{"id":122342,"date":"2011-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-11-26T00:49:38","modified_gmt":"2018-11-25T19:19:38","slug":"mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ganguly<\/div>\n
Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
                                                                    REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n\n                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 2010 \n\n\n\n\n\nMohan Singh                                  .....Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n             - Versus -\n\n\n\n\n\nState of Bihar                               ....Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    This   criminal   appeal   has   been   preferred   from   the <\/p>\n
      judgment   of   the   High   Court   in   Criminal   Appeal   (DB) <\/p>\n
      No.   1338   of   2007,   dated   3.9.2008,   whereby   the   High <\/p>\n
      Court   upheld   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction <\/p>\n
      passed   by   the   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge, <\/p>\n
      Fast   Track   Court-IV,   Motihari,   East   Champaran   in <\/p>\n
      Sessions   Trial   No.   101\/16   of   2006\/2007.   The   learned <\/p>\n
      Sessions Court held the appellant guilty of criminal <\/p>\n
                                     1<\/span><\/p>\n
      conspiracy for murder under sections 120B of IPC and <\/p>\n
      of   extortion   under   section   387   of   IPC   and   sentenced <\/p>\n
      him   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   life   and <\/p>\n
      was   fined   for   Rs.25,000\/-   for   the   offence   of <\/p>\n
      criminal   conspiracy   for   murder   under   section   120B, <\/p>\n
      in default of which he was to further undergo simple <\/p>\n
      imprisonment   for   1   year.   He   was   further   sentenced <\/p>\n
      for   seven   years   rigorous   imprisonment   under   section <\/p>\n
      387   IPC   and   was   fined   Rs.5,000\/-,   in   default   of <\/p>\n
      which to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The   facts   of   the   case   are   that   the   informant   Shri <\/p>\n
      Vikas   Kumar   Jha   gave   a  fardbeyan  to   the   effect   that <\/p>\n
      at   about   5.00   P.M.   on   23.7.2005,   he   had   received   a <\/p>\n
      call on his telephone number 06252-239727, inquiring <\/p>\n
      about   his   elder   brother   Shri   Anil   Kumar   Jha.   The <\/p>\n
      informant   stated   before   the   police   that   his   elder <\/p>\n
      brother,   the   owner   of   a   medical   store,   on   the   said <\/p>\n
      date   had  been   out  of   town.  He   submitted  that   he  had <\/p>\n
      communicated   the   same   to   the   caller.   Upon   such <\/p>\n
      reply,   the   caller   disclosed   himself   as   Mohan   Singh, <\/p>\n
                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
      the   appellant   herein,   and   asked   the   informant   to <\/p>\n
      send   him   Rs.50,000\/-.   The   informant   submitted   that <\/p>\n
      he   had   similar   conversations   with   the   caller   three <\/p>\n
      to four times in the past. However, he then received <\/p>\n
      another   telephone   call   on   25.7.2005   from   a   cell <\/p>\n
      phone   number   9835273765.   The   caller   threatened   him <\/p>\n
      that   since   the   demand   of   money   had   not   been <\/p>\n
      fulfilled, the informant should be ready to face the <\/p>\n
      consequences.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Upon   his   elder   brother’s   return,   the   informant   had <\/p>\n
      narrated   the   events   to   him.   However,   his   elder <\/p>\n
      brother did not take the threat seriously.\n<\/p>\n
4.    On   3.8.2005,   at   about   9.00   P.M.   when   the   informant <\/p>\n
      was at a place called Balua Chowk, he had received a <\/p>\n
      call   from   his   driver   Shri   Dhanai   Yadav   on   his   cell <\/p>\n
      phone   to   the   effect   that   informant’s   elder   brother <\/p>\n
      and   their   father,   Shri   Sureshwar   Jha,   had   been   shot <\/p>\n
      at   while   they   were   in   their   medical   store,   and   that <\/p>\n
      both   of   them   had   been   rushed   to   Sadar   Hospital.   On <\/p>\n
                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
      reaching   Sadar   Hospital,   the   informant   saw   the   dead <\/p>\n
      body   of   his   elder   brother.   He   was   intimated   by   the <\/p>\n
      people   there   that   his   father   had   been   shifted   to <\/p>\n
      another   hospital   called   Rahman’s   Nursing   Home.   He <\/p>\n
      was   also   told   that   the   shots   had   been   fired   by   one <\/p>\n
      Laxmi   Singh   and   Niraj   Singh.   Having   heard   this,   the <\/p>\n
      informant rushed to Rahman’s Nursing Home, where his <\/p>\n
      injured   father   told   him   that   while   Niraj   Singh <\/p>\n
      cleared   the   medical   store   of   all   the   other   people, <\/p>\n
      Laxmi   Singh   had   fired   shots   at   him   and   Anil   Kumar <\/p>\n
      Jha   with   an   A.K.   47   rifle,   before   fleeing   from   the <\/p>\n
      scene.   After   narrating   such   events,   his   father <\/p>\n
      became unconscious.\n<\/p>\n
5.    The   informant   further   stated   that   his   family   had <\/p>\n
      actually known the appellant and Laxmi Singh from an <\/p>\n
      earlier   incident   in   2004,   when   on   the   occasion   of <\/p>\n
      Durga   Puja,   the   two   had   sent   a   messenger   to   Anil <\/p>\n
      Kumar Jha’s   medical store, demanding Rs.50,000\/- or <\/p>\n
      to   face   death   in   the   alternative.   He   submitted   that <\/p>\n
      pursuant   to   this,   they   had   preferred   a   complaint <\/p>\n
                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
      before   the   police,   and   that   the   matter   was  sub  <\/p>\n
      judice.     He   further   stated   that   he   had   actually   met <\/p>\n
      the appellant once prior to the telephone calls when <\/p>\n
      the   latter   had   asked   for   money,   as   contribution   for <\/p>\n
      celebrations   of   Sarswati   Puja   and   Durga   Puja.   The <\/p>\n
