IMPORTANT POINTS
In case of concurrent judgments of courts below the Supreme Court would not interfere unless the judgments are perverse. However once leave is granted it is just and proper to peruse the evidence.
Offence of “criminal conspiracy” is a separate and distinct offence. Meeting of mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non for invoking section 120B.. Mere presence and participation of accused persons in such meeting is sufficient.
Once the right to cross examine the witness is not availed, the accused cannot find fault with evidence of a witness before the supreme Court.
When an accused, sentenced under section 120B, does not plead or argue that his case falls under section 120B(2) warranting lesser sentence, the sentence u/s 120B cannot be disturbed.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Concurrent judgments of courts below – Supreme Court would not interfere unless the judgments are perverse – However once leave is granted it is just and proper to peruse the evidence. (Para 23, 24, 25)
       AIR 1952 SC 167 – Relied upon
       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120A and 120B – Offence of “criminal conspiracy” – A separate and distinct offence – Meeting of mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non for invoking section 120B – Presence and participation of accused persons in such meeting alone is sufficient – Object for which the conspiracy was hatched has to be gathered from circumstantial evidence till the commission of offence – Instantly PW 3 and 4 in their statement establishing the conspiracy to kill Siva – PW 3 and 4 being natural witnesses and their statements being consistent held reliable witnesses – Held, courts below rightly relied on testimony of PW 3 and 4 to sustain appellant’s conviction under Section 120B, IPC.
       (Para 30, 32, 33, 34, 40)
       (1962) 2 SCR 195; (2009) 6 SCC 564 – Relied upon
       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Instantly adequate foundation laid by prosecution – Pasting of posters on 19.08.1991 in public places all over the city announcing to kill Siva and 6 others – Siva uttering filthy language against the members of the community to which the accused belonged in a public meeting on 30.08.1991 – Evidence of PW3 and PW4 proving the factum of a meeting held in appellant’s house on 01.09.1991 with other accused wherein a decision was taken to kill/eliminate Siva within 10 days – Killing of Siva after 5 days – Absence of appellant from the scene at the time of actual commission of the offence on 05.09.1991 held immaterial. (Para 42, 43, 46)
       (1962) 2 SCR 195; (2009) 6 SCC 564 – Relied upon
       (d) Administration of justice – Waiver – Appellant not cross examining PW 3 and 4 – Cannot be allowed to find fault with evidence of PW 3 and 4 in the Supreme Court. (Para 51)
       (e) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – PW 4 running his tea shop for quite some time – PW 3 worked with him only for 5 days as daily wage worker – Nothing unnatural – In course of his duty PW 3 went to house of appellant – PW 3 cannot be said a chance witness – PW 3 also not having any animosity with appellant – Also not having any criminal background – Evidence of PW 3 and 4 rightly believed by courts below. (Para 54, 55)
       (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Appellant convicted and sentenced to life term – Appellant neither pleading nor arguing that his case falls u/s 120B(2) warranting lesser sentence – No error in sentencing. (Para 57)
       Facts of the case:
       In all nine persons were tried and convicted for commission of various offences for murder of one Siva.
       The High Court dismissed the appeals of the accused, except that of accused (A-9) who was acquitted. The conviction of accused (A-2) under Section 120B was set aside.
       This appeal has been filed by accused 6 who has been convicted u/s 120-B IPC.
       Finding of the Court:
       Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1200 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by appellant herein.

2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail hereinbelow.

3. The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows.

4. In all nine persons were tried for commission of various offences in Session Trial No.239 of 2000 by the Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track No.111) Coimbatore.

5. The details of the offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) for which the accused were tried are set out herein below:

(1) A 1 to A 9 Section 120B, IPC

(2) A1 to A 5 Section 148, IPC

(3) A 1 to A5 Section 302, IPC

(4) A1 Section 332, IPC

6. On 19th August 1991, some posters were found pasted on the walls of public streets in the city of Coimbatore. These posters contained threats that seven persons belonging to a particular community would be killed. One person, out of the seven named person, was “Siva Kumar @ Siva”.

7. Siva on coming to know of his name being published in the poster scolded in filthy language the members of a particular community in a public meeting held on 30.08.1991, as according to him, the members of that community had pasted such posters wherein he and six others named therein were given threat of murder.

8. On 01.09.1991 between 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m., all the nine accused (A-1 to A-9) assembled in the house of the appellant (A-6) and they hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Siva. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, on 05.09.1991, around 7.45 a.m. accused (A-1 to A-5) along with one absconded accused armed with deadly weapons assembled at Kovai Mill Road, Coimbatore and accused (A-1 and A-3) attacked Siva with knife, who was passing through the road. Accused (A-1) also stabbed one Constable Chinnathambi (PW-1) with knife, who had come to the spot. Injured Siva was taken to the nearest hospital where he succumbed to injuries and was declared dead.

9. This incident led to arrests of nine accused. Investigation was carried out and after completing it, the charge-sheet was filed against the nine accused and they were put to trial for commission of various offences as detailed above. By order dated 29.07.2003, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons as under:

“The punishment of life imprisonment to accused Nos.1 to 9 under Section 120(b)(1) and a fine of Rs.10,00/is imposed, failing which 1 year RI have to undergo. For accused Nos. 1 to 4, life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC and a fine of Rs.25,000/- as fine, failing which 1 year RI under Sections 148 of IPC to accused Nos.1 to 4 should undergo the RI in the same period. Under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, the period of jail while in the trail period may be deducted. Rs.1,00,000/- is to be given to the ward of the Siva as compensation from the total fine of Rs.1,90,000/- under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.”

10. The convicted accused felt aggrieved and filed their respective criminal appeals, some jointly and some separately in the High Court of Madras questioning therein the legality and correctness of their respective convictions and sentences awarded to them.

11. By a common impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeals of the accused, except that of accused (A-9) who was acquitted. The conviction of accused (A-2) under Section 120B was set aside.

12. The accused (A-6) alone felt aggrieved by his conviction and award of sentences and he has filed the present appeal by way of special leave to appeal in this Court. So far as other accused are concerned, they did not file any appeal in this Court against their respective conviction/sentences. Their conviction and sentences have, therefore, become final. They are undergoing their jail sentences as awarded to each of them.

13. So the only question

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 978

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed – Appellant(s) VERSUS State Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent(s) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1305 OF 2008 Decided On : 10-10-2018

Cases Referred (3)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1305 OF 2008
Decided On : 10-10-2018