Appreciation of Evidence in Sessions Cases - Justice D.Murugesan

(11) CONSPIRACY
It is well settled that from the very nature a conspiracy must be conceived and hatched in complete
secrecy and it is impossible and very rare to get direct evidence. It is also equally well settled that it is not
necessary that each member to conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Khalid vs. State of W.B. (2002) 7 SCC 334 has held that,
“… For an offence punishable under section 120-B the prosecution need not necessarily
prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act; the
agreement may be proved by necessary implication.”
It is further held in the very same decision that,
“Offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence.
However, conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by their nature, they are secretly
planned. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud
discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy
is therefore seldom available. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the
date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the
formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objections set before themselves as
the object of conspiracy, and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be
carried out, all that is necessarily a matter of inference. Therefore, ther circumstances proved
before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity
of the accused. Where trustworthy evidence establishing all links of circumstantial evidence
is available the confession of a co-accused as to conspiracy even without corroborative
evidence can be taken into consideration. It can in some cases be inferred from the acts and
conduct of the parties.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala - AIR 2006 SC 35
as follows:
“To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an
illegal act or an act bi illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary
that all the conspirators must know each and every details of conspiracy. Neither it is
necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each
and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by
necessary implications. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the
circumstantial evidence; as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of
conspiracy and its objects are usually deducted from the circumstance of the case and the
conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy.” – V. Thiagarajan and Others vs.
State rep. by Inspector of Police, SPE/CBE/ACB, Chennai.
(a) Essential ingredients:
that,
In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar – AIR 1994 SC 2420 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
30