| CITATION | 1971 AIR 885, (1971) 1 SCJ 43, 1971 MADLJ(CRI) 33, 1971 MAH LJ 792, 1971 SCD 81 |
YEAR OF JUDGEMENT | 1970 |
| PETITIONER | Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin |
RESPONDENT | State of Maharashtra |
STATUTES REFERRED IN THIS CASE | INDIAN PENAL CODE |
BENCH | Hon’ble Dua, Justice M. Hidayatullah, Justice A.N. Ray |
INTRODUCTIONS
The Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra (1970 INSC 72) case stands as a key ruling by India’s Supreme Court. It digs deep into the ins and outs of shared blame criminal plots, and the fine points of Sections 34, 109, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Under I.P.C. § 120-B, criminal conspiracy is considered a grave offense. It differs from other offenses in that one can be guilty of committing an offense simply by having an agreement, regardless of whether any action has been taken to carry it out. Whether we speak of incitement and abetment or conspiracy, criminal conspiracy is a broader substantive offense than the act of abetment by conspiracy as set forth by s. 107 I.P.C. Because by its nature conspiracy is a secret activity; it is exceedingly rare that direct evidence of conspiracy will be accessible. However, as with other offenses, circumstantial evidence can be adduced in a prosecution for conspiracy. Relevant evidence includes antecedent and post-event conduct, the surrounding circumstances, and other related considerations. Indeed, considering how difficult it is to obtain any direct evidence of the criminal conspiracy, anything by any one of them about their common intention after the common intention has been entered, is prima facie under the law of evidence in any trial for conspiracy, and the offense arising from it, which bears the relationship to the conspiracy given it that has taken place once “reasonable ground is shown for believing that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offense.” The court found Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin (Accused 4) guilty for his part in killing Mohamed Yahya along with three other accused. This breakdown takes a close look at the court’s choice shining a light on the legal ideas and what they mean for future court cases.
FACT OF THE CASE
Charges were filed against four defendants under sections 120-B (conspiracy to commit murder) and 302, in conjunction with section 34. Additionally, the fourth accused faced charges for aiding and abetting the murders of the other three under sections 302 and 109. The first accused worked as a servant for the brother of the second accused, while the other four were connected to one another. The deceased often clashed with the fourth accused over issues like the right of passage and access to tap water. The day before the murder, the fourth accused visited the deceased’s home and encouraged his friends, including the second accused, to kill the victim. On the day of the murder, the fourth accused threatened to kill the deceased, and shortly after, the first and second accused followed the victim outside around ten o’clock in the evening. The deceased was stabbed just fifteen minutes after being pursued. When two constables heard the commotion, the third accused attempted to assure them that nothing was amiss. Nevertheless, the constables proceeded to the scene, discovered the deceased’s injured body, and managed to chase down and apprehend the first accused, while the second accused managed to escape. The initial complaint against the defendants was lodged by one of the constables.
ISSUE RAISED
1.Whether on April 17, 1965, in Bhiwandi, the complainant abetted indicted 1 through 3 to prosecute the murder of Mohamed Yahya, a crime punishable by Sections 109 and 302 of the Penal Code, 1860.
2. Can the complainant be held liable for assist of the offense of murder?
JUDGEMENT
First, Section 34 embodies the concept of shared responsibility for a crime, requiring a common intention for liability to arise. Its application is supported by participation in the offense aimed at achieving a shared goal.
Second, even if the abettor is not physically present during the commission of the crime, Section 109 can still be invoked if they have encouraged the crime, engaged in a conspiracy with others to commit the offense, leading to an illegal act or omission, or have intentionally aided in the crime through an act or illegal conduct.
Third, a criminal conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an illegal act or to carry out a legal act through illegal means. This offense is unique in that it becomes illegal simply by making a promise to act, regardless of whether any action is taken.
Lastly, it seems quite probable that the appellant was either present with the other three co-accused or nearby when Mohd. Yahya was murdered. However, the evidence does not sufficiently prove his presence at the scene beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are inclined to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt concerning the Section 302 charge.
REASONING
1.The Supreme Court carefully examined the necessary elements to prove criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC and joint liability under Section 34 IPC. It looked into the sequence of events leading up to the murder, the connections among the accused, and the testimonies provided by various witnesses.
2.Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC): The court pointed out that an agreement between two or more individuals to carry out an illegal act constitutes a conspiracy, regardless of whether the act is actually carried out. In this instance, the consistent and coordinated actions of the accused before and during the incident demonstrated the presence of a conspiracy.
3.Joint Liability (Section 34 IPC): This section pertains to actions taken by multiple individuals in pursuit of a shared intention. The court evaluated whether the accused had a common goal to commit the murder, which was clear from their joint planning and execution of the crime.
4.Abetment (Section 109 IPC): The appellant’s involvement in instigating and encouraging others to commit the murder was closely examined. The evidence indicated his active role in motivating others, meeting the criteria for abetment.
5.Evidence Evaluation: The court emphasized the reliance on circumstantial evidence due to the lack of direct evidence of conspiracy. The corroborative testimonies from both independent and interested witnesses bolstered the prosecution’s case.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court dove into the ideas of criminal conspiracy (Sec-120-B), abetment (Sec-109), and common intention (Sec-34) in Noor Mohammad Momin v. State of Maharashtra (1971). This case shows that the law can hold people accountable not just for doing the crime, but also for helping, encouraging, or planning it. Noor Mohammad didn’t kill anyone himself, but the court still found him guilty under Sections 109 and 120-B IPC because he played a part in planning and pushing for the crime. The court said that to prove abetment, you don’t need to show direct encouragement. It can come from what the accused did, said, or who they hung out with. The prosecution proved that Noor Mohammad helped spark the crime by showing past fights and things he said about the victim. His actions got the other people involved. The Court thought this was enough to show he abetted the crime through instigation under Section 109 IPC..
The court shed light on criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. It stated that an agreement to do something illegal forms the core of conspiracy. The court can deduce conspiracy from how the accused behaved, threats they made before, and how well-planned the crime was even without clear proof of an agreement. Noor Mohammad’s talks with the main accused before the killing suggested a planned scheme making him answerable under this section.
CONCLUSION
The primary factor that influences abetting is the intention of the abettor. For the prosecution to hold someone accountable for the crime, they must establish mens rea, or a guilty mindset, alongside actus reus, or the wrongful act, as outlined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It’s crucial to understand that statements made in anger cannot be seen as encouragement or incitement, since a reasonable person may not control their words when upset. In contrast, in a conspiracy, both conspirators are aware that a crime is taking place. They share the responsibility for the actions of the conspiracy and are thus equally accountable.
A situation referred to as “abetting by conspiracy” arises when both conspiracy and aiding occur simultaneously. The prosecution charges the accused with both conspiracy and abetment. The court has the authority to determine whether to convict the accused of conspiracy, abetment, or both. Cases involving dowry deaths serve as prime examples of conspiracy abetment. This case has broadened the understanding of criminal conspiracy. The court noted that criminal conspiracy encompasses a much broader definition than abetment, including additional elements and thus having a wider scope.
Conspiracies are typically formed in secrecy, making direct evidence from impartial sources or strangers quite rare. However, circumstantial evidence can be utilized to establish criminal conspiracy, just as it can for other crimes. In fact, evidence of a conspiracy is often inferential; however, such inferences must be backed by substantial evidence. Relevant materials include, among other things, the context and actions from both the past and present
REFERENCE
This article is written by Saumya Singh; an intern of Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments