Landmark Judgments On Conspiracy And Abetment
⚖️ PART I: CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Section 120A IPC defines criminal conspiracy, and Section 120B IPC prescribes its punishment.
✅ Essential Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy:
Two or more persons must agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
The agreement itself is the essence of the offence.
In some cases (except for agreement to commit an offence), an overt act is required in pursuance of the conspiracy.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Judgments on Criminal Conspiracy:
1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005)
Citation: (2005) 11 SCC 600
Facts:
Involved the 2001 Indian Parliament attack. Several accused were charged under various sections including Section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
Held:
Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Since conspiracies are hatched in secrecy, direct evidence is rare.
The Court emphasized the importance of interconnected circumstances, communication patterns, and coordination in time and acts.
Even if the conspiracy is not fully successful, the agreement is punishable.
Importance:
Set the tone for using electronic and circumstantial evidence in conspiracy cases.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996)
Citation: (1996) 4 SCC 659
Facts:
Involved alleged members of the terrorist group Khalistan Commando Force, charged with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified that “meeting of minds” is essential for conspiracy.
Merely being present or associated with conspirators is not enough; active participation or knowledge is necessary.
For framing charges under Section 120B, even strong suspicion backed by evidence is sufficient.
Importance:
Important for threshold of evidence needed at the stage of framing charges.
3. Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab (1977)
Citation: AIR 1977 SC 2433
Facts:
Involved professional misconduct by an advocate who was part of a conspiracy involving forged documents.
Held:
A conspiracy may be a continuing offence, and a new conspirator joining later can still be liable.
It is not necessary that all conspirators know each other; knowledge of the common design is sufficient.
Importance:
Laid down that each conspirator’s liability depends on the role and knowledge of the conspiracy, even if unaware of all others involved.
4. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988)
Citation: AIR 1988 SC 1883
Facts:
Related to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Kehar Singh was accused of conspiracy to murder.
Held:
Supreme Court held that conspiracy to murder can be inferred from conduct, behavior, and motive.
No requirement for direct evidence of the agreement; circumstantial evidence was sufficient.
Importance:
Emphasized that circumstantial evidence can strongly support conviction in conspiracy when the chain of events is unbroken.
⚖️ PART II: ABETMENT
Section 107 IPC defines abetment. Abetment includes:
Instigation
Conspiracy (as part of abetment)
Intentional aiding
Punishments are provided under Section 109 to 117 IPC, depending on whether the act abetted is committed.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Judgments on Abetment:
5. Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994)
Citation: (1994) 5 SCC 410
Facts:
Connected to the 1993 Bombay blasts case. Sanjay Dutt was found in possession of illegal arms and was accused of aiding and abetting terrorists.
Held:
Mere possession of arms does not amount to abetment unless there's a clear intent to facilitate the commission of a crime.
Abetment requires mens rea (guilty mind) and clear link with the offence abetted.
Importance:
Clarified scope of aiding and intent requirement in abetment cases.
6. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
Citation: AIR 1962 SC 605
Facts:
Nanavati, a naval officer, killed his wife’s lover. There were arguments on whether his friend who helped him hide the gun abetted the murder.
Held:
Mere assistance after the commission of crime is not abetment unless it was pre-planned.
For abetment to be proved, the act must be done before or during the commission of the main offence.
Importance:
Drew the line between abetment and accessory after the fact (which isn't abetment under IPC).
7. R v. Barendra Kumar Ghosh (Privy Council, 1925)
Citation: AIR 1925 PC 1
Facts:
Barendra Kumar was part of a group that fired at a postmaster during a robbery. Although he didn’t fire the fatal shot, he was present and armed.
Held:
Even passive presence during the commission of the crime, with knowledge and intent, is enough to establish abetment.
A person may be guilty of abetment even if not directly performing the act.
Importance:
Established the principle that “those who stand and wait” are also abettors.
8. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005)
Citation: AIR 2005 SC 3100
Facts:
Involved allegations of dowry harassment and abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Held:
For abetment of suicide, there must be a direct or indirect act of incitement.
Mere cruelty or harassment may not be sufficient unless it can be shown that the accused intended or knew that it could lead to suicide.
Importance:
Laid down guidelines for conviction under Section 306 IPC – the importance of proving intent or provocation.
🔍 Summary Table
| Section | Topic | Landmark Case | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| 120B | Criminal Conspiracy | Navjot Sandhu | Circumstantial evidence can prove conspiracy |
| 120B | Criminal Conspiracy | Som Nath Thapa | Strong suspicion enough at charge-framing |
| 120B | Criminal Conspiracy | Yash Pal Mittal | Late joiners to conspiracy can still be liable |
| 120B | Criminal Conspiracy | Kehar Singh | Conspiracy can be proved from conduct |
| 107/109 | Abetment | Sanjay Dutt | Intent is essential for aiding/abetting |
| 107/109 | Abetment | Nanavati | Abetment must be before or during crime |
| 107 | Abetment | Barendra Kumar Ghosh | Passive presence with intent = abetment |
| 306 | Abetment of Suicide | Sushil Kumar Sharma | Harassment must amount to instigation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments