List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Accused Must Participate in the Investigation

 13-Nov-2023

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Vineet Surelia v. The State of NCT of Delhi, has held that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the investigation but also participate in it.

What is the Background of Vineet Surelia v. The State of NCT Of Delhi Case?

  • As per First Information Report (FIR), the complainant/ prosecutrix and the applicant got introduced to each other through an online dating application.
  • On 13.06.2023, the complainant went to meet the applicant at Central Secretariat Metro Station, Delhi, whereafter, she went to the house of the applicant where he stated that he had some work pending therein, thereafter she was offered a soft beverage along with some food, after having the same, the complainant felt dizzy and during that half-awake state, the applicant did some acts of sexual misconducts upon her.
  • Thereafter, she managed to escape therefrom and lodged the present FIR under Section 328, Section 376 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • For the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail, the applicant before the Delhi High Court has filed the present application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
    • The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.

What were the Court’s Observations?

  • Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the investigation but also participate in it, while underscoring that there is a palpable difference between joining and participating in probe.
  • The Court held that, in any event, this Court wishes to take note of the fact that in numerous cases pending trial, unfortunately, there is a recent growing trend wherein an accused, despite either making a statement through counsel in the Court or despite conditions being imposed by the Court merely chooses to physically join investigation on paper, without any actual participation.
  • The court said if the accused only joins the investigation and does not participate in it, the purpose of granting bail, and especially anticipatory bail, will be defeated and shall cause a hinderance to the ongoing investigation being carried on.
  • The Court further noted that the applicant is expected to show high sensitivity, diligence and understanding, not only the purpose but also the consequences of any non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the Court while granting bail.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 328, IPC

  • This Section deals with the causing of hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.
  • It states that whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 506, IPC

  • This Section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.
  • It states that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc., or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
  • Section 503 of IPC defines criminal intimidation. It states that whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intim­idation.

Criminal Law

Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy

 13-Nov-2023

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sajeev v. State of Kerala, has laid down the essential constituents for proving a case of criminal conspiracy.

What is the Background of Sajeev v. State of Kerala Case?

  • On 04th April 2003, A1, A3, A10, and A11 hatched a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit to sell the same for an unlawful gain through the outlet operated by A1.
  • In furtherance of this conspiracy, A10 and A11 brought 21 cans containing methyl alcohol labeled as Biosole in the Maruti car owned by A10 to the residence of A1 and A3.
  • Thereafter, A2, A7, and A8 brought spirit to the residence of A1 and A3 in the Ambassador car owned by A2. Methyl Alcohol supplied by A10 and A11 was mixed with this spirit by A1 and A3 and sold through A1's outlet. A4, A5, A6, A9 and A12 assisted A1 in this sale.
  • This conspiracy result in the death of 7 innocent people including A4 and A12, blindness in 11 people, and more than 40 people sustaining injuries.
  • The Trial Court convicted the accused persons under Section 302, Section 307, Section 326 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • Thereafter, the High Court of Kerala confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court against these accused persons.
  • So, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
  • The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the High Court of Kerala.

What were the Court’s Observations?

  • A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Abhay S. Oka observed that where in pursuance of the agreement, the conspirators commit offences individually, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences.
  • The Court referred to the landmark case of State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) in which the Supreme Court summarized the ingredients for constituting a criminal conspiracy which are as follows:
    • Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means.
    • The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law, where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is the intention to commit a crime and join hands with persons having the same intention.
    • Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
    • Where in pursuance of the agreement, the conspirators commit offenses individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act that has a nexus to the object of the conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences.

What is Criminal Conspiracy?

About:

  • Section 120A defines criminal conspiracy. It states that-
    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.
    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.
    Explanation. —It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or is merely incidental to that object.
  • Section 120B deals with the punishment of criminal conspiracy. It states that-
    (1) 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.

    (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Case Laws:

  • In Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Supreme Court restated that to establish conspiracy, it is necessary to establish an agreement between the parties.
  • In Mohd. Naushad v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023), the Supreme Court clarified the offense of criminal conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each of the crimes which have been committed as a result of the conspiracy.