Accident S. 80 Essentials Nothing is an offence which is done 1. 2. 3. 4.

. by accident or misfortune and w/o any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act, in a lawful manner with lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Stephenss defn accident normally refers to an event that takes place w/o ones foresight. Thus it would be cruel to punish an act that no human foresight or care could prevent the consequence of and it is also not possible to impute evil intent to the doer because an accidental act is not his act at all. He does not will it. Elements of non liability under this section 1. Without any criminal intention or knowledge 2. conduct must be lawful 3. consequences must be purely lawful, plea of accident is negatived by negligence the accused must have taken precautions, which in the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works, (1856) 11 Ex 781. 4. Care and caution Cases 1. Tunda v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 95 the accused and deceased were friends and the accused invited the deceased for a wrestling bout. They went to an akhara to wrestle. While wrestling, the head of the accused was accidentally thrown into the edge of the adjoining chabutra which resulted in skull fracture and death. Held clear absence of intention on the part of the accused to cause death and that the injury caused was accidental. 2. Jogeshwar v. Emperor, 24 Cri LJ 78 9 A and B were fighting and a lady with a child tried to intervene. A aimed a blow at the woman but it fell on the child who died. Held A was not protected under the Section because he was doing an unlawful act when this event took place. 3. Aatmendra v. State of Kar, AIR 1998 SC 1985 where the charge against the accused was that he fired at the deceased, the defence plea was of accidental firing as the reaper swung by the accused struck the gun. However, the said reaper was not found at the place of occurrence. Evidence of ballistic experts ruled out firing from a short distance, evidence of eyewitness was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence. Also established that the accused fired at the deceased at the instigation of his father. On these facts, it was held that the act of the accused was intentional and not accidental and his conviction was held proper. 4. Surendrakumar v. State, AIR 1987 SC 652 -

NECESSITY Maxims 1. Necessitas Inducit Previlagium Quod Jura Privata Necessity carries privilege in itself 2. Necessitas Vin Cet Legam Necessity knows no law S. 81 Act done with the knowledge that it can cause harm but w/o criminal intent and to prevent other harm Nothing is an offence merely by reason of it being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done 1. W/o any criminal intention of causing harm, 2. in good faith 3. for the purpose of avoiding other harm to person or property. Explanation it is a question of fact whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it would cause harm. Justice Mansfield in R v. Stratton Wherever necessity forces a man to do an act, it justifies him as no man can be guilty of a crime w/o the will and intention of the mind.

3 Situations where Necessity can be pleaded

1. Self Defence and Prevention of Harm Ss. 96-100

2. Prevention of Harm to the accused at the expense of an innocent person

3. Choice of evils affecting persons other than the accused

One cannot plead the defence of necessity where theft of food or other eatables is committed to satisfy hunger. In such cases excuse is not granted as - there is criminal intention - excusing them will encourage ppl to plead this defence every time they commit theft. Sir JD Mayne S. 81 has been enacted to give legislative sanction to the principle that where, on a sudden and extreme emergency, two or more evils become inevitable, is it lawful to direct events in a manner that only the smaller one shall occur.

