CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

Glanville William writes: “If the mere intention of one person to commit a crime is not
criminal, why should the agreement of two people to do it make it criminal? The only
possible reply is that the law (or, if you prefer, the Establishment) is fearful of numbers,
and the act of agreeing to offend is regarded as such a decisive step as to justify its own
criminal sanction.”1
The gradual evolution of the law of conspiracy, its widened scope and general application
can be traced in close association with the law of principal and accessory. 2 At Common
law, Conspiracy had its origin primarily as a civil wrong. It was originally used to explain
the acts of agreement of those who combined to carry on legal proceedings in a vexatious
or improper way.3
In India the Law relating to criminal Conspiracy is contained by Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The function of the Code is to define the offence and thereafter to prescribe its
punishment. The provision was inserted by virtue of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
1913.4 The underlying purpose for the insertion of Sections 120A and 120B IPC was to
make a mere agreement to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means
punishable under law. The criminal thoughts in the mind when take concrete shape of an
agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal
means than even if nothing further is done an agreement is designated as a criminal
conspiracy.
The proviso to Section 120A engrafts a limitation that no agreement except an agreement
to commit an offence 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. By
insertion of Chapter-VA in IPC, the understanding of criminal conspiracy in the Indian
context has become akin to that in England. The illegal act may or may not be done in
pursuance of an agreement but the mere formation of an agreement is an offence and is
punishable.
1
Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law: The General Part, (2nd ed), Stevens & Sons, London, 1983,
New Delhi, Indian Reprint by Universal Publishing,1999, p 420.
2
Russell on crime, 12th Edn, (1964) Vol. 1, p 200.
3
Sir James fitziames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England, (Macmillan and Co. London,
1883), p.227.
4
Vijeta, The Law of Criminal Conspiracy Section 120A & 120B of Indian Penal Code, International Journal
of Recent Research Aspects, ISSN: 2349-7688, Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2017, pp. 148.

1|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

Sensational cases like the case involving the assassinations of Indira Gandhi, General
Vaidya and Rajiv Gandhi, bribery cases involving prominent politicians, apart from
regular criminal cases involving deliberate planning and execution, have all involved
charges of conspiracy as the core allegation of the prosecution case. The scope and nature
of conspiracy and the degree of proof required to establish the same has been constantly
evolving in recent years.

Conceptualizing Criminal Conspiracy

Definition of Criminal Conspiracy: Section 120 A of the Indian Penal Code defines a
Criminal Conspiracy as: - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) 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 offence 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.

Explanation- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.5

According to the Halsbury’s Laws of England,6 the essence of the offences of both
statutory and common law conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The
agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The
conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the
offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the
conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by
abandonment or frustration or however it may be. The actus reus in a conspiracy is
therefore the agreement for the execution of the unlawful conduct, not the execution of it.
It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same
time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to affect
an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should have been
in communication with every other.

5
PSA Pillai’s: Criminal Law, 11th Edition (2012), LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, p. 228.
6
Halsbury’s, Laws of England, (5th Edn., Vol.25). p.73.
2|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

In Quinn v. Leatham,7 Lord Brampton of the House of Lords had aptly defined conspiracy
as: A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement
of two or more, to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as
such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into
effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against
promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful; and punishable if for a
criminal object, or for the use of criminal means’.

In State v. Nalini,8 it has been said that “Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of
conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to the conspiracy. Once
the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act, which may be unlawful,
would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy.”

The above mentioned judicial pronouncements crystallize the law on criminal conspiracy
as applicable in India. Criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a
substantive offence in itself and punishable separately. There have been rare instances
where persons have been tried for commission of the substantive act of criminal
conspiracy.

However, most commonly, the charge of criminal conspiracy is slapped on an accused

person along with the charge of a substantive offence under the IPC or any other law
which he may be accused of committing along with other co-conspirators.

Criminal conspiracy is hatched to commit an illegal act which is an offence punishable

under law. It is not essential that the accused person must do an overt act, and mere
agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act is sufficient to constitute
the offence of criminal conspiracy. It is also not necessary that the object of the conspiracy
should have been achieved for it to be considered as an offence. Even if the conspiracy
fails on account of abandonment or detection before commission of offence, the very act of
entering into an agreement by the co-conspirators is itself an offence and punishable under
the law.

7
(1901) AC 495.
8
(1999) 5 SCC 253.
3|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

CHAPTER-2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

Originally, the IPC contained only two provisions by which conspiracy was made
punishable. First, the provision of s 107, which made conspiracy by way of abetment
punishable. The other was specific provisions involving offences which included
conspiracies to commit them, as for example, in the definition of a thug (s 130), by was
belonging to a gang of dacoits (s 400) or thieves (s 401). In the former, an act or illegal
omission had to rake place in pursuance of conspiracy before they were liable for
punishment, whereas in the latter, membership of a gang of thieves or dacoits was essential
to establish the charge of conspiracy against them