P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala

In a defining ruling on criminal conspiracy, the Supreme Court elucidated the essential legal ingredients required to sustain a conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the foundational sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. While conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, mere suspicion, mutual association, casual discussions, or subsequent knowledge cannot take the place of clear evidence establishing a meeting of minds.

• Agreement as Sine Qua Non: The essence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A IPC is the agreement itself; without a meeting of minds to execute an illegal act, no conspiracy exists.
• Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Strong suspicion or probability cannot take the place of legal proof in establishing a conspiratorial pact.
• Limits of Circumstantial Inference: Circumstances relied upon must be completely incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis.
• Mere Association Not Culpable: Business relations, political acquaintance, or casual meetings prior to the commission of the offence do not constitute conspiratorial complicity.
• Discharge / Acquittal of Conspirators: Conviction of the appellant set aside due to total absence of evidence showing antecedent agreement to commit murder.

The appellant, P.K. Narayanan, along with several co-accused, was prosecuted for the murder of one Peethambaran on 12 December 1983. The prosecution alleged that on account of political and financial rivalry, the appellant entered into a criminal conspiracy with contract killers to eliminate the deceased.

The prosecution case against the appellant rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and Section 120B IPC. The prosecution proved that the appellant was seen talking to some of the co-accused a few days prior to the incident and that he had paid certain sums of money to an associate.

The actual assault was carried out by hired assailants armed with choppers. The trial court convicted the assailants under Section 302 IPC and convicted the appellant under Section 120B IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave, contending that there was no legal evidence whatsoever to establish that he was a party to any conspiratorial agreement.

An offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do an act by illegal means. The agreement is the gist of the offence. In order to establish a charge of criminal conspiracy, there must be cogent evidence to show that two or more persons agreed to commit the illegal act. While it is true that criminal conspiracies are hatched in darkness and direct evidence is seldom available, the circumstances from which the conclusion of conspiracy is drawn must be fully established. The circumstances must be such as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. In the present case, the evidence merely shows that the appellant was acquainted with some of the co-accused and was seen conversing with them in a public place. There is not an iota of evidence to prove that there was any meeting of minds or agreement between the appellant and the killers to cause the death of the deceased. In the absence of an agreement, the conviction under Section 120B IPC cannot be sustained.

• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (Parliament Attack Case) (2005) 11 SCC 600: Quoted P.K. Narayanan on the essential requirement of agreement in Section 120B.
• CBI v. V.C. Shukla (Hawala Case) (1998) 3 SCC 410: Followed regarding rejection of conspiracy based on mere diary entries without proof of agreement.
• Saju v. State of Kerala (2001) 1 SCC 378: Reaffirmed that suspicion and phone calls do not constitute conspiratorial pact.