Essential ingredients under S. 81 1. Act must be done w/o any criminal intention 2. It must be done in good faith (S. 52) 3. The purpose behind the act must be to prevent a greater harm to person or property. Principles of Dr Gour 1. Self Preservation is not an absolute necessity 2. No man has the right to take anothers life to preserve his own 3. No necessity justifies homicide CASE LAWS 1. R v. Dudley and Stephens, (1884) 14 QBD 273 Lord Coleridge D, S and B all able bodied seamen along with a boy of 17-18 years of age were put in a small boat after a shipwreck on the high seas. They had no supply of food and water w/o which they lived for 17 days. On the 18th day, they decided to kill one of them so they could feed of the person and save the others. D with the consent of S but w/o the consent of B and w/o the consent of the boy himself decided to kill the boy after offering prayers for forgiveness. The 3 men fed on the boy for 3 days and were rescued on the fourth day. When 2 of them were tried for murder, they pleaded that they acted out of necessity to save their lives. Held there is no absolute or unqualified necessity to protect ones life. By what measure is the comparative value of lives to be measured? Is it strength or intellect or what? Was it more necessary to kill him than one of the grown men? The answer is no. Thus the prisoners act in this case is wilful murder. - Though law and morality are not the same and many things may be immoral that are not necessarily illegal, the absolute divorce of morality from law will be of fatal consequence . To preserve ones own life is, generally speaking a duty but it may be the plainest and highest duty to sacrifice it. - By what measure is the competitive value of life measured? Is it strength, intellect? - If the 2 accused were justified in killing him then if not rescued in time, 2 of the 3 survivors will be justified in killing the 3rd and of the 2 who remained; the stronger will be justified in killing the weaker. This means that it will be justified to kill 3 men in order to give the 4th a chance to live. Thus the court laid down the following three points:1. self-preservation is not an absolute necessity 2. no man has a right to take others life to preserve his own life, unless it is in selfdefence 3. there is no necessity that justifies homicide, i.e., to conserve ones life, as distinguished from public necessity or even necessity when it is justifiable. 2. Bishambhar v. Roomal, AIR 1951 All 500

The complainant was taken round the village on a donkey. His face was blackened and he was given shoe beating under orders of the accused who were members of the panchayat. The reason was that the complainant had molested a chamar girl and 200 chamars armed with lathis had collected to punish him. The accused were then prosecuted under S. 323 and 506 (voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation). They pleaded that all was done to save the complainant from serious consequences resulting from his own indecent behaviour, with his consent obtained in writing and for his own benefit. Held they were entitled to the benefit of Ss. 81 and 87. 3. US v. Holmes- sinking of American vessel people were vacated into long boataccused, holmes was one of the occupants of the long boat-the boat was leaking from the time it was launched-by next morning, the seamen and passengers were exhausted and shivering-at around 10pm, accused, with the help of the seamen threw 14 men and 2 women out of the boat- none of the crew members thrown out- held holmes guilty of manslaughter- for defence of necessity to be taken up, a fair procedure must have been followed to determine who would be thrown of the boat. Lots would have been an ideal method.

COMPULSION OR DURESS S. 94 Essential ingredients of the Section 1. the act has been done under compulsion 2. murder or offence against state punishable by death should not have been committed 3. the doer did not voluntarily put himself in that situation 4. the fear under which he did the act was only short of instant death Blacksons defn of Duress A 6th species of defect of will is that arising from compulsion. This is a constraint upon will whereby a man is urged to do that which his judgment disapproves and Case laws English cases 1. R v. Graham G was charged with the murder of his wife. Alleged that he and K had put the flex of a coffee maker around her neck and strangled her. In his defence G pleaded that he had acted under duress because of his fear of K. in this case, it was important to take into consideration the age, sex, sexual propensities and other characs personal to the def including his state of mind and amt of drink and drugs consumed by him. The approach adopted by the court was Chk Gaur, p. 106.

2. R v. Bowen - In R v Bowen [1996] Crim LR 577, the Court of Appeal held that a low IQ, short of mental impairment or mental defectiveness, was not a relevant characteristic since it did not make those who had it less courageous or less able to withstand threats and pressure than an ordinary person. Stuart-Smith LJ stated that age and sex were, and physical health might be relevant characteristics. The other principles were as follows: * The mere fact that the accused was more pliable, vulnerable, timid or susceptible to threats than a normal person did not make it legitimate to invest the reasonable/ordinary person with such characteristics for the purpose of considering the objective test. * The defendant might be in a category of persons whom the jury might think less able to resist pressure than people not within that category. For example, age; possibly sex; pregnancy; serious physical disability, which might inhibit self-protection; recognised mental illness or psychiatric condition. * Characteristics which might be relevant in considering provocation would not necessarily be relevant in cases of duress, for example, homosexuality. * Characteristics due to self-imposed abuse, such as alcohol, drugs or glue-sniffing, could not be relevant. * Psychiatric evidence might be admissible to show that the accused was suffering from mental illness, mental impairment or recognised psychiatric condition provided persons generally suffering from such condition might be more susceptible to pressure and threats and thus to assist the jury in deciding whether a reasonable person suffering from such a condition might have been impelled to act as the defendant did. 3. R v. Ortiz 4. R v. Howe - In R v Howe, two appellants, Howe and Bannister, participated with others in torturing a man who was then strangled to death by one of the others. These events were repeated on a second occasion but this time it was Howe and Bannister who themselves strangled the victim to death. They claimed that they had acted under duress at the orders of and through fear of Murray who, through acts of actual violence or threats of violence, had gained control of each of the defendants. The House of Lords dismissed their appeals against conviction. Lord Hailsham LC made the following points: * Hale's Pleas of the Crown (1736) and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1857) both state that a man under duress ought rather to die himself than kill an innocent. * If the appeal (and consequently the defence) were allowed the House would also have to say that R v Dudley and Stephens was bad law (which it was not prepared to do). A person cannot be excused from the one type of pressure on his will (ie, duress) rather than the other (ie, necessity).

