Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Custodial Escape Case: Parveen @ Sonu vs. State of Haryana (2021)

Date of the Judgment: December 7, 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 744
Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a person be convicted of conspiracy based solely on the confessional statements of co-accused, without any other corroborating evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving a daring attempt to rescue undertrial prisoners. The Court overturned the conviction of an accused, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. The judgment was authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice Hrishikesh Roy concurring.

Case Background

On March 14, 2009, a police party was escorting four accused individuals from Central Jail, Jaipur, to be produced in the Court of CJM, Bhiwani. At approximately 4:30 AM, they reached Rewari Railway Station and boarded a train to Bhiwani. While the train was at Nangal Pathani Railway Station, four young men entered their compartment and attacked the police party in an attempt to free the accused in custody. During the chaos, one of the attackers allegedly fired upon Head Constable Arjun Singh, who later succumbed to his injuries. The police managed to apprehend one of the attackers, while the other three escaped. The apprehended individual revealed his name and the identities of the other assailants. Subsequently, all the accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, convicted all the accused under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Accused Amarjit Singh and Surender Singh @ Dhattu were also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeals filed by the accused, upholding the trial court’s decision. The current appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by one of the accused, Parveen @ Sonu.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Arms Act. Key provisions include:

• Section 120-B, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states that “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”
• Section 224, IPC: This section addresses resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension.
• Section 225, IPC: This section deals with resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension of another person.
• Section 332, IPC: This section addresses voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty.
• Section 353, IPC: This section addresses assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of his duty.
• Section 302, IPC: This section deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for offences related to possession of arms.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

• The appellant argued that there was no concrete proof to establish his participation in the crime.
• He contended that the trial court and the High Court relied on the prosecution’s story without any supporting evidence.
• The appellant highlighted that except for the alleged confessional statements of co-accused, there was no other evidence to connect him to the crime.
• It was pointed out that despite the presence of 50-60 passengers, no independent witness was examined.
• The appellant also noted that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted.
• The appellant relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 312] and Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka [(2013) 14 SCC 729].

Respondent’s Arguments

• The State argued that there was sufficient material and evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• The State contended that there was credible evidence to prove that the appellant was part of the group that conspired to rescue the four accused.
• The State relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala [(2001) 7 SCC 596] to support the case of criminal conspiracy.
• The State also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 784] regarding the admissibility of confessional statements of co-accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the appellant for criminal conspiracy was justified, given the lack of direct evidence and the reliance on confessional statements of co-accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 312] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the appellant to argue that conviction cannot be based solely on confessional statements and recovery of vehicle used in the crime.
• Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka [(2013) 14 SCC 729] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the appellant to argue that confirmation of sentence by the High Court is justifiable only with sound reasons upon analysis of material evidence.

Cases Relied Upon by the Respondent:

• Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala [(2001) 7 SCC 596] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the respondent to support the case of criminal conspiracy.
• Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 784] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the respondent regarding the admissibility of confessional statements of co-accused.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 312]* to reiterate that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible and that convictions cannot be solely based on confessional statements.
• The Court also relied on Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka [(2013) 14 SCC 729]* to emphasize the need for sound reasoning and analysis of material evidence when confirming a sentence.
• The Court found that the judgments cited by the State, namely Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Others v. State of Kerala [(2001) 7 SCC 596]* and Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 784]*, were not helpful in supporting the prosecution’s case given the specific facts and evidence of this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the confessional statements of co-accused, which are not sufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence. The absence of independent witnesses and the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) also weighed heavily against the prosecution. The Court also noted that the High Court had not properly analyzed the evidence, further weakening the case against the appellant.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a conviction for criminal conspiracy requires more than just the confessional statements of co-accused. The Court emphasized that such statements must be corroborated by other acceptable evidence. In this case, the lack of independent witnesses and the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court also noted that the High Court had not properly analyzed the evidence, further undermining the conviction. The Court held that “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.” Further, the Court stated that “Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused.” The Court also observed that “On close scrutiny of evidence on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case, that the appellant herein, has conspired with other accused for the offences for which he was charged.”

Key Takeaways

• Convictions for criminal conspiracy require more than just confessional statements of co-accused.
• Corroborating evidence is essential to establish guilt in conspiracy cases.
• The absence of independent witnesses and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• High Courts must thoroughly analyze evidence before confirming convictions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for criminal conspiracy cannot be solely based on the confessional statements of co-accused without any other corroborating evidence. This reinforces the established legal principle that such statements are weak evidence and require independent corroboration. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the existing legal position regarding the evidentiary value of co-accused confessions in conspiracy cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Parveen @ Sonu highlights the importance of concrete evidence in criminal cases, particularly in conspiracy charges. The judgment serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based solely on the confessional statements of co-accused and that a thorough analysis of evidence is crucial for ensuring justice.