Confession made by co-accused without any acceptable corroborative evidence is not enough to establish criminal conspiracy - SC

The Apex Court held that criminal conspiracy cannot be proved by merely confessing a statement in the absence of corroborative evidence. A Bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy held that prosecution relying on bits of evidence cannot be adequate to frame a case of criminal conspiracy. It is not safe to convict an accused based on a confession made by a co-accused without any acceptable corroborative evidence.

It was alleged that the three accused tried to rescue the fourth accused, who was being taken by the police via train to Bhiwani in order to present him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The incident resulted in the death of the Head Constable by firearm damages. 

The Trial Court prosecuted the four accused u/s Sections 224 (illegal obstruction to lawful apprehension), 225, 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to public servant), 353 (assaulting a public servant), 307 (attempt to murder), 302 (murder), 120-B (conspiracy) of the IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. The same was upheld by the Punjab & Haryana HC, confirming the life sentence of the four accused persons. 

Sonu, one of the accused, preferred an appeal before the Top Court, and the rest of the accused persons did not prefer an appeal.

Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for the appellant, contended that there is no existence of substantial proof to link the appellant to the crime. He asserted that the lower Court and the HC believed the prosecution story in the absence of supporting evidence. Except for the confessional statements made by the co-accused, there existed no other acceptable evidence to connect the appellant to the incident. 

The Court noted that 23 witnesses - including the police officials and eyewitnesses, none of them mentioned the appellant. There is literally no acceptable evidence to corroborate the statements. Moreover, in order to establish criminal conspiracy, there should be a common intention. The HC merely confirmed the Trial Court's order in this instant case.

Hence, the Bench acquitted the appellant for want of evidence.