Summary of the case

Mohd Khalid v State of West Bengal

Background : On 16th March, 1993, just before the stroke of mid-night, people in and
around B.B. Ganguly Street in the Bow Bazar Area of Calcutta heard deafening sounds
emanating from thundering explosions which resulted in total demolition of a building
and partial demolition of two other adjacent buildings situated at 267,266 and 268 A,
B.B. Ganguly Street. Large number of people were trapped in and buried under the
demolished buildings. Two of the accused persons, Pannalal Jaysoara and Mohd. Gulzar
arrested on 29.3.1993 and 13.5.1993 respectively. As they wanted to make their
confessions, those were to be recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, accordingly, their
confessional statements were recorded by the magistrates. In this case the appellants
were charged of striking terror in people by using explosives and killing large number of
people in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. TADA court found them (appellants) guilty
of offences mentioned in the charge sheet.

Issue : An important question was raised during the appeal viz. whether confessional
statement of a co-conspirator recorded two days after the incident & not immediately (
while it was possible to do so) can come within the ambit section 10 of IEA 1872?

Supreme court observed : Sec – 120A, IPC 1860, (Definition of criminal conspiracy),
when two or more persons agree to do , or cause to be done : (1) an illegal act , or (2) n
act which is not illegal by illegal means such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy.

Sec – 10, IEA 1872 :- Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.
(Relevancy of criminal conspiracy)
Supreme Court Decision : Basic principle which underlines sec-10 in the theory of
agency ,every conspirator is an agent of this associate in carrying out the object of the
conspiracy.

Court further held that the post arrest statement made to a police officer regarding the
conspiracy or another conspirator, whether it is a confession or otherwise touching his
involvement in the conspiracy would not fall within the ambit of sec-10 of IEA 1872.