The Indian Penal Code is the official criminal code of India.

It is a comprehensive code
intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. To comprehend a provision in law it
is important to read it w.r.t other provisions, especially while framing any kind of charges
against the accused. Here we will try to understand and analyze the three anti regime acts
TADA,POTA and UAPA in correspondence with section 120 of the IPC.

According to section 120A of IPC

When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done:

an illegal act, or

an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy;

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offense shall amount to a

criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to
such agreement in pursuance thereof.

First, let’s comprehend what all falls under the ambit of ‘illegal act’1

The word “illegal” applies to everything which is an offense or which is prohibited by law,
or which furnishes ground for a civil action, and a person is said to be “legally bound to do”
whatever it is illegal in him to omit2

Section 120A provides for the definition of Criminal Conspiracy and it speaks of that, when
two or more persons agreed to do or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act and
section 120B provides for the punishment for a criminal conspiracy, and it is interesting to
note that in order to prove a conspiracy, it has always been felt that it was not easy to get
direct evidence.3

Legal work done through illegal means makes the entire act illegal. Also, it is very important
to note that an agreement without actively pursuing the same won’t be considered a criminal
conspiracy except in the case of an offense where even only the agreement will amount to
criminal conspiracy. The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the Law. The parties of
such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be
done has not been done.4

1
Sec 120A of IPC
2
Sec 43 of IPC
3
Kehar Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.
4
E. G. Barsay Vs. State of Bombay, (1961) 2 SCR 196 at Page 229
Two or more persons must be parties, to such an agreement and one person alone can never
be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple the reason that one cannot conspire with
oneself. Where, therefore, 4 named individuals in case eye charged with having committed an
offense under s.120-.B. I.P.C. and three out of those four were acquitted of the charge, the
fourth accused could not be held guilty of the offense of criminal conspiracy.5

Whereas In the case of Bimbadhar Pradhan vs The State Of Orissa6 contention raised on
behalf of the appellant was that the other accused having been acquitted by the trial court the
appellant should not have been convicted because the evidence against all of them was the
same, the same was countered by an stance7 that, It is not essential that more than one person
should be convicted of the offence of criminal conspiracy. It is enough if the court is in a
position to find that two or more persons were actually concerned in the criminal conspiracy.

Illustration: A, B, C, and D plan to rob a bank. A and B actively speak about the strategy
whereas C and D just sit in the room and listen. Thus there is an agreement to rob all of them
both explicit (A&B) and implicit (C&D). On the day of robbery while A packs his bag with
cash B holds the manager on gunpoint. Now all the four also share the plan with their
common friend G who refused to be part of it.

Analysis: In the above illustration A, B, C and D will be equally responsible for criminal
conspiracy irrespective of their roles in it.

G will not be held the part of the crime because just knowledge won’t imply as a criminal
conspiracy

We will now move forward to section 120B of IPC which deals with the punishment of
criminal conspiracy. It is important to note that the section further has two parts 120B(1)
which deals with grievant criminal conspiracies and 120B(2) which deals with minor ones.

Section 120B (1) of the Indian Penal Code

5
Topandas vs The State Of Bombay 14 October 1955
6
13 March, 1956
7
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab,1954
“Particularly, this section deals with the conspiracy of three types of offenses. They are as
follows:

an offense in which punishment is death;

an offense in which punishment is life imprisonment;

or an offense in which punishment is rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or

upwards.

According to Section 120B (1), when there's no expressed provision regarding the conspiracy
of aforesaid offenses in the code then this section is applicable. Further, it says that the parties
who commit any of the aforesaid offenses are punishable in the same manner as the abetment
of such offenses.”

Section 120B (2) of the Indian Penal Code

“This section deals with the criminal conspiracy of remaining offenses. Generally, it covers
minor criminal offenses. In other words, we can say it covers the conspiracy of those offenses
which is punishable with less than 2-years of imprisonment. Thus, the section imposes
nominal punishment i.e. imprisonment for the term not exceeding 6 months.

Thus, section 120B (2) says that a person who is the party in criminal conspiracy other than
section 120B (1), shall be punished with either imprisonment for the term of not exceeding 6
months or with fine or both.”

Now let’s understand the purpose of this section separately with the three acts :

TADA

POTA

UAPA

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,1985

Mohd. Khalid v state of West Bengal8

The accused persons conspired to manufacture and explode bombs to strike terror and to
adversely affect communal harmony amongst the Hindu and the Muslim communities.
Pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, they exploded a bomb in a crowded area resulting in the
death of several people and destruction of property. The designated court found the accused
guilty of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code 1860 (the IPC'), the Explosives
Substances Act 1908 and the TADA Act.

8
3 September, 2002
Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to the commission of a serious crime of nature as
contemplated in Section 120B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120A, then
in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused of commission of such a crime
alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120B and the proof of any overt act
by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary.

By a detailed judgment ,the Designated Court found the accused appellants guilty of offences
punishable under Section 120B IPC, Each of them were also sentenced to imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000 each for commission of offence under Section 120B of IPC.
: 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)

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.

Prevention of Terrorism Act ,2002

NCT of Delhi v. Navjyot Sindhu9

In the parliament attack case charges under certain sections of IPC

(120B, read with Crpc) section 6 of POTA were framed against the conspirators.

Note: A man who was not a part of the main attack had helped one of the conspirators to
rescue the site, could not be held liable for the conspiracy under sec.120 of IPC because
helping one of the conspirators to flee to a safer place was not in the agreement of the
conspiracy to attack the parliament.