* In the present case, the overriding objects of the criminal law must be to protect innocent lives and to set a standard of conduct which ordinary men and women are expected to observe if they are to avoid criminal responsibility. * In the case where the choice is between the threat of death or serious injury and deliberately taking an innocent life, a reasonable man might reflect that one innocent human life is at least as valuable as his own or that of his loved one. In such a case a man cannot claim that he is choosing the lesser of two evils. Instead he is embracing the cognate but morally disreputable principle that the end justifies the means. * If a mandatory life sentence would be harsh on any particular offender there are effective means of mitigating its effect - the trial judge may make no minimum recommendation, the Parole Board will always consider a case of this kind, and the prerogative of mercy may be used.

Indian Cases 1. Acchanlal v. State the accused held the leg of the deceased under threat of instant death and helped the murderers in removing the body and concealing it. it was held that he was protected under S. 94. 2. Uma Devi v. Emperor the accused committed the offence of abetment of murder by holding the legs of the deceased. Did so under threat of being killed in case of non compliance. Held that S. 94 was available to the accused as it uses the word murder only and not abetment and attempt to murder are not covered. 3. State v. Ramavtar Chaudhary 4. Subramania v. PP 5. Kasu Masulh Goud v. Emperor

INFANCY (Ss. 82, 83) S. 82 Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 yrs of age. (doli incapax) S. 83 nothing is an offence which is committed by a child above 7 and below 12 years of age if the child has not attained sufficient maturity and understanding to judge the nature and consequences of the act. Above 12 years liable in all respects Cases 1. Abdul Satar v. Crown the accused boys (above 7 yrs of age) had broken open locks for the purpose of committing theft. Held that the very act of breaking open

the locks, is sufficient to prove that they had attained the necessary maturity to be held liable. 2. Ulha v. King - A 11 yr old boy who at his trial disclosed an acute mind picked up a knife and advanced towards the deceased with a threatening gesture, saying that he would cut him to bits and actually did cut him. Held that he had the intention and maturity. INTOXICATION (Ss. 85 and 86) Essentials of the Section 1. By reason of intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, OR 2. that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law, AND 3. that the thing causing his intoxication was administered to him w/o his knowledge or against his will. Case laws 1. Basdev v. State of Pepsu - p. 139 and 140. 2. In the case of D.P.P. v. Beard, a girl of thirteen years of age was sent by her father to purchase articles from the market. About half past six she was seen entering the gate which leads into a mill, where Beard as the only night watchman was there and he proceeded towards the girl to have carnal intercourse and in the process caused her death by suffocation. He was convicted for murder. Following laid down (i) The insanity produced by drunkenness is the defence to the crime charged. (ii) The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration in order to determine whether or not he had his intent. (iii) Mere establishment of the fact that a mans mind was so affected by drink that more readily he gave away to some violent passion, affords no protection. (iv) In cases of mere intoxication the test of exemption is more stringent. The question would not be then whether the prisoner knew that he was doing wrong.