      informant   thus   stated   that   his   father   and   brother <\/p>\n
      had   been   attacked   by   Laxmi   Singh   and   Niraj   Singh   at <\/p>\n
      the   instance   of   Mohan   Singh   for   not   having   paid   the <\/p>\n
      extortion   money.   The   informant   said   so   on   the <\/p>\n
      identification   of   the   voice   of   the   telephone   caller <\/p>\n
      as   that   of   the   appellant.   He,   however,   did   not <\/p>\n
      follow   up   the   calls   made   on   23rd  and   25th  of   July, <\/p>\n
      2005   either   with   the   appellant   in   person,   or   with <\/p>\n
      the authorities of Motihari jail where the appellant <\/p>\n
      was   in   fact   lodged   at   the   time   of   the   calls.   These <\/p>\n
      statements   of   the   informant   were   supported   by   the <\/p>\n
      informant’s   father   Sureshwar   Jha,   and   his   other <\/p>\n
      brother Sunil Kumar Jha.\n<\/p>\n
6.    On the basis of this  fardbeyan,  Motihari Town Police <\/p>\n
      Station   Case   No.246\/2005   was   registered   on   3.8.2005 <\/p>\n
                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
      against   the   appellant   Mohan   Singh,   Laxmi   Singh, <\/p>\n
      Niraj   Singh   and   others.   The   investigating   officer <\/p>\n
      submitted that he had known the appellant to have as <\/p>\n
      many   as   seven   criminal   cases   for   murder,   kidnapping <\/p>\n
      for   ransom   and   loot,   pending   against   him.   However, <\/p>\n
      he   submitted   that   he   had   received   the   phone   number <\/p>\n
      attributed to the appellant only from the informant.\n<\/p>\n
      Though   he   submitted   that   as   many   as   nine   calls   had <\/p>\n
      been   made   between   the   phone   numbers   attributed   to <\/p>\n
      the   appellant   and   Laxmi   Singh,   and   that   he   had <\/p>\n
      retrieved   the   records   of   calls   made   by   the   number <\/p>\n
      attributed   to   the   appellant   and   that   of   the <\/p>\n
      informant,   he   had   not   been   able   to   establish   as   to <\/p>\n
      who were the registered owners of the SIM cards.\n<\/p>\n
7.    The   learned   Sessions   Court   in   the   course   of   trial <\/p>\n
      took   note   of   the   fact   that   identities   of   the <\/p>\n
      registered owners of the said SIM cards had not been <\/p>\n
      established   by   the   police,   but   it   did   not   give   much <\/p>\n
      emphasis on this on the grounds that the informant’s <\/p>\n
      family   had   known   the   appellant   and   Laxmi   Singh   long <\/p>\n
                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
      enough and had known about their common intention to <\/p>\n
      extort money. On these findings the learned Sessions <\/p>\n
      Court found the appellant guilty.\n<\/p>\n
8.    On   appeal   the   learned   Division   Bench   upheld   the <\/p>\n
      conviction   inter   alia   on   the   grounds   that   the <\/p>\n
      informant   himself   and   his   family   had   known   the <\/p>\n
      appellant and Laxmi Singh from before.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Even   though   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment <\/p>\n
      held that identification by voice and gait is risky, <\/p>\n
      but   in   a   case   where   the   witness   identifying   the <\/p>\n
      voice had previous acquaintance with the caller, the <\/p>\n
      accused   in   this   case,   such   identification   can   be <\/p>\n
      relied   upon.   The   High   Court   also   held   that   direct <\/p>\n
      evidence   in   a   conspiracy   is   difficult   to   be <\/p>\n
      obtained.   The   case   of   conspiracy   has   to   be   inferred <\/p>\n
      from   the   conduct   of   the   parties.   The   High   Court <\/p>\n
      relied   upon   the   evidence   of   the   informant,   PW.4   and <\/p>\n
      on   Exts.   9   and   10   where   the   conversation   between <\/p>\n
      PW.4   and   the   appellant   was   recorded.   The   High   Court <\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
  also   relied   upon   the   evidence   of   PW.1   Dhanai   Yadav, <\/p>\n
  who   was   sitting   inside   the   medical   store   of   the <\/p>\n
  deceased Anil Kumar Jha at the time of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
  PW.1   was   a   witness   to   the   incident   of   Laxmi   Singh <\/p>\n
  firing   shots   at   the   deceased   and   his   father <\/p>\n
  Sureshwar   Jha.   The   High   Court   also   relied   upon   the <\/p>\n
  evidence of PW.2 Surehswar Jha, the injured witness.\n<\/p>\n
  The High Court found that the evidence of PW.2 and 4 <\/p>\n
  is   unblemished   and   their   evidence   cannot   be <\/p>\n
  discarded.   The   High   Court   also   relied   upon   the <\/p>\n
  evidence   of   PW.4   as   having   identified   the   voice   of <\/p>\n
  the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
10. On   appreciation   of   the   aforesaid   evidence,   the   High <\/p>\n
  Court   came   to   the   conclusion   that   Mohan   Singh   was <\/p>\n
  performing   one   part   of   the   act,   and   Laxmi   Singh <\/p>\n
  performed   another   part,   both   performing   their   parts <\/p>\n
  of   the   same   act.   Thus   the   case   of   conspiracy   was <\/p>\n
  made out.\n<\/p>\n
                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
11. Assailing   such     finding   of   the   Sessions   Court   which <\/p>\n
  has   been   affirmed   by   the   High   Court,   the   learned <\/p>\n
  Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   argued   that   the <\/p>\n
  appellant   cannot   be   convicted   under   section   120-B <\/p>\n
  and   given   the   sentence   of   rigorous   imprisonment   for <\/p>\n
  life   in   view   of   the   charges   framed   against   the <\/p>\n
  appellant.\n<\/p>\n
12. In   order   to   appreciate   this   argument,   the   charges <\/p>\n
  framed against the appellant are set out below:\n<\/p>\n
             “FIRST   –   That   you,   on   or   about   the <\/p>\n
     day of         at   about or during the period <\/p>\n
     between 23.7.05 & 3.8.05 agreed with Laxmi <\/p>\n
     Narain   Singh,   Niraj   Singh   &   Pankaj   Singh <\/p>\n
