Supreme Court Upholds Conspiracy Conviction in Murder Case: Bilal Hajar vs. State (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 10 October 2018

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a person be convicted of criminal conspiracy even if they were not present at the scene of the crime? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the murder of one Siva. The Court examined whether the appellant, Bilal Hajar, was part of a criminal conspiracy to murder Siva, even though he was not present during the actual killing. The bench comprised Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra, with Justice Sapre authoring the judgment.

Case Background

On 19th August 1991, posters threatening the lives of seven individuals, including one Siva Kumar, were found in Coimbatore. Following this, on 30th August 1991, Siva publicly berated members of a particular community, believing they were responsible for the posters. On 1st September 1991, the prosecution alleged that nine accused persons, including the appellant, Bilal Hajar, met at the appellant’s house and conspired to murder Siva. Subsequently, on 5th September 1991, some of the accused attacked and fatally stabbed Siva.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track No. 111), Coimbatore, tried nine individuals for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Sessions Judge convicted the accused, including the appellant, under Section 120B of the IPC for criminal conspiracy, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The convicted individuals appealed to the High Court of Madras. The High Court dismissed the appeals of all the accused except for A-9, who was acquitted, and A-2, whose conviction under Section 120B was set aside. The appellant (A-6) then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relevant to the case:

• Section 120A, IPC: Defines “criminal conspiracy” as an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. An exception is provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
  
  “when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy”
• Section 120B, IPC: Prescribes the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states that if the conspiracy is to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more, the punishment will be the same as if the person had abetted such an offence.
  
  “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s conviction was solely based on the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4, who were chance witnesses and therefore unreliable.
• The testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 contained inconsistencies and contradictions.
• The appellant was not present during the actual commission of the murder on 5th September 1991 and was therefore not part of the criminal conspiracy.
• The prosecution’s case admitted that the appellant was not present or involved in the actual killing of Siva.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The High Court correctly upheld the Session Court’s order, which was based on proper appreciation of evidence.
• There was no reason to reverse the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.
• The reasoning and conclusion of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

✓ Whether the Courts below were justified in holding the appellant (A-6) guilty for commission of the offence under Section 120B IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Lachman Singh vs. State (AIR 1952 SC 167) – The Supreme Court held that it is not the function of the Court to reassess evidence and an argument on a point of fact which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot avail the appellants in this Court.
• Major E.G. Barsay vs. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 195 – The Supreme Court explained the gist of the offense of criminal conspiracy as an agreement to break the law, and that the parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy even if the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done.
• Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab [2009 (6) SCC 564] – The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the existence of a criminal conspiracy and its object can be gathered from circumstantial evidence.

Judgment

Authorities:

• The Court relied on Lachman Singh vs. State (AIR 1952 SC 167)* to reiterate that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to reassess evidence already considered by lower courts.
• The Court referred to Major E.G. Barsay vs. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 195* to explain the concept of criminal conspiracy, emphasizing that the agreement to commit an illegal act is the gist of the offense.
• The Court cited Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab [2009 (6) SCC 564]* to highlight that a criminal conspiracy can be proven through circumstantial evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the meeting held on 01.09.1991 at the appellant’s house, where the conspiracy to murder Siva was hatched. The Court found the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 to be crucial in establishing this fact. The Court also noted that the appellant himself had taken the lead in planning the murder. The Court was not swayed by minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, emphasizing that the core of their statements remained consistent. The fact that the murder occurred as planned, just a few days after the meeting, further solidified the Court’s view that the appellant was indeed a part of the criminal conspiracy.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered arguments that the appellant was not present at the scene of the crime and that the witnesses were unreliable. However, the Court concluded that the appellant’s role in the conspiracy was sufficiently proven by the evidence presented. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s presence at the conspiratorial meeting and the subsequent murder of Siva were critical factors in its decision.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 120B of the IPC, stating:

“In our considered opinion, the complicity of the appellant in conceiving a plan to kill/eliminate Siva was therefore duly proved with the evidence adduced by the prosecution.”

“Indeed, it was the appellant who took the lead to kill/eliminate Siva and with that end in view first he held a meeting in his house with all the other accused on 01.09.1991 and pursuant thereto got it accomplished through accused (A-1 to A-5) on 05.09.1991 when accused (A-1 & A-3) caused fatal stab injury with knife to Siva resulting in his homicidal death.”

“The appellant could be held guilty for commission of the same offence and sentence, which was awarded to accused (A-1 to A-5) as if, he had abetted the commission of the offence of murder as provided under Section 120B, IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• A person can be convicted of criminal conspiracy even if they were not present at the scene of the crime.
• The prosecution must prove that the accused was part of an agreement to commit an illegal act.
• The testimonies of witnesses can be relied upon even if there are minor inconsistencies, as long as the core of their statements is consistent.
• Circumstantial evidence can be used to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person can be convicted for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC, even if they are not present at the scene of the crime, provided that their involvement in the conspiracy is proven beyond reasonable doubt. This judgment reinforces the established legal position that the agreement to commit an illegal act is the essence of the offense of criminal conspiracy. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of circumstantial evidence and the reliability of witness testimony in proving such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant for criminal conspiracy to murder. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy, despite his absence from the actual murder. The judgment emphasizes the importance of circumstantial evidence and consistent witness testimony in proving criminal conspiracy cases.