Summary
Investigation into a 2005 shootout in Bangalore led to a case that members of a banned organisation had conspired to cause bomb blasts in Karnataka. A trust's minutes book recorded meetings at which A-1 promised guns, bombs and money and the accused resolved to train, collect weapons and identify targets; signatures were proved by a handwriting expert, and detonators, gelatine sticks, grenades, tin bombs were recovered from four accused. The High Court convicted A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-6 under Section 121-A IPC alone with life imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-6: the sanction under Section 196 CrPC was valid; the conspiracy to overawe the Government by criminal force was proved and continuing; A-1 was a driving force though nothing was recovered from him; Section 120-B yields to the specific Section 121-A; and life imprisonment was justified.
Issues
- Whether a court hearing an appeal after notice was limited to the question of sentence may examine the conviction on merits.
- Whether sanction under Section 196 CrPC, decided upon by the Home Secretary with the concurrence of the Home Minister and Chief Minister and communicated by an Under Secretary, was valid.
- Whether minutes of meetings resolving to collect weapons and identify targets, coupled with recovery of explosives from co-accused, establish a conspiracy to overawe the Government by criminal force under Section 121-A IPC, even though no overt act followed.
- Whether an accused from whom nothing incriminating was recovered, who attended only the first meeting three years before the recoveries and did not understand the language of the minutes he signed, could be convicted as a conspirator.
- Whether Section 120-B IPC can be invoked alongside Section 121-A, and whether the sentence could be limited by Sections 120-B(1) and 116 where the offence under Section 121 was not committed.
- Whether enhancement of sentence from seven years to life imprisonment under Section 121-A was justified.
Provisions considered
- Section 121-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860The section covers not only conspiracy to wage war under Section 121 but also conspiracy to overawe the Central or a State Government by criminal force or its show; 'overawe' implies creating a situation of alarm in which the Government must choose between yielding to force and exposing itself or the public to serious danger, including danger to public property or public safety (Mir Hasan Khan). By the Explanation no act or illegal omission need follow. The minutes and the consequential acquisition of arms and explosives brought the case within the latter limb. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Section 121, Indian Penal Code, 1860'Waging war' means war in the manner usual in war, directed at the sovereign authority (Nazir Khan, Navjot Sandhu); the High Court's finding that the ingredients of Section 121 were absent while Section 121-A was attracted was not disturbed, the State having filed no appeal. (¶¶ 23, 36, 38)
- Section 120-B read with Section 116, Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 120-B applies only where no express provision is made for punishing the conspiracy; since Section 121-A specifically deals with this kind of conspiracy, Section 120-B has no application and the argument that the sentence could not exceed seven years was rejected. (¶ 42)
- Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The proposal for sanction was considered by the Home Secretary (PW-73), who decided to accord sanction, and by the offices of the Home Minister and Chief Minister, the Under Secretary merely communicating it; the sanction was valid. Sanctions under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 39 of the Arms Act by the Commissioner of Police were also upheld. (¶¶ 23, 30)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Questions about the handwriting expert's report and about A-1's visit to Chintamani for the meeting were put to A-1, sufficiently inviting his attention to the circumstances relied on against him. (¶ 35)
- Section 5, Explosive Substances Act, 1908Convictions of A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-6 for possession of detonators, gelatine sticks, grenades and tin bombs, with seven years' imprisonment, were confirmed by the High Court and not disturbed. (¶¶ 9, 23)
- Sections 25 and 26, Arms Act, 1959A-6's conviction for the country-made revolver and live ammunition was confirmed by the High Court and not disturbed. (¶¶ 9, 23)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaObservations made while issuing notice are tentative and do not limit the Court's jurisdiction at final hearing (Yomeshbhai Bhatt); since leave was granted without restriction, the appeals were heard on merits and not confined to sentence. (¶ 27)
Held
- Though PWs 1 to 8 and 13 turned hostile, their evidence could be accepted to the extent found dependable: they confirmed that trust meetings took place, that accused including A-1 attended, and PW-4 deposed to dropping A-1 at the railway station. Recoveries of inflammatory literature were fully supported by panch witnesses, and the signatures of A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 on the minutes (Ex. P-92) were proved beyond doubt by the handwriting expert, establishing that the accused assembled with the intent disclosed in the minutes. (¶¶ 15, 31)
- In conspiracies involving terrorist activity, better evidence than the acts and statements of conspirators is hardly available; the prosecution need only establish such a degree of probability that a prudent man would believe in the fact in issue, and where arms and ammunition are recovered at the instance of the accused it is for them to explain possession (Lal Singh). A conspiracy is a continuing offence subsisting so long as its performance continues, and participants need not know each other provided all promote a single illegal objective (Ajay Aggarwal). (¶¶ 32, 33)
- The meeting of 10.12.2003 attended by A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-6, its minutes disclosing the intent to procure guns and bombs, the proved signatures, A-1's established presence in Chintamani though he was not local, the carrying forward of the objective in later meetings and the recoveries from the other accused of material of evident potential danger, with no explanation offered, established the conspiracy and A-1's involvement as a driving force; he could not escape liability merely because nothing was recovered from him. (¶ 34)
- The objections that A-1 did not understand the Kannada minutes he signed, that three years separated the first meeting from the recoveries, and that his signing was not put to him under Section 313 were rejected: his presence and the tenor of the meeting were proved, the bald suggestion that signatures were obtained later had no foundation, the conspiracy structured in 2003 continued unbroken through later meetings into the procurement of arms, and the expert's report and the Chintamani meeting were put to him. (¶ 35)
- Conspiracies to endanger public property or the safety of the public ought to be dealt with strictly; given the substantial quantity of arms and explosives acquired and the intent disclosed by the minutes, the High Court rightly enhanced the sentence under Section 121-A from seven years to imprisonment for life on the State's appeal, even though no untoward incident occurred. (¶¶ 41, 43)
Result
Appeals of A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-6 dismissed; the Karnataka High Court's judgment of 10.05.2016 convicting them under Section 121-A IPC with imprisonment for life, and the other convictions as modified by it, affirmed.