     to   commit   the   murder   of   Anil   Jha,   in   the <\/p>\n
     event   of   his   not   fulfilling   your   demand, <\/p>\n
     as   extortion   of   a   sum   of   Rs.50,000\/-   and <\/p>\n
     besides   the   above   said   agreement   you   did <\/p>\n
     telephone from Motihari Jail to Vikash Jha <\/p>\n
     in      pursuance   of       the   said      agreement <\/p>\n
     extending   threat   of   dire   consequences   if <\/p>\n
     the   demand   was   not   met   and   then   on   3.8.05 <\/p>\n
     the   offence   of   murder   punishable   with <\/p>\n
     death   was   committed   by   your   companions <\/p>\n
     Laxmi Narain Singh and Niraj Singh and you <\/p>\n
     thereby   committed   the   offence   of   criminal <\/p>\n
     conspiracy   to   commit   murder   of   Anil   Jha <\/p>\n
     and   seriously   injured   Sureshwar   Jha   and <\/p>\n
     thereby   committed   an   offence   punishable <\/p>\n
     under   Section   120-B   of   the   Indian   Penal <\/p>\n
     Code, and within my cognizance.\n<\/p>\n
                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
           SECONDLY – That you, during the period <\/p>\n
     between   23.7.05   &   3.8.05   at   Hospital   gate <\/p>\n
     Motihari   P.S.,   Motihari   Town   Dist.   East <\/p>\n
     Champaran, Put Vikash Jha in fear of death <\/p>\n
     and   grievous   hurt   to   him   and   his   family <\/p>\n
     members   in   order   to   commit   extortion   on <\/p>\n
     telephone and thereby committed an offence <\/p>\n
     punishable under Section 387 of the Indian <\/p>\n
     Penal Code, and within my cognizance and I <\/p>\n
     hereby   direct   that   you   be   tried   by   me   on <\/p>\n
     the said the charge.\n<\/p>\n
           Charges   were   read   over   and   explained <\/p>\n
     in   Hindi   to   the   accused   and   the   accused <\/p>\n
     pleaded   not   guilty   as   charged.   Let   him   be <\/p>\n
     tried.”\n<\/p>\n
13. Admittedly,   no   complaint   of   any   prejudice   by   the <\/p>\n
  appellant   was   raised   either   before   the   trial   Court <\/p>\n
  or in the High Court or in the course of examination <\/p>\n
  under Section 313 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
14. These   points   have   been   raised   before   this   Court   for <\/p>\n
  the   first   time.   In   a   case   where   points   relating   to <\/p>\n
  errors   in   framing   of   charge   or   even   misjoinder   of <\/p>\n
  charge   are   raised   before   this   Court   for   the   first <\/p>\n
  time, such grievances are not normally considered by <\/p>\n
  this   Court.     Reference   in   this   connection   may   be <\/p>\n
                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
  made   to   the   decision   of   a   three-Judge   Bench   of   this <\/p>\n
  Court   in   the   case   of  Mangal   Singh   and   others  v.\n<\/p>\n
  State   of   Madhya   Bharat  reported   in   AIR   1957   SC   199.\n<\/p>\n
  Justice   Imam   delivering   a   unanimous   opinion   of   the <\/p>\n
  Court   held  in   paragraph  5   at  page   201  of   the  report <\/p>\n
  as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
          “It   was,   however,   urged   that   there   had <\/p>\n
     been   misjoinder   of   charges.   This   point   does <\/p>\n
     not   seem   to   have   been   urged   in   the   High <\/p>\n
     Court because there is no reference to it in <\/p>\n
     the judgment of that Court and does not seem <\/p>\n
     to   have   been   taken   in   the   Petition   for <\/p>\n
     special         leave.         The          appellants         cannot, <\/p>\n
     therefore,   be   permitted   to   raise   this <\/p>\n
     question at this stage.”\n<\/p>\n
15. However,   instead   of   refusing   to   consider   the   said <\/p>\n
  grievance on the ground of not having been raised at <\/p>\n
  an   earlier   stage   of   the   proceeding,   we   propose   to <\/p>\n
  examine the same on its merits.\n<\/p>\n
16. The   purpose   of   framing   a   charge   is   to   give <\/p>\n
  intimation   to   the   accused   of   clear,   unambiguous   and <\/p>\n
  precise   notice   of   the   nature   of   accusation   that   the <\/p>\n
  accused   is   called   upon   to   meet   in   the   course   of   a <\/p>\n
                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
  trial.   (See   decision   of   a   four-Judge   Bench   of   this <\/p>\n
  Court   in     V.C.   Shukla      v.     State   Through   C.B.I.,<\/a> <\/p>\n
  reported   in   1980   Supplementary   SCC   92   at   page   150 <\/p>\n
  and   paragraph   110   of   the   report).   Justice   Desai <\/p>\n
  delivering a concurring opinion, opined as above.\n<\/p>\n
17. But the question is how to interpret the words in a <\/p>\n
  charge?   In   this   connection,   we   may   refer   to   the <\/p>\n
  provision of Section 214 of the Code. Section 214 of <\/p>\n
  the Code is set out below:\n<\/p>\n
    “214.       Words   in   charge   taken   in   sense   of <\/p>\n
    law   under   which   offence   is   punishable.   In <\/p>\n
    every   charge   words   used   in   describing   an <\/p>\n
    offence   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been   used <\/p>\n
    in the sense attached to them respectively <\/p>\n
    by   the   law   under   which   such   offence   is <\/p>\n
    punishable.”\n<\/p>\n
18.The other relevant provisions relating to charge may <\/p>\n
  be noticed as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “211.       Contents   of   charge.-   (1)   Every <\/p>\n
    charge   under   this   Code   shall   state   the <\/p>\n
    offence with which the accused is charged.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)    If   the   law   which   creates   the   offence <\/p>\n
    gives   it   any   specific   name,   the   offence <\/p>\n
                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
may   be   described   in   the   charge   by   that <\/p>\n
name only.\n<\/p>\n
(3)    If   the   law   which   creates   the   offence <\/p>\n
does   not   give   it   any   specific   name,   so <\/p>\n
much of the definition of the offence must <\/p>\n
be stated as to give the accused notice of <\/p>\n
the matter with which he is charged.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The law and section of the law against <\/p>\n
