Assassination Or Bodily Injury Not Necessary For Offence Under Section 121A IPC : SC Upholds Sentence In IISC...
π Context
Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with conspiracy to commit offences against the State. It specifically criminalizes:
Conspiring to commit offences punishable by Section 121 IPC (waging war, attempting to wage war, or abetting waging war against the Government of India).
Conspiring to overawe by criminal force or attempting to overawe the Central or State Government by criminal force.
Punishment: Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
π Supreme Courtβs Key Ruling (IISc Bomb Blast Case)
The Supreme Court clarified that:
For an offence under Section 121A IPC, it is not necessary that there must be assassination, murder, or bodily injury caused.
The existence of conspiracy itselfβwith the object of waging war or overawing the Government by criminal forceβis sufficient to constitute the offence.
Even if the conspiracy does not result in actual war or killings, the law treats the agreement to commit such acts as a grave threat to national security.
π Reasoning of the Court
Nature of the offence:
Section 121A punishes the conspiracy itself, unlike some other criminal provisions where the act must be completed or attempted.
The object of Section 121A is to prevent threats against the sovereignty and stability of the State at the very stage of planning.
Public safety over individual harm:
The offence under Section 121A is directed against the State and not just an individual.
Therefore, bodily injury or assassination of a person is not essential to prove the charge.
Security of State vs. Individual Rights:
The court emphasized that national security cannot be compromised merely because no immediate physical harm occurred.
π Case Law References
Nalini v. State (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, 1999)
The Supreme Court explained that conspiracy is an independent crime. The mere agreement to commit offences against the State can be punished, even without the act being executed.
State v. Nalini (2001)
Reiterated that under Section 121A IPC, the essence of the offence is the agreement to wage war or to overawe the Government.
Navjot Sandhu v. State (2005) β Parliament Attack Case
The Court held that direct physical violence is not necessary. Conspiracy to attack Parliament itself showed intent to wage war against the Government of India.
IISc Blast Case (SC 2024-25 ruling)
The Court upheld the conviction, holding that the conspiracy itself was sufficient. The fact that no assassination or bodily harm occurred does not negate the offence under Section 121A.
π Conclusion
Section 121A IPC punishes the conspiracy itself, not the result.
Assassination, murder, or bodily injury is not required to establish guilt.
The offence lies in the agreement to wage war or overawe the Government by force, as it endangers the sovereignty and security of the State.
π Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the sentence in the IISc blast conspiracy case, emphasizing the seriousness of even the planning stage of such anti-State activities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments