiracy, without material evidence, cannot warrant a trial.

The court highlighted that to sustain charges of conspiracy, the prosecution must present substantive evidence linking the accused to the alleged plan or overt acts. In this case, such evidence was missing.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge application, holding that:

1. There was no material evidence linking the Applicant to the alleged conspiracy or the assault.
2. The Applicant’s case was identical to that of Accused No. 5, who had already been discharged.

The High Court allowed the Applicant’s discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and set aside the charges against him.

Implications:

This judgment underscores the principle that criminal trials should not proceed in the absence of credible prima facie evidence. It reiterates that vague allegations and weak circumstantial evidence cannot be a basis for implicating individuals in serious offenses like murder and conspiracy. The decision strengthens the safeguards under Section 227 Cr.P.C., ensuring that accused persons are not subjected to unwarranted trials without sufficient grounds.

Also Read – Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Strict Safeguards for Drug Searches: Court Dismisses State’s Appeal against NDPS Act Acquittal, Ruling that Section 50’s Procedural Safeguards are Mandatory to Ensure Fairness in Drug Search and Recovery Processes.