which   the   offence   is   said   to   have   been <\/p>\n
committed   shall   be   mentioned   in   the <\/p>\n
charge.\n<\/p>\n
(5)    The   fact   that   the   charge   is   made   is <\/p>\n
equivalent to a statement that every legal <\/p>\n
condition   required   by   law   to   constitute <\/p>\n
the   offence   charged   was   fulfilled   in   the <\/p>\n
particular case.\n<\/p>\n
(6)    The   charge   shall   be   written   in   the <\/p>\n
language of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
(7)    If the accused, having been previously <\/p>\n
convicted   of   any   offence,   is   liable,   by <\/p>\n
reason   of   such   previous   conviction,   to <\/p>\n
enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a <\/p>\n
different   kind,   for   a   subsequent   offence, <\/p>\n
and   it   is   intended   to   prove   such   previous <\/p>\n
conviction   for   the   purpose   of   affecting <\/p>\n
the   punishment   which   the   Court   may   think <\/p>\n
fit   to   award   for   the   subsequent   offence, <\/p>\n
the   fact   date   and   place   of   the   previous <\/p>\n
conviction   shall   be   stated   in   the   charge;\n<\/p>\n
and   if   such   statement   has   been   omitted, <\/p>\n
the   Court   may   add   it   at   any   time   before <\/p>\n
sentence is passed.\n<\/p>\n
215. Effect   of   errors.   No   error   in   stating <\/p>\n
either   the   offence   or   the   particulars <\/p>\n
required   to   be   stated   in   the   charge,   and <\/p>\n
no   omission   to   state   the   offence   or   those <\/p>\n
particulars,   shall   be   regarded   at   any <\/p>\n
stage   of   the   case   as   material,   unless   the <\/p>\n
                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
accused   was   in   fact   misled   by   such   error <\/p>\n
or   omission,   and   it   has   occasioned   a <\/p>\n
failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n
464.   Effect   of   omission   to   frame,   or <\/p>\n
absence   of,   or   error   in,   charge.   (1)   No <\/p>\n
finding   sentence   or   order   by   a   Court   of <\/p>\n
competent   jurisdiction   shall   be   deemed <\/p>\n
invalid   merely   on   the   ground   that   no <\/p>\n
charge   was   framed   or   on   the   ground   of   any <\/p>\n
error,   omission   or   irregularity   in   the <\/p>\n
charge         including           any         misjoinder          of <\/p>\n
charges,   unless,   in   the   opinion   of   the <\/p>\n
Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, <\/p>\n
a   failure   of   justice   has   in   fact   been <\/p>\n
occasioned thereby.\n<\/p>\n
(2)   If   the   Court   of   appeal,   confirmation <\/p>\n
or   revision   is   of   opinion   that   a   failure <\/p>\n
of justice has in fact been occasioned, it <\/p>\n
may-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)   in   the   case   of   an   omission   to <\/p>\n
               frame   a   charge,   order   that   a <\/p>\n
               charge   be   framed   and   that   the <\/p>\n
               trial   be   recommenced   from   the <\/p>\n
               point         immediately             after         the <\/p>\n
               framing of the charge;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)       in the case of an error, omission <\/p>\n
               or   irregularity   in   the   charge, <\/p>\n
               direct a new trial to be had upon <\/p>\n
               a   charge   framed   in   whatever <\/p>\n
               manner it thinks fit:  <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided   that   if   the   Court   is   of <\/p>\n
opinion   that   the   facts   of   the   case   are <\/p>\n
such   that   no   valid   charge   could   be <\/p>\n
preferred   against   the   accused   in   respect <\/p>\n
of   the   facts   proved,   it   shall   quash   the <\/p>\n
conviction.”\n<\/p>\n
                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
19. While   examining   the   aforesaid   provisions,   we   may <\/p>\n
  keep   in   mind   the   principles   laid   down   by   Justice <\/p>\n
  Vivian   Bose   in  Willie   (William)   Slaney  v.  State   of <\/p>\n
  Madhya   Pradesh<\/a>  reported   in   (1955)   2   SCR   1140.   At <\/p>\n
  page   1165   of   the   report,   the   learned   judge <\/p>\n
  observed:-\n<\/p>\n
     “We   see   no   reason   for   straining   at   the <\/p>\n
     meaning   of   these   plain   and   emphatic <\/p>\n
     provisions   unless   ritual   and   form   are   to <\/p>\n
     be   regarded   as   of   the   essence   in   criminal <\/p>\n
     trials. We are unable to find any magic or <\/p>\n
     charm in the ritual of a charge. It is the <\/p>\n
     substance   of   these   provisions   that   count <\/p>\n
     and   not   their   outward   form.   To   hold <\/p>\n
     otherwise   is   only   to   provide   avenues   of <\/p>\n
     escape   for   the   guilty   and   afford   no <\/p>\n
     protection to the innocent.”\n<\/p>\n
20. The   aforesaid   observation   of   Justice   Vivian   Bose   in <\/p>\n
  William   Slaney  (supra)   has   been   expressly   approved <\/p>\n
  subsequently by this Court in V.C. Shukla (supra).\n<\/p>\n
21. Reference   in   this   connection   may   be   made   to   the <\/p>\n
  decision   of  this   Court  in   the  case   of  Tulsi  Ram   and <\/p>\n
  others  v.  State   of   Uttar   Pradesh<\/a>  reported   in   AIR <\/p>\n
                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
  1963   SC   666.     In   that   case   in   paragraph   12   this <\/p>\n
  Court   was   considering   these   aspects   of   the   matter <\/p>\n
  and   made   it   clear   that   a   complaint   about   the   charge <\/p>\n
  was   never   raised   at   any   earlier   stage   and   the <\/p>\n
  learned   Judges   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the <\/p>\n
  charge   was   fully   understood   by   the   appellants   in <\/p>\n
  that   case   and   they   never   complained   at   the <\/p>\n
  appropriate   stage   that   they   were   confused   or <\/p>\n
  bewildered   by   the   charge.     The   said   thing   is   true <\/p>\n
  here.     Therefore,   the   Court   refused   to   accept   any <\/p>\n
  grievance   relating   to   error   in   the   framing   of   the <\/p>\n
  charge.\n<\/p>\n
22. Subsequently, in the case of  State of Andhra Pradesh <\/p>\n
