Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. Mr. Rajni Patel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the petitioners at one stage urged that there may be difference between the acts attributed to accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the one hand and accused No. 1 on the other hand. His argument to which I will make reference later on, in substance, was that taking all these statements on the fact value, the witnesses did no attribute any avert act at all to accused No. 1 except alleging that on the night of the crime when accused No. 5 was alleged to have gone to the office of the union and received from accused No. 2 an envelope, accused No. 1 Dr. Datta Samant also happened to be present in his chamber. The second general allegation against Dr. Datta Samant by the prosecution witnesses is that he had not only been preaching violence to his workers to react the incident of September 1972 alluding thereby to the riots which took place in the Godrej Colony and in which some persons died as a result of riots, but has also been threatening the management. As I will presently point out, in all speeches of Dr. Datta Samant there was only general exhortation to violence for solving the union problems and exhortation to violence in general is not the same thing as an agreement to commit a particular crime. It is true that in some of the statements including that of Naval Godrej and the General Manager Navroji, it is stated that when Dr. Samant had sought interview that Mr. Naval Godrej and that interview having been refused, Dr. Samant had threatened the management. However, I have not been able to see in all the statements of witnesses and in speeches any exhortation to violence on the members of the Godrej family.

25. It is necessary in this case to distinguish between general exhortation to violence, for solution of certain union problems or reacting to the incident of September 1972 which, according to Mr. Vakil, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, refers to riot incidents in 1972 and a specific exhortation to assault the members of the Godrej family. It is unfortunate course of this country that preaching violence becomes so often a powerful weapon in the armoury of union leaders and others in support of their various demands. It is easily and usually said in this country that if certain demands of agitating groups are not met, rivers of blood will flow. Union leaders or various other groups of people think that because violence is preached, their demands may be conceded. However, from such general exhortation, an inference of a specific conspiracy to commit a particular crime is neither justifiable nor sustainable in the eyes of law. Dr. Samant's speeches at the most would suggest that he intended violence if the demands regarding his union were not met by the management. It might be that such threats were brought into action in the year 1972. I am, however, not concerned with that incident in this case. I only want to find out from the statements of various witnesses and the other material on record whether there was an agreement between accused No. 1 and other accused, including accused No. 5 and other unknown person, to do an unlawful design, i.e., to commit an assault on the members of the Godrej family. As I have stated earlier, the prosecution has not been able to show what was the starting point of the alleged conspiracy, except mentioning that between August 1978 and January 1979, this conspiracy must have commenced.

28. Before examining the statements two things must be kept in mind. While thee is exhortation by accused No. 1 Dr. Datta Samant to teach the management a lesson, to teach the office bearers of the Shramik Sangh a lesson or to repeat or react the incident of September 1972, there is no exhortation to commit a particular crime. Further there is no direct evidence as regards an agreement having been entered into by Dr. Data Samant, accused No. 1, with test of the accused to commit the offence of conspiracy. I have to consider whether an agreement can be inferred from the acts attributed to accused No. 1 as well as to other accused.

30. Mr. Vakil, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has taken me, as stated above, through all the statements and has submitted that the first thing that emerges from all these statements is that Dr. Datta Samant, accused No. 1, who was loosing his grip on the union in Godrej Company, in order to restore his authority and power, was preaching violence both against the new rival union shramik Sangh as well as against the management. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken me minutely through all the statements and pointed out from the statements of Shri Naval Godrej, General Manager Kersi Navroji and Accountant Bardi in support of his submissions that accused No. 1 Dr. Datta Samant continued to instigate the workers against Shri Naval Godrej and Shri Navroji presumably because he thought that is would help him to establish his authority again in the union affairs. As I have stated earlier, there is material on the record that in certain speeches and on certain occasions Dr. Samant had told the workers that if necessary, the workers will have to react the incident of September 1972. I have also observed earlier that this falls short of the agreement as required by S. 120B of the Penal Code. The learned Special Public Prosecutor after going through the statements of Shri Naval Godrej, Shri Navroji and Shri Bardi has canvassed before me that this exhortation to violence and threats given to the management would indicate its strong motive for accused No. 1 as well as the other accused to enter into a conspiracy as alleged against them. Mr. Patel, on the other hand, submitted that the motive by itself is not relevant for consideration of the crime of conspiracy. In certain cases, motive could be relevant. In this particular case, however, such a motive of general exhortation to violence is of little assistance to the prosecution. In this case the various other circumstances on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution have not helped the prosecution to prima facie make out the charge of conspiracy. Exhortation to violence in general by accused No. 1 cannot be itself by the basis from which the agreement to commit the specific offence in question can be deduced.