PRIVATE DEFENCE (Ss. 96-106) S. 96 Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of Pvt Defence. Thus S. 96 basically grants every person the right to private defence. S. 97 right to private defence of BODY and PROPERTY subject to the restrictions contained in S. 99, every person has, a right to defend -

1. his own body and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body 2. the property, moveable or immovable, of himself or any other person, against any act falling under the defn of theft, robbery, mischief, crim trespass, or an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or crim trespass. S. 98 Right of Pvt defence against act of a person of unsound mind, etc every person has the same right of pvt defence against a person whose act does not amount to an offence by reason of unsoundness of mind, minority, intoxication, etc, as he would have had if the act were an offence. S. 99 Acts against which there is no right of pvt defence no pvt defence against the foll 1. an act done, or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under the colour of his office which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt though the act may not be strictly justifiable in law. 2. if the act is done under the direction of a public servant 3. where there is time to have recourse to public authorities 4. right does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Expl a person is not deprived of the right to pvt defence against the act of a pub servant unless he knows or has reason to believe that he is a public servant. S. 100 When the right of pvt defence to body extends to causing death 1. when such assault as may cause the apprehension that unless force is exerted, death will be the result of the assault. 2. grievous hurt will be the result 3. assault with the intention of committing rape 4. ______________________ gratifying unnatural lust 5. ______________________ kidnapping or abducting 6. wrongfully confining a person which may give him reasonable cause to believe that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities. S. 101 where such right extends to causing harm other than death If the offence is not of the nature enumerated in S. 99 it extends to causing all other harm except death. S. 102 Commencement and continuance of the right of pvt defence of the body commences as soon as there is reasonable apprehension of danger to body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed and continues as long as the apprehension of danger to body continues.

S. 103 where right to pvt defence of property extends to causing death 1. robbery 2. house breaking by night 3. mischief by fire 4. theft, mischief or house trespass under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt. S. 104 Where the right extends to causing any harm other than death Those acts that are not of the description enumerated in the previous section. S. 105 Commencement and continuance of the right to pvt defence of property Commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to property commences. S. 106 in the exercise of the pvt defence against assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, if the defender be so situated that he cant exercise the right w/o risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of pvt defence extends to running that risk. Cases Right of pvt defence of body 1. Vishwanath v. State of UP Main question whether the appellant had exceeded his right of pvt defence Facts the deceased was the married to the sister of the appellant and was living with her family. Due to some marital problems, the deceased moved to a separate residence. He was, however, keen to bring back his wife. He, along with a few relatives went to bring back the girl. The brother was asked to let the girl go with the husband. As the brother and an accomplice were talking, the deceased came out of the house dragging his wife. The app then called out to his father and was told to beat up the husband. On this, he took out a knife and stabbed the deceased once. Steps were taken to revive him but to no avail. Chk p. 165 KD Gaur 2. Munney Khan v. State of MP there was a scuffle b/w the deceased, the appellant and his brother. The same subsided. Later on, when the deceased was returning from his house, he met the app and his bro and the scuffle resumed. The deceased overpowered the brother, sat on his chest and started giving him chest blows. On seeing the same, the app stabbed the deceased on the back with a knife which resulted in his death. Held use of knife was excessive force for the danger apprehended. 3. Amjad Khan v. State communal riot b/w sindhis and muslims. Mob was standing outside his door when he fired 2 shots, killing one and injuring 3 others. Held circumstances under which the app was placed was sufficient for him to have taken such a step and this is not in excess of the danger apprehended. S. 102 right to pvt defence begins as soon as reasonable apprehension of the danger to body arises.

