Fact of the case : 

Rajiv Gandhi, India’s sixth Prime Minister, was killed on May 21, 1991, while campaigning in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. The assassination was carried out by a suicide bomber from the Tamil Tigers, a Sri Lankan rebel group. The incident claimed the lives of 16 people, including numerous police officers.

Numerous suspects were apprehended throughout the inquiry, including Nalini Sriharan, a member of the Tamil Tigers and the wife of Murugan, another suspect in the crime. Nalini was charged with numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder plots and violations of the Explosives Act.

The case’s trial began in 1994 and lasted many years. The trial court condemned Nalini and three other defendants to death in 1998. In 1999, the Madras High Court affirmed the sentence. Nalini, on the other hand, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India, which remitted her death sentence to life imprisonment in 2000.

Issue involved:

Was the death penalty imposed on the accused persons justified?

Whether criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement (Agreement perse is offence of conspiracy)?

Arguments of the prosecution

The prosecution argued that there was no doubt Nalini (A-1) was not a member of the LTTE group at the beginning of the conspiracy, but she still helped the existing members of the group by providing them with logistics and a place to stay. It was only because of Nalini (A-1) that the other conspirators were able to gather information about the places. Moreover, Nalini (A-1) was also present at the place of the assassination to support Dhanu (DA). This shows her active involvement in the whole conspiracy, and thus, as per Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (61(2) BNS), being a part of the conspiracy to commit a crime makes her equally liable for the crime as other accused persons.

Also, because Nalini (A-1) had knowingly facilitated the commission of this assassination, which is a disruptive activity, it was contended that she should also be punished under the provisions of the TADA Act.

Arguments of the defence

The defence put forth the argument that Nalini (A-1) was not fully aware of the final plan and its deadly consequences. She was only doing the peripheral activities, and that too at the request of Murugan (A-3) because she liked him. Thus, Nalini (A-1) lacked the mens rea, which is requisite to hold anyone guilty of a crime. Moreover, being present at the scene of the incident does not equate to her direct involvement in the assassination.

It was argued that the prosecution wrongly stated that the conspiracy was from a period of 1987 to 1992 because, in actual fact, no such signs were shown even before the day of the assassination, and thus, this case does not fall under the ambit of the rarest of the rare cases. It was pleaded that mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration, and moreover, Nalini (A-1) and others have shown a potential for rehabilitation throughout the case, so a death sentence would be excessive. Also, there was no motive for the accused and other co-accused to overawe the Government or to create terror, as alleged by the prosecution. Section 3 of the TADA Act requires that the criminal act be done with the requisite intention or motive, and unfortunately, the prosecution fails to prove it. Thus, there is a lack of intention as to how the provisions of TADA are to be applied.

The Supreme Court conducted an extensive review of the case laws on the law of conspiracy and called out main principles governing the law of conspiracy

 1.Under section 120A of IPC [section 61(1) of BNS], offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree with the common object to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is legal act by illegal means, overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is the intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention, there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence.

 2. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. 

3. There has to be two conspirators and there may be more than that to prove the charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the intended crime was committed or not.

4. They may join with the other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible.

5.  It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished.

6. It is said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime and that each conspiracy consists of a joint and mutual agency for a prosecution of a common plan.

7. A man may join a conspiracy by word or deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty and who one tacitly consents to the objects of the conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime. 

Held: The Court observed that they didn't find any strict proof for bringing any offence under Section 3 or 4 of the TADA Act. According to them, neither any terrorist act nor any other disruptive activity has occurred under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA. Thus, charges under this Act fail against all the accused. 

The Court pronounced the sentence of the death penalty to the four main accused of the incident, namely, Nalini (A-1), Santhan (A-2), Murugan (A-3), and Arivu (A-18), for their grievous acts under various provisions of law, including Section 109, 120-B, 302, 324, 326, along with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Four other accused, Dhanasekaran (A-23), N. Rajasuriya (A-24), Vicky (A-25), and Ranganath (A-26), were given rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years for the offences under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code. Ranganath (A-26) was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code.