  v.  Cheemalapati   Ganeswara   Rao   and<\/a>   another  reported <\/p>\n
  in AIR 1963 SC 1850, this Court also had to consider <\/p>\n
  a   similar  grievance.     Both   in  the   case  of  Tulsi   Ram <\/p>\n
  (supra)   as   also   in   the   case   of  Cheemalapati  (supra) <\/p>\n
  the   charges  were   of  conspiracy.     The   same  is   also  a <\/p>\n
  charge   in   the   instant   case.     Repelling   the   said <\/p>\n
  grievance,   the   learned   Judges   held   that   the   object <\/p>\n
                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
  in   saying  what   has  been   set  out   in  the   first  charge <\/p>\n
  was   only   to   give   notice   to   the   accused   as   to   the <\/p>\n
  ambit   of   the   conspiracy   to   which   they   will   have   to <\/p>\n
  answer   and   nothing   more.     This   Court   held   that   even <\/p>\n
  assuming   for   a   moment   that   the   charge   is   cumbersome <\/p>\n
  but   in   the   absence   of   any   objection   at   the   proper <\/p>\n
  time   and   in   the   absence   of   any   material   from   which <\/p>\n
  the   Court   can   infer   prejudice,   such   grievances   are <\/p>\n
  precluded   by   reason   of   provision   of   Section   225   of <\/p>\n
  the   Cr.P.C.     Under   the   present   Code   it   is   Section <\/p>\n
  215 which has been quoted above.\n<\/p>\n
23. Reference in this connection may also be made in the <\/p>\n
  decision   of   this   Court   in  Rawalpenta   Venkalu   and <\/p>\n
  another  v.  The   State   of   Hyderabad  reported   in   AIR <\/p>\n
  1956 SC 171 at para 10 page 174 of the report.   The <\/p>\n
  learned   Judges   came   to   the   conclusion   that   although <\/p>\n
  Section   34   is   not   added   to   Section   302,   the   accused <\/p>\n
  had   clear   notice   that   they   were   being   charged   with <\/p>\n
  the   offence   of   committing   murder   in   pursuance   of <\/p>\n
  their   common   intention.     Therefore,   the   omission   to <\/p>\n
                                  17<\/span><\/p>\n
  mention   Section   34   in   the   charge   has   only   an <\/p>\n
  academic   significance   and   has   not   in   any   way   misled <\/p>\n
  the   accused.     In   the   instant   case   the   omission   of <\/p>\n
  charge   of  Section   302  has   not  in   any  way   misled  the <\/p>\n
  accused   inasmuch   as   it   is   made   very   clear   that   in <\/p>\n
  the   charge   that   he   agreed   with   the   others   to   commit <\/p>\n
  the   murder   of   Anil   Jha.     Following   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
  ratio   there   is   no   doubt   that   in   the   instant   case <\/p>\n
  from   the   evidence   led   by   the   prosecution   the   charge <\/p>\n
  of   murder   has   been   brought   home   against   the <\/p>\n
  appellant.\n<\/p>\n
24. In  K.   Prema   S.   Rao   and   another  v.  Yadla   Srinivasa <\/p>\n
  Rao   and   others  reported   in   (2003)   1   SCC   217   this <\/p>\n
  Court held that though the charge specifically under <\/p>\n
  Section   306   IPC   was   not   framed   but   all   the <\/p>\n
  ingredients   constituting   the   offence   were   mentioned <\/p>\n
  in   the   statement   of   charges   and   in   paragraph   22   at <\/p>\n
  page   226   of   the   report,   a   three-Judge   Bench   of   this <\/p>\n
  Court   held   that   mere   omission   or   defect   in   framing <\/p>\n
  of   charge   does   not   disable   the   criminal   court   from <\/p>\n
                                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
  convicting   the   accused   for   the   offence   which   is <\/p>\n
  found to have been proved on the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
  The   learned   Judges     held   that   provisions   of   Section <\/p>\n
  221   Cr.P.C.   takes   care   of   such   a   situation   and <\/p>\n
  safeguards   the   powers   of   the   criminal   court   to <\/p>\n
  convict   an   accused   for   an   offence   with   which   he   is <\/p>\n
  not   charged   although   on   facts   found   in   evidence   he <\/p>\n
  could   have   been   charged   with   such   offence.     The <\/p>\n
  learned   Judges   have   also   referred   to   Section   215   of <\/p>\n
  the   Cr.P.C.,   set   out   above,   in   support   of   their <\/p>\n
  contention.\n<\/p>\n
25. Even   in   the   case   of  Dalbir   Singh  v.  State   of   U.P.,<\/a> <\/p>\n
  reported in (2004) 5 SCC 334, a three-Judge Bench of <\/p>\n
  this   Court   held   that   in   view   of   Section   464   Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
  it is possible for the appellate or revisional court <\/p>\n
  to   convict   the   accused   for   an   offence   for   which   no <\/p>\n
  charge was framed unless the court is of the opinion <\/p>\n
  that   the   failure   of   justice   will   occasion   in   the <\/p>\n
  process.     The learned Judges further explained that <\/p>\n
  in   order   to   judge   whether   there   is   a   failure   of <\/p>\n
                                  19<\/span><\/p>\n
   justice the Court has to examine whether the accused <\/p>\n
   was   aware   of   the   basic   ingredients   of   the   offence <\/p>\n
   for which he is being convicted and whether the main <\/p>\n
   facts   sought   to   be   established   against   him   were <\/p>\n
   explained   to   him   clearly   and   whether   he   got   a   fair <\/p>\n
   chance to defend himself.   If we follow these tests, <\/p>\n
   we   have   no   hesitation   that   in   the   instant   case   the <\/p>\n
   accused had clear notice of what was alleged against <\/p>\n
   him   and   he   had   adequate   opportunity   of   defending <\/p>\n
   himself against what was alleged against him.\n<\/p>\n
26. In     State   of   Uttar   Pradesh     v.     Paras   Nath   Singh<\/a> <\/p>\n
   reported in (2009) 6 SCC 372 this Court, setting out <\/p>\n
   Section   464   of   Cr.P.C.,   further   held   that   whether <\/p>\n
   there   is  failure   of  justice   or  not   has  to   be  proved <\/p>\n
   by   the   accused.        In   the   instant   case   no   such <\/p>\n
   argument   was   ever   made   before   the   Trial   Court   or <\/p>\n
   even in the High Court and we are satisfied from the <\/p>\n
   materials   on   record   that   no   failure   of   justice   has <\/p>\n
