As per the case facts, the appellant, an employee of a bank and a custodian of one set of keys for a dual-lock system, was convicted for various offenses including ... theft, arson, and criminal conspiracy related to a bank incident. The High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the appellant's challenge before the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's sole responsibility for providing access to the bank's strong room and safe, and more importantly, whether a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and co-accused was proven. Finally, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances in which the appellant alone could be held responsible for providing access to the strong room and safe. Crucially, the prosecution also failed to establish the existence of any agreement (criminal conspiracy) between the appellant and the co-accused, which is essential for a charge under Section 120B of the IPC. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of all charges.