Supreme Court ने Section 120B IPC के तहत रिश्वत‑संबंधी आपराधिक साजिश में व्यक्तिगत उत्तरदायित्व को स्पष्ट किया

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — The new Indian criminal code that replaced the Indian Penal Code in 2023, aiming to modernise criminal law (GS2: Polity)">Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023</span> quarterly digest (Jan‑Mar 2026) records a landmark judgment of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — The apex judicial body in India, whose interpretations of law bind all lower courts (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span>. The Court examined the interplay between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 120B IPC — Provision of the Indian Penal Code that defines criminal conspiracy and prescribes punishment (GS2: Polity)">Section 120B IPC</span> and the offences of demand and acceptance of bribe, focusing on whether an individual can be held liable even when the broader conspiracy charge collapses for lack of evidence.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Court held that the failure to prove a charge of criminal conspiracy does not automatically absolve the accused of related bribery offences.</li> <li>Individual liability for demand and acceptance of bribe can be established on the basis of direct evidence, independent of a proved conspiracy.</li> <li>The judgment distinguishes between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Individual Liability — Legal responsibility attached to a person for his/her own acts, irrespective of group involvement (GS2: Polity)">Individual Liability</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Collective Culpability — The notion that members of a group share responsibility for a crime committed by the group (GS2: Polity)">Collective Culpability</span>, emphasizing that the former can survive even when the latter is unsubstantiated.</li> <li>Section 61(2) of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — See definition above (GS2: Polity)">Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita</span> was cited to underscore the statutory basis for punishing demand and acceptance of bribe as separate offences.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The judgment arose from a case where the prosecution alleged a joint plan to extract bribes from a public official. While the evidence was insufficient to prove a concerted conspiracy under Section 120B, the court found credible proof of individual acts of demanding and receiving money. Consequently, the accused were convicted under the bribery provisions, and the conspiracy charge was dismissed.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>This decision is pivotal for GS2 (Polity) aspirants because it clarifies the legal doctrine of liability in corruption cases, a frequent topic in ethics and governance papers. Understanding the distinction between individual and collective culpability helps answer questions on anti‑corruption legislation, judicial interpretation, and the functioning of the criminal justice system. Moreover, the case illustrates how the Supreme Court balances statutory text with ev