LexSAJU versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAJU A v. STATE OF KERALA NOVEMBER 15, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B· Penal Code, 1860. Sections 109, l 20B & 302-Criminal Conspiracy-Essential Ingredients-Proof of-Held, agreement to commit offence and mens rea of C crime-Motive by itself not proof of conspiracy-Prosecution alleging illicit relations between accused and deceased-Deceased refusing to terminate pregnancy-Deceased fatally stabbed by other accused-Offence alleged to have been committed by other accused in conspiracy with accused-Whether criminal conspiracy established-No positive evidence attributing pregnancy D of deceased to accused or insistence for abortion by accused-Both accused seen together qn date of occurrence but not proved beyond doubt that they were together at place of occurrence·-lntimacy between both accused not suggested-Other accused not habitual criminal-Held, mere meeting by itself not sufficient to infer existence of criminal conspiracy-On facts, exist.~nce of circumstances suggesting hatching of criminal conspiracy absent~ E Ingredients of abetment also not proved-Held, Conviction with aid of Sections 120-B or 109 not Proper-Criminal.Trial-Circumstantial Evidence. Sections 1208 & 302-Criminal conspiracy alleged-Appeal of accused who had fatally stabbed deceased dismissed-Whether charge of conspiracy against co-accused deemed to have been proved-Held, not proved-charge F of conspiracy against co-accused failed-Whether person accused of stabbing deceased entitled to acquittal-Held, not entitled to acquittal. Evidence Act, 1872-Section JO-Applicability-Criminal Trial- Appreciation of Evidence-Evidence of action or Statement of onP. accused- G When can be used against another-Held, when two or more person had conspired together for =ommitting offence-Penal Code, 1860--Section 120-B. Prosecution alleged that accused-appellant developed illicit relations with the deceased resulting in her pregnancy and when deceased declined to get the pregnancy aborted, appellant hatched conspiracy with accused No. I to H 621 622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A get rid of the deceased as a result of which deceased was fatally stabbed by accused No~ 1. Trial Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence found both, appellant and accused No. I guilty of offences under Sections 109, 120-B and 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment which was upheld in appeal by the High Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, both B appellant and accused No.I have appealed to this Court which dismissed the Special Leave Petition in relation to accused No.1. The respondent-State contended that charge of conspiracy against appellant should be deemed proved after dismissal of appeal of accused No.I. C Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is D merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 1208 it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the E conspiracy. The essential ingredient of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. Besides the fact of agreement the necessary mens rea of the crime is also required to be established. (626-H; 627-A; 633-C) Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab AIR, (1977) SC 2433, followed. F Suresh Chandra Bahari v. State of Bihar AIR, (1994) SC 2420, relied on. 2. In a criminal case the onus lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused was directly and personally connected with the G acts or omissions attributable to the crime committed by him. It is settled position of law that act or action of one of the accused cannot be used as evidence against other. However, an exception has been carved out under Section 10 of the Evidence Act in the case of conspiracy. To attract the applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the Court must have reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons had conspired together for H co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.