4. Bhupendra Singh v. State of Gujarat here a constable was charged for having shot dead his superior while they were on duty protecting a dam site that was in danger due to heavy rainfall. The appellant contends that he was on duty at around 7:45 pm when he saw a person proceeding towards the valve tower and also a flickering flame. Since he couldnt identify the moving person due to lack of light, he called out to him thrice but recd no response. He was then left with no alternative but to fire. Held he had exceeded his right of self defence. Although public officers have the right to protect public property, this right extends to killing a person only if such public property is being used for human dwelling or for custody of property and this case, it was none. 5. R v. Rose - the son shot and killed his father because his father was cutting the throat of his mother and he was excused on the ground of self-defence. INSANITY The 2 main maxims that this defence is based on is as follows 1. Furiosus Nulle Volunta Est A mad man has no wills 2. Furiosus Absentis Loco Est A mad man is like one who is absent 3. Non Compos Mentis Applies to 1. Idiots 2. Persons suffering from accidental dementia 3. Lunatics insane during some intervals 4. Insane because of Intoxication Tests to prove Insanity 1. Wild Beast Test This test was pronounced in the Edward Arnold Case where it was observed by the judge that in order to take up the defence, it must be a man who is totally deprived of his memory and understanding and does not know what he is doing no more than a wild beast or a brute. 2. Delusion Test this evolved in the case of R v. Madfield where the accused was charged for high treason for attempting to kill the King. The defence counsel pleaded that insanity was to be determined not by the old test but by a new parameter, ie, the fact of fixed insane delusion under which the accused suffered and committed the crime. 3. Good and Evil Test In the case of Lord Ferrar, Lord Mansfield held if a man was deprived of all powers of reasoning so as not to be able to determine whether it was right or wrong to commit the most wicked transaction, he could not certainly do an act against the law. The important question to be looked at is at the time of committing the offence he is charged with, did he have sufficient understanding to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong and that murder was a crime not only against God but also the law of the country.

4. McNaughtenss Rule in UK and India or the Right and Wrong Test The McNaughtens Case McNaughten was labouring under a delusion that the Prime Minister was going to injure him and one day, mistakenly, instead of shooting the PM, he shot and killed the Pvt Secy of the PM. The defence counsel took up the plea that he was labouring under a morbid delusion that carried him beyond the power of self control. McNaughten was ultimately acquitted on the ground of insanity and this led to much dissatisfaction and the House of Lords called on to all the Lords to lay down the law on insanity. Five questions which gave rise to the McNaughten Rules- Every man is presumed sane until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the jury - To establish the defence of insanity, it must be proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason that he did not know the nature and quality of the act and that what he was doing was wrong. - If the accused was aware that the act that he committed is a wrongful one and contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable - Where a person under an insane delusion as to the facts commits an act, he will be under the same responsibility as if the facts he had imagined had been true. For eg, he can kill under the delusion that he is a hangman or because the person had cheated him once. He will be liable in the second instance and not the first. 5. Durhams Rule Durham v. US Durham was convicted of house breaking and the only defence taken was that he was of unsound mind. Evolved a new method of holding persons alleging insanity as a defence liable/not liable. The law was that the accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect. Whenever, there is some evidence as to any mental disease or defect, then the jury must do as follows unless they believe beyond reasonable doubt that he was not suffering from a mental disease or defect, or that the act was not a result of such abnormality, they can hold him guilty. Thus the question is whether the accused acted of any mental disorder. 6. Irresistible Impulse An irresistible impulse is one which cannot be controlled and not merely one that is not controlled. This doctrine has been rejected both in England and India. Indian Law S. 84 Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. Essentials

1. The accused was of unsound mind 2. He was of unsound mind at the time of doing the act and not merely before or after the commission of the act 3. As a result of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he did was either wrong or contrary to law. Cases 1. Kambi Kurji Duda v. St of Gujarat 2. Jailal v. Delhi Admin The person had a history of schizophrenia but all through he was able to distinguish b/w right and wrong. On the day of the crime, he wrote a letter asking for casual leave and at abt 1:45 pm, stabbed and killed a child and thereafter stabbed two other persons. On his arrest at around 2:45, he gave normal and intelligent answers to the police authorities and nothing abnormal noticed. Held the appellant was not insane at the time of stabbing and killing and knew the consequences of his act. Important Test antecedent and subsequent behaviour of the accused needs to be taken into account. 3. Nivruti v. State of Bombay 4. Madhukar v. State of Mah CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY S. 120 When 2 or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, 1. an illegal act, or 2. an act that is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as 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. Expl it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or merely incidental to that object. This section can be explained as follows There are 2 situations In the first situation, the agreement is to commit an offence. In this case, no overt act needs to be proved to have been done in pursuance of the agreement. The agreement in itself is an offence. The second case is where there is an agreement which is not overtly to perform a crime/illegal act. In such a case, to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, an act in pursuance of the agreement needs to be proved. Essentials of the Section