Three of the accused were given death sentences for the offences committed by them under
Section 302 (murder) read with Section 120-B IPC (party to criminal conspiracy) and Section
3(2) of POTA. The amount of Rs.10 lakhs recovered from the possession of two of the
accused, was forfeited to the State under Section 6 of the POTA.

9
(2005) 11 SCC 600
The appeal filed by Mohd. Afzal was thus dismissed and the death sentence imposed upon
him was confirmed.

In the instant case, there can be no doubt that the most appropriate punishment is death
sentence. That is what has been awarded by the trial Court and the High Court. The present
case, which has no parallel in the history of Indian Republic, presents us in crystal clear
terms, a spectacle of rarest of rare cases. The very idea of attacking and overpowering a
sovereign democratic institution by using powerful arms and explosives and imperiling the
safety of a multitude of peoples' representatives, constitutional functionaries and officials of
Government of India and engaging into a combat with security forces is a terrorist act of
gravest severity. It is a classic example of rarest of rare cases. The gravity of the crime
conceived by the conspirators with the potential of causing enormous casualties and
dislocating the functioning of the Government as well as disrupting normal life of the people
of India is some thing which cannot be described in words.10

The court 11laid down certain criteria for assessing when a case could fall under the ambit of
rarest of rare. The criteria are analysed as below:
1. Manner of commission of murder – When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal,
ridiculous, diabolical, revolting, or reprehensible manner so as to awaken intense and extreme
indignation of the community; for instance,
a. When the victim’s house is set on fire with the intention to bake him alive.
b. When the victim is tortured to inhuman acts in order to bring about his/her death.
c. When the body of the victim is mutilated or cut in pieces in a brutal manner.

2. Motive for the commission of murder – When total depravity and cruelty are the motives
behind a murder; for instance,
a. A hired killer committing murder merely for the sake of a monetary reward.
b. A cold-blooded murder incorporating a thoughtful design in order to get control to inherit
property or for any other selfish gains.

3. Socially abhorrent nature of the crime – When a murder of a person belonging to one of
the backward classes is committed. Cases of bride burning, famously known as dowry deaths,
are also covered in this.

4. Magnitude of the crime – When the proportion of the crime is massive, for instance, in
cases of multiple murders.

5. Personality of victim of murder – When the murder victim is an innocent child, a helpless
woman or person (due to old age or infirmity), a public figure, etc.

10
MANU/SC/0465/2005
11
Macchi Singh case AIR 1983 SC 1957
The judgment delivered by Justice P. Venkatarama Reddy and Justice PP Naolekar
had also said that Afzal's case has no parallel in the history of Indian Republic, and
that it presents us in crystal clear terms, a spectacle of rarest of rare cases because
very idea of attacking and overpowering a sovereign democratic institution by
using powerful arms and explosives and imperiling the safety of a multitude of
peoples representatives, constitutional functionaries and officials of Government of
India.

The court said the gravity of the crime conceived by the conspirators to cause
enormous casualties and dislocate the functioning of the government "cannot be
described in words" and also the act of terrorists and conspirators was a attack to
the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, which according to the court could
only be compensated by giving the maximum punishment to the person who has
proved to be the conspirator in this treacherous act.

The doctrine has been in conflict with articles 14,19 and 21 of the constitution of
India. It has also been in contravention with various international statues and
conventions and has created ambiguity in the administration of justice due to poor
implementation and pressure of media and public is also a factor that has given a
different approach to the doctrine.

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,1967

Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid vs Union Of India 12

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a woman in Kerala ISIS recruitment case for
charges of criminal conspiracy and being a member of dreaded banned terror organization.

According to the prosecution, there was a criminal conspiracy between her husband and her
pursuant to which conspiracy they left India along with others and joined ISIS in
Afghanistan.

12
4 October, 2018
Yasmeen was an active participant supporting terrorist activities of ISIS; and she had raised
funds to further the activities of ISIS and had received funds which were utilised for
supporting the activities of ISIS, the prosecution had said. Out of 15 accused named in the
charge-sheet all the other accused were declared to be absconding and Yasmeen alone was
sent up for trial for the offences.13

Though the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 125 of IPC, Section 39 and
40 of the UAP Act were set aside. The conviction of the accused under Section 120B of the
IPC and Crl.A.No.506 of 2018 Section 38 of the UAP Act were sustained and sentence was
modified. Accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC ,the sentence was run concurrently
and set off is allowed as directed by the trial Court.14

Appeal preferred by A2-Yasmeen challenging her conviction and sentence under Section
120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA was dismissed.

Section 120B of the IPC that recognizes criminal conspiracy is like a useful tool when it
comes to the anti-terror regimes because the terrorist activities are criminal conspiracies and
the particular section provides a legal aspect to the crime, yet it is vital for the evidences to be
appropriate although the cases mostly have indirect evidences regarding conspirators but it is
important that they should directly linked to the main event . Usually, all the terror incidents
involve more than one person in them and a specific classification under the section 120 that
defines criminal conspiracy along with the other acts like UAPA, Indian Evidence Act ,1872,
when read in correspondence to each other creates a valid grounds for the accused one's w.r.t
appropriate legal actions.

13
https://www.legitquest.com/case/union-of-india-v-yasmeen-mohammad-zahid-yasmeen/156ED8

14
Union of india v Yaseen Mohammed