   been   occasioned   in   any   way   nor   has   the   appellant <\/p>\n
   suffered any prejudice.\n<\/p>\n
                                  20<\/span><\/p>\n
27. In Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and others v.   State of <\/p>\n
  Andhra   Pradesh<\/a>  reported   in   (2009)   12   SCC   546   this <\/p>\n
  court   again   had   occasion   to   deal   with   the   same <\/p>\n
  question   and   referred   to   Section   464   of   Cr.P.C.   In <\/p>\n
  paragraph   55   at   page   567   of   the   report,   this   Court <\/p>\n
  came   to   the   conclusion   that   if   the   ingredients   of <\/p>\n
  the   section   charged   with   are   obvious   and   implicit, <\/p>\n
  conviction   under   such   head   can   be   sustained <\/p>\n
  irrespective   of   the   fact   whether   the   said   section <\/p>\n
  has   been   mentioned   or   not   in   the   charge.   The   basic <\/p>\n
  question is one of prejudice.\n<\/p>\n
28. In view of such consistent opinion of this Court, we <\/p>\n
  are of the view that no prejudice has been caused to <\/p>\n
  the   appellant   for   non-mentioning   of   Section   302 <\/p>\n
  I.P.C.   in   the   charge   since   all   the   ingredients   of <\/p>\n
  the   offence   were   disclosed.     The   appellant   had   full <\/p>\n
  notice   and   had   ample   opportunity   to   defend   himself <\/p>\n
  against   the   same   and   at   no   earlier   stage   of   the <\/p>\n
  proceedings, the appellant had raised any grievance.\n<\/p>\n
                                 21<\/span><\/p>\n
  Apart   from   that,   on   overall   consideration   of   the <\/p>\n
  facts   and   circumstances   of   this   case   we   do   not   find <\/p>\n
  that   the   appellant   suffered   any   prejudice   nor   has <\/p>\n
  there been any failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n
29. In   the   instant   case,   in   the   charge   it   has   been <\/p>\n
  clearly   mentioned   that   the   accused-appellant   has <\/p>\n
  committed the murder of Anil Jha. By mentioning that <\/p>\n
  the accused has committed the murder of Anil Jha all <\/p>\n
  the   ingredients   of   the   charge   have   been   mentioned <\/p>\n
  and   the   requirement   of   Section   211,   sub-section   (2) <\/p>\n
  has   been   complied   with.     Therefore,   we   do   not   find <\/p>\n
  any   substance   in   the   aforesaid   grievance   of   the <\/p>\n
  appellant.\n<\/p>\n
30. Now  the  only  other  point  on  which  argument  has  been <\/p>\n
  made   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   is   that   in   the <\/p>\n
  instant   case   appellant   was   in   jail   at   the   time   of <\/p>\n
  the   commission   of   the   offence.             It   has   been <\/p>\n
  submitted   that   his   involvement   in   the   whole   episode <\/p>\n
  has been argued for only on the evidence of PW.4 who <\/p>\n
                                  22<\/span><\/p>\n
  is said to have identified his voice on the basis of <\/p>\n
  some telephone calls.\n<\/p>\n
31. These   are   essentially   questions   of   fact   and   after   a <\/p>\n
  concurrent finding by two courts normally this Court <\/p>\n
  in   an   appeal   against   such   finding   is   slow   and <\/p>\n
  circumspect   to   upset   such   finding   unless   this   Court <\/p>\n
  finds the finding to be perverse.\n<\/p>\n
32. However,  on  the  legal  issue  one  thing  is  clear  that <\/p>\n
  identification by voice has to be considered by this <\/p>\n
  Court   carefully   and   on   this   aspect   some   guidelines <\/p>\n
  have   been   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n
  Kirpal   Singh  v.  The   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh  reported <\/p>\n
  in   AIR  1965   SC  712.   In  dealing   with  the   question  of <\/p>\n
  voice   identification,   construing   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n
  Section   9   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   this   Court <\/p>\n
  held:\n<\/p>\n
     “…It   is   true   that   the   evidence   about <\/p>\n
     identification of a person by the timbre of <\/p>\n
     his   voice   depending   upon   subtle   variations <\/p>\n
                                  23<\/span><\/p>\n
     in the overtones when the person recognising <\/p>\n
     is   not   familiar   with   the   person   recognised <\/p>\n
     may be some-what risky in a criminal trial.\n<\/p>\n
     But   the   appellant   was   intimately   known   to <\/p>\n
     Rakkha   Singh   and   for   more   than   a   fortnight <\/p>\n
     before   the   date   of   the   offence   he   had   met <\/p>\n
     the   appellant   on   several   occasions   in <\/p>\n
     connection   with   the   dispute   about   the <\/p>\n
     sugarcane crop….”\n<\/p>\n
                         (para 4, page 714 of the report)<\/p>\n
33. Relying   on   such   identification   by   voice   this   Court <\/p>\n
  held   in  Kripal   Singh   (supra)   that   it   cannot   come   to <\/p>\n
  the   conclusion   that   the   identification   of   the <\/p>\n
  assailant   by   Rakkha   Singh   was   so   improbable   that <\/p>\n
  this   Court   would   be   justified   in   disagreeing   with <\/p>\n
  the   opinion   of   the   Court   which   saw   the   witness   and <\/p>\n
  formed its opinion as to its credibility and also of <\/p>\n
  the High Court which considered the evidence against <\/p>\n
  the   appellant   and   accepted   the   testimony   (see   para <\/p>\n
  4,   page   714   of   the   report).     The   same   principles <\/p>\n
  will   apply   here.     PW.4   in   his   evidence   clearly <\/p>\n
  stated   that   the   appellant   gave   him   a   phone   call <\/p>\n
  asking for money on 23.7.2005 and again on 25.7.2005 <\/p>\n
  when         the         appellant         threatened         him         of         dire <\/p>\n
  consequences   for   not   paying   the   money.     PW.4   also <\/p>\n
  stated   in   his   evidence   that   he   got   an   ID   caller <\/p>\n
  installed in his phone and he informed the police of <\/p>\n
                                             24<\/span><\/p>\n
the   phone   number   of   the   caller   which   is   of   the <\/p>\n
appellant.   PW.4 also stated in his evidence that he <\/p>\n
had   direct   talks   with   the   appellant   at   hospital <\/p>\n
