Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Orissa High Court has ruled that a wife’s failure to report her husband missing or to actively search for him, coupled with living with another man, does not amount to criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, delivered the verdict, while overturning the conviction of a woman accused of conspiring to murder her husband and subsequently having a relationship with another man, emphasising the need for clear evidence over mere suspicion.

The case involved the disappearance of the appellant’s (Nibedita Panda) husband, who went missing on December 12, 2007, after leaving home on a motorcycle with a co-accused. Despite her husband's prolonged absence, the appellant-wife did not report him missing or attempt to locate him. She also allegedly began living with another man during this period. The trial court convicted her under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment.

The High Court addressed the following critical questions:

1. Could the wife’s inaction on her husband’s disappearance be treated as evidence of conspiracy by her and her paramour?
2. Did her relationship with a co-accused imply an intent to commit a crime?
3. What standard of proof is required for a conviction under Section 120-B IPC?

Answering the first question, the court found that the evidence against the woman failed to meet the rigorous standard required for a conspiracy conviction. While her actions were deemed suspicious, they did not conclusively establish her active participation in the crime. The court, while considering the circumstantial evidences against the wife and her paramour, observed, “Law is well settled that suspicion howsoever strong, cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind might take the place of proof and therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that such thing should not take place.”

The court also pointed out that the charge under Section 120-B IPC was framed against the wife for allegedly conspiring with her paramour. However, no such charge was framed against the paramour, raising questions about the consistency of the prosecution's case. Citing the judgment in the case of Girija Sankar Misra v State of U.P. (1993), the court noted that “an accused alone cannot be convicted for the offence of conspiracy since the conspiracy cannot be by a single individual inasmuch as if the other alleged conspirators have been acquitted, a single remaining accused cannot be convicted under that section.”

The court also referenced the judgment in Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. (2022), reiterating that a “physical manifestation” of an agreement is indispensable to establish criminal conspiracy. Merely sharing thoughts or acting suspiciously does not meet this threshold. “In the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to conclusively prove transmission of thoughts between the appellant Nibedita Panda and other accused persons, leave alone putting forward any acceptable and rigid evidence regarding physical manifestation of agreement. Therefore, when the basic ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy i.e. agreement between at least two persons, is not proved, no strength remains in the prosecution argument that the appellant Nibedita Panda is liable for criminal conspiracy,” the court stated.

Moreover, the court found that the evidence, including statements from the children of the deceased, did not substantiate the ingredients of criminal conspiracy. Even if accepted that the wife’s paramour visited the house and later stayed with her after the victim went missing, or that the wife failed to report her husband's disappearance, such conduct, though suspicious, did not suffice as proof of conspiracy.

Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant under Section 120-B IPC, ruling that “in absence of any other clinching evidence, only basing on these suspicious conducts of the appellant, it cannot be held to be sufficient to convict her for offence of criminal conspiracy.”

 

Cause Title: Syama Choudhury & Anr v State of Odisha [JCRLA No.46 of 2010]

Appearances : Addl. Govt. Advocate Jateswar Nayak (For Respondent) and Advocate Sasmita Nanda (For Appellant)