In *NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu*, 2005 CrLJ 3950 (SC) (Parliament at…

Question

In *NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu*, 2005 CrLJ 3950 (SC) (Parliament attack case), what was the basis on which the accused who had helped a conspirator flee after the incident was not held guilty as a conspirator?

Accepted Answer

B. {'text': 'He had never contacted the deceased terrorist on place; mere post-incident assistance to a fleeing conspirator was not the agreement Section 120A requires', 'label': 'B'}

1. In *NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu*, the Supreme Court examined the conspiracy charge.
2. The accused had never contacted the deceased terrorist before the attack; he had only helped one of the conspirators flee to a safer place AFTER the incident.
3. Because Section 120A requires an agreement between conspirators, post-facto assistance unrelated to any pre-attack agreement was held not to constitute conspiracy.
4. He could face other charges (e.g. harbouring) but not the offence of being a conspirator.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 9 (Indian Penal Code, 1860), pp. 205-224._

Answer

{'text': 'He had been granted prior immunity by the prosecution before the trial began under any statutory pardon scheme then in force', 'label': 'A'}

Answer

{'text': 'He was a minor at the time of the incident and Section 82 IPC gave him absolute immunity from any criminal prosecution', 'label': 'C'}

Answer

{'text': 'He had voluntarily approached the police and confessed before the magistrate within seven days under any statutory turn-approver scheme', 'label': 'D'}