Dear Sir,
The ratio laid down in the following judgment directly applies to your case.
Delhi High Court
Harvinder Singh vs State on 3 February, 2015
Author: V.P.Vaish
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 18th November, 2014
% Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2015
+ CRL.M.C.Nos. 2877/2014, 2932/2014, 2938/2014, 2977/2014,
"49...;;;;The prosecution cannot be absolved of the responsibility of
bringing sufficient circumstances pointing towards existence of an agreement amongst the
conspirator to do an illegal act or a legal act through illegal means. Apart from commission of Acts,
prosecution is also casted with a responsibility to bring evidence on record suggesting that the same
has been committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were
parties to the alleged conspiracy. It is a well settled proposition of law that an offence of conspiracy
cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are
not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence. Reliance can be made to the matter of 'Central
Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao' (2012) 9 SCC 512, where while dealing with
the subject matter Honble Apex Court has observed:-....."
"60......Under normal circumstances this court
would have expressed its displeasure on the conduct with a warning to the erring official/s but when
the abuse is of a wider magnitude, I deem it appropriate to take serious note of the same. When the
power is given to the investigating agency, it carries inbuilt responsibility on the officials of the
Police force to use the power diligently for detection of crime and not for victimisation of a person
for extraneous considerations. ......"