1. two or more persons 2. an agreement b/w them 3. to do an illegal act, or, 4. an act which is not illegal by illegal means In case of conspiracy to commit an offence, the mere agreement is sufficient to constitute the offence and impose liab w/o any overt act done in pursuance of the agreement. This was held in Bimbadhar Prasad v. State of Orissa However, in case of a conspiracy to do an act which is not illegal through illegal means, then in such cases there must be some overt act committed by one or more of the parties in pursuance of the agreement. R v. Mulcahy A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of 2 or more, but in the agreement of 2 or more persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such design rests in intention only, it is not a crime. The moment the 2 agree to carry it into effect, the plot itself becomes is an act and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum is cap able of being enforced. Essentials of 120-A 1. 2 or more persons at least two persons are required to constitute the offence of conspiracy. Even for conviction, one person alone cannot be convicted for the crime. If the co accused has been acquitted, then the accused alone cannot be convicted Fakruddin v. State of MP 2. Agreement agreement is not merely an intention but the announcement and acceptance of that intention. Thus the crime is complete as soon as the parties have agreed to do an illegal act even if nothing is done in pursuance of the agreement. Amrit Lal v. Emperor The accused were held liable under S. 120B for simply possessing explosive material to make a bomb. Thus they were held liable despite the fact that the illegal act that they had conspired to do had not happened. 3. to do an illegal act illegal as per S. 43 of the Code means any act that is an offence and prohibited by law. 4. to do a legal act by illegal means 5. an overt act done in pursuance of the conspiracy (the plot itself is an overt act R v. Willes) An agreement to do an illegal act which amounts to conspiracy will continue as long as the members of the conspiracy remain in agreement. Proof of Conspiracy Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency. Section 10 Things said or done by conspirator with reference to the common design. - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that 2 or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or actionable wrong,

- anything said, done or written by any of these persons with reference to their common intention at the time that such intention was first entertained by them, - is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be conspiring - It can be used for the purpose of proving the existence of any conspiracy or that a person was party to it. In order for this section to come into play, there must be prima facie evidence that the person was party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co conspirators. Cases 1. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu 10 points 1. once the conspiracy has been completed, any subsequent act which may be unlawful will not make the accused a part of the conspiracy like giving shelter. 2. Agreement is a sine qua non to the offence of conspiracy 3. prosecution must show evidence to prove that each of the members knew about the object of the conspiracy and the agreement. 4. the agreement to do an unlawful act need not be express but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances esp declaratory acts and conduct of the conspirators. 5. mutual agency in crime. Everything said, written or done by one, is deemed to have been done by each of them. 1. Mere association with one of the main accused or knowledge of the conspiracy wouldnot make an accused a conspirator. Agreement is a sine qua non for the offence of conspiracy. 2. where the accused came into the picture only after the conspiracy had concluded, and help was extended by way of harbouring or sheltering after the event, then the accused were held not to be conspirators. This was because their knowledge of the conspiracy came after the objective had been achieved. (Ranganathan and Dhanasekharan, Jayakumar and Shanti) 3. the SC ruled as follows with reference to the main accused Nalini, Santhan, Arivu and Murugan, the role played was prominent and active and w/o their support, the offence could not have been committed. So the death sentence was confirmed on them. Nalini was given clemency by the TN govt thru powers vested in them under Art 161 of the Constitution since she was pregnant. 4. Wireless messages throwing suspicion on the possibility that the accused had strong knowledge of the conspiracy would not make the accused a member of the conspiracy. 2. VC Shukla v. Dehi Admin AIR 1980 SC 1382 3. Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 469 bimbadhar, a distt food officer was accused of conspiring with his subordinates to misappropriate funds that were placed under them to procure oil cakes for the farmers for the purpose of a govt initiative. All the subordinated were acquitted and bimbadhar was convicted under 120 B.

4. Ranjan Gupta v. Dharmachand, 1988 Cr LJ 612 Overt Acts - Agreement - Acts preparatory to the offence - Acts constituting the offence itself