Sr Adv Salman Khurshid for Shifa Ur Rehman: Shifa... ... Umar Khalid, Sharjeel, Gulfisha Fatima Bail : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing | Delhi Riots UAPA Case

Sr Adv Salman Khurshid for Shifa Ur Rehman: Shifa in urdu means something to heal. Here, he is seeking a remedy for himself. I will begin with one judgment. On conspiracy- Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.

Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available, offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy, and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference.

As note above, the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120 B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120 A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120 B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary.

The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, to commit the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in section 120 B