chawk   prior   to   the   incident   when   he   used   to   demand <\/p>\n
money   from   him   and   other   shopkeepers   at   the   time   of <\/p>\n
Durga   Puja   and   Saraswati   Puja.     PW.4   specifically <\/p>\n
stated   that   he   can   identify   the   voice   of   Mohan <\/p>\n
Singh.     The   first   I.O.   of   the   case   (PW.6)   in   his <\/p>\n
evidence   also   stated   that   during   investigation <\/p>\n
mobile   No.9835273765   of   Mohan   Singh   was   found   and <\/p>\n
mobile   No.9431428630   of   Laxmi   Singh   was   also   found.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.   8,   the   other   I.O.   of   the   case   stated   that   on <\/p>\n
23.7.2005,   four   calls   were   made   between   the   mobile <\/p>\n
phones of Laxmi Singh and Mohan Singh. Then six more <\/p>\n
calls   were   made   by   Laxmi   Singh   to   Mohan   Singh   on <\/p>\n
3.08.2005,   i.e.   on   the   day   of   the   incident   itself.\n<\/p>\n
The   printout   details   of   these   phone   calls   were <\/p>\n
produced   before   the   Court.   So   both   the   Trial   Court <\/p>\n
and   High   Court   considered   the   evidence   of   PW.6   and <\/p>\n
PW.8   who   were   the   investigating   officers   in   this <\/p>\n
case,   apart   from   the   evidence   of   PW.4,   other <\/p>\n
witnesses   and   the   materials   on   record   before   coming <\/p>\n
                                25<\/span><\/p>\n
  to   the   conclusion.     The   fact   that   the   name   of <\/p>\n
  registered   allottees   the   SIM   cards   of   these   mobile <\/p>\n
  phones   could   not   be   traced   is   not   relevant   in   this <\/p>\n
  connection.     This   Court   finds   that   from   para   19 <\/p>\n
  onwards   of   the   judgment   by   the   High   Court   these <\/p>\n
  aspects have received due consideration.\n<\/p>\n
34. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on some <\/p>\n
  judgments   in   support   of   his   contention   that   in   the <\/p>\n
  facts   of   this   case   voice   identification   cannot   be <\/p>\n
  accepted.   The learned counsel   relied on a judgment <\/p>\n
  of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Nilesh   Dinkar   Paradkar <\/p>\n
  v.  State   of   Maharashtra<\/a>  reported   in   (2011)   4   SCC <\/p>\n
  143.     In   that   case   the   voice   in   the   telephone   was <\/p>\n
  tapped and then the voice was recorded in a cassette <\/p>\n
  and   the   cassette   was   then   played   to   identify   the <\/p>\n
  voice.     Therefore,   there   is   a   substantial   factual <\/p>\n
  difference   with   the   facts   in   the   case   of  Nilesh <\/p>\n
  (supra)   and   the   facts   of   the   present   case.     Apart <\/p>\n
  from   that   in     Nilesh     (supra),   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
  acquitted   A1   to   A4   and   this   Court   finds   that   the <\/p>\n
                                 26<\/span><\/p>\n
  evidence   against   Nilesh   was   identical.     Therefore, <\/p>\n
  this   Court   held   that   the   conclusion   of   the   High <\/p>\n
  court   in   acquitting   Accused   1,   2,   3   and   4   has <\/p>\n
  virtually   “destroyed   the   entire   substratum   of   the <\/p>\n
  prosecution   case”   (see   para   28   of   the   report).\n<\/p>\n
  Since   that   decision   was   passed   on   tape   recorded <\/p>\n
  version of the voice, the principles decided in that <\/p>\n
  case,   even   though   are   unexceptionable,   cannot   be <\/p>\n
  applied to the present case.\n<\/p>\n
35. The   other   case   on   which   reliance   was   placed   by   the <\/p>\n
  learned counsel for the appellant was in the case of <\/p>\n
  Inspector   of   Police,   Tamil   Nadu  v.  Palanisamy<\/a>   alias <\/p>\n
  Selvan  reported  in   (2008)  14   SCC  495.     In   that  case <\/p>\n
  this   Court   held   that   identification   from   voice   is <\/p>\n
  possible but in that case no evidence was adduced to <\/p>\n
  show that witnesses were closely acquainted with the <\/p>\n
  accused   to   identify   him   from   his   voice   and   that   too <\/p>\n
  from   very   short   replies.           Therefore,   this   case <\/p>\n
  factually   stands   on   a   different   footing.     In   the <\/p>\n
  instant   case   the   evidence   of   PW.4   that   he   knows   the <\/p>\n
                                  27<\/span><\/p>\n
  voice of the appellant was not challenged nor was it <\/p>\n
  challenged   that   the   mobile   no.   9835273765   is   not <\/p>\n
  that of the appellant.  Nor has the evidence of PW.8 <\/p>\n
  been   challenged   that   on   3.8.2005   eight   calls   were <\/p>\n
  recorded   between   the   mobiles   of   the   appellant   and <\/p>\n
  his conspirator Laxmi Singh.\n<\/p>\n
36. The   next   decision   on   which   reliance   was   placed   by <\/p>\n
  the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   was   rendered <\/p>\n
  in   the   case   of  Saju  v.  State   of   Kerala<\/a>  reported   in <\/p>\n
  (2001)   1   SCC   378.     In  Saju  (supra)   this   Court <\/p>\n
  explained   the   principles   of   Section   10   of   the <\/p>\n
  Evidence Act, as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
          “Evidene   Act,   1872   –   Sec.10   –   Condition <\/p>\n
     for applicability of <\/p>\n
          Act or action of one of the accused cannot <\/p>\n
     be   used   as   evidence   against   the   other.\n<\/p>\n
     However, an exception has been carved out under <\/p>\n
     Section   10   of   the   Evidence   Act   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n
     conspiracy.     To   attract   the   applicability   of <\/p>\n
     Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the court must <\/p>\n
     have   reasonable   ground   to   believe   that   two   or <\/p>\n
     more   persons   had   conspired   together   for <\/p>\n
     committing   an   offence.     It   is   only   then   that <\/p>\n
     the evidence of action or statement made by one <\/p>\n
     of   the   accused   could   be   used   as   evidence <\/p>\n
     against the other.”\n<\/p>\n
                                  28<\/span><\/p>\n
37. If we apply the aforesaid principles to the facts of <\/p>\n
  the   present   case   it   is   clear   that   there   is   enough <\/p>\n
  evidence   to   furnish   reasonable   ground   to   believe <\/p>\n
  that   both   the   appellant   and   Laxmi   Singh   had <\/p>\n
  conspired   together   for   committing   the   offence.\n<\/p>\n
  Therefore,   the   principles   of   this   case   do   not   help <\/p>\n
  the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
38. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   also   relied   upon <\/p>\n
  the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Yogesh <\/p>\n
  alias   Sachin   Jagdish   Joshi  v.  State   of   Maharashtra<\/a> <\/p>\n
  reported   in   (2008)   10   SCC   394.   In   paragraph   25   at <\/p>\n
  page   402   of   the   report   this   Court   laid   down   the <\/p>\n
  following principles:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Thus,   it   is   manifest   that   the   meeting   of <\/p>\n
     minds   of   two   or   more   persons   for   doing   an <\/p>\n
     illegal   act   or   an   act   by   illegal   means   is <\/p>\n
     sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but <\/p>\n
     it   may   not   be   possible   to   prove   the <\/p>\n
     agreement   between   them   by   direct   proof.\n<\/p>\n
     Nevertheless,   existence   of   the   conspiracy <\/p>\n
     and   its   objective   can   be   inferred   from   the <\/p>\n
     surrounding circumstances and the conduct of <\/p>\n
     the         accused.         But          the         incriminating <\/p>\n
     circumstances   must   form   a   chain   of   events <\/p>\n
     from   which   a   conclusion   about   the   guilt   of <\/p>\n
                                         29<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   accused   could   be   drawn.   It   is   well <\/p>\n
     settled   that   an   offence   of   conspiracy   is   a <\/p>\n
     substantive   offence   and   renders   the   mere <\/p>\n
     agreement   to   commit   an   offence   punishable, <\/p>\n
     even   if   an   offence   does   not   take   place <\/p>\n
     pursuant to the illegal agreement.”\n<\/p>\n
39. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   principles,   this   Court <\/p>\n
  finds   that   no   assistance   can   be   drawn   from   the <\/p>\n
  aforesaid   decision   to   the   case   of   the   appellant   in <\/p>\n
  this case.\n<\/p>\n
40. Reliance   was   also   placed   on   the   decision   of   this <\/p>\n
  Court in the case of  S. Arul Raja  v.  State of Tamil <\/p>\n
  Nadu<\/a>  reported   in   (2010)   8   SCC   233.     In   that   case <\/p>\n
  this Court held that mere circumstantial evidence to <\/p>\n
  prove   the   involvement   of   the   accused   is   not <\/p>\n
  sufficient   to   meet   the   requirements   of   criminal <\/p>\n
  conspiracy   and   meeting   of   minds   to   form   a   criminal <\/p>\n
  conspiracy   has   to   be   proved   by   placing   substantive <\/p>\n
  evidence.     In   the   instant   case,   as   discussed   above, <\/p>\n
  substantive evidence was placed to prove the meeting <\/p>\n
  of minds between the appellant and Laxmi Singh about <\/p>\n
  the   murder   of   the   victim.     In   evidence   which   has <\/p>\n
                                 30<\/span><\/p>\n
  been   noted   hereinabove   in   the   earlier   part   of   the <\/p>\n
  judgment   it   clearly   shows   that   there   is   substantial <\/p>\n
  piece of evidence to prove criminal conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
41. Reliance   was   also   placed   by   the   learned   counsel   for <\/p>\n
  the   appellant   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the <\/p>\n
  case   of     Mohd.   Khalid      v.     State   of   West   Bengal<\/a> <\/p>\n
  reported   in   (2002)   7   SCC   334.     In   that   case,   this <\/p>\n
  court   held   that   offence   of   conspiracy   can   be   proved <\/p>\n
  by   either   direct   or   circumstantial   evidence.     In <\/p>\n
  paragraph 24 at page 354 of the report the following <\/p>\n
  observations have been made:-\n<\/p>\n
           “Conspiracies are not hatched in the open, <\/p>\n
     by   their   nature,   they   are   secretly   planned, <\/p>\n
     they   can   be   proved   even   by   circumstantial <\/p>\n
     evidence,   the  lack   of  direct   evidence  relating <\/p>\n
     to conspiracy has no consequence.”\n<\/p>\n
42. For the reasons discussed above, this Court does not <\/p>\n
  find   that   there   is   any   reason   to   interfere   with   the <\/p>\n
  concurrent finding in the instant case.   This Court, <\/p>\n
  therefore,   does   not   find   any   reason   to   take   a   view <\/p>\n
  different from the one taken by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                   31<\/span><\/p>\n
43. The   appeal   is   dismissed   and   the   conviction   of   the <\/p>\n
     appellant   under   Section   120B   of   IPC   for   life <\/p>\n
     imprisonment is affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
                                       …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                       (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
                                       …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
New Delhi                              (DEEPAK VERMA)\n\nAugust 26, 2011\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 32<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011 Author: Ganguly Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, Deepak Verma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 2010 Mohan Singh …..Appellant(s) – Versus – State of Bihar ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122342","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-25T19:19:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-25T19:19:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5399,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-25T19:19:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-25T19:19:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-25T19:19:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011"},"wordCount":5399,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011","name":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-25T19:19:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122342","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122342"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122342\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}