BILAL HAJAR @ ABDUL HAMEED versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 10-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
781
BILAL HAJAR @ ABDUL HAMEED
v.
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2008)
OCTOBER 10, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 120-B – Conviction under – Prosecution
case was that the nine accused (A-1 to A-9) hatched a criminal
conspiracy in the house of appellant (A-6) to murder the victim –
Trial Court convicted A-1 to A-9 u/s.120-B IPC, A-1 to A-5 u/ss.
148 and 302 IPC, and A-1 u/s. 332 IPC – High Court upheld the
conviction of the accused, except that of accused (A-9) who was
acquitted and conviction of accused (A-2) u/s.120-B IPC was set
aside – A-6 alone filed appeal against his conviction u/s.120-B IPC
– Held: In order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two
or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a
must – However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must
know each and every detail of the conspiracy, which is being hatched
and nor it is necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting –
In other words, their presence and participation in such a meeting
alone is sufficient – In instant case, evidence of PW-3 and PW-4
proved the factum of meeting being held at the appellant’s house
with other accused wherein a decision was taken to kill the victim –
Presence of PW-3 in appellant’s house while serving tea to all the
accused was proved by the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 – Further,
evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 proved the exchange of talk between
the accused confirming that they would kill victim and that the victim
was indeed killed five days after the meeting – The complicity of the
appellant in conceiving a plan to kill victim was therefore duly proved
with the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of
mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by
illegal means is a must. In other words, it is sine qua non for
invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused. However, it
is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and
781
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 781
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
every detail of the conspiracy, which is being hatched and nor it
is necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting. In
other words, their presence and participation in such meeting
alone is sufficient. It is well known that a criminal conspiracy is
always hatched in secrecy and is never an open affair to anyone
much less to public at large. It is for this reason, its existence
coupled with the object for which it was hatched has to be gathered
on the basis of circumstantial evidence, such as conduct of the
conspirators, the chain of circumstances leading to holding of
such meeting till the commission of offence by applying the
principle applicable for appreciating the circumstantial evidence
for holding the accused guilty for commission of an offence. [Paras
32-34]  [788-G-H; 789-A-B]
2.  Perusal of evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 would go to show
that PW-4 was running his small tea stall under a tree near
appellant’s house. It was around 70 feet away from the house and
one could see the appellant’s house from the tea stall. PW-3 was
working as a tea boy in PW-4’s tea stall on daily wages during the
relevant time. [Para 37]  [789-F-G]
3.  There is no good ground to discard the testimony of
PW-3 and PW-4.  Their testimony is found natural, consistent
and does not suffer from any contradictions much less major
contradictions so as to brush aside as being wholly unreliable.
The two courts below, therefore rightly relied on their testimony
to sustain appellant’s conviction under Section 120-B, IPC. [Para
40]  [790-F-G]
4.   The test laid down by this Court as to how a case under
Section 120-A, IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC is required to
be made out by the prosecution with the aid of evidence is found
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in this case
and this is said for following reasons. First, there was adequate
foundation laid for holding a meeting by the accused and the said
foundation was an incident of pasting of posters in public places
all over the city and second, a public meeting in which victim-
deceased uttered filthy language against the members of the
community to which the accused belonged. These two facts did
constitute a foundation for the commission of offence in question
and they were duly proved with adequate evidence by the
A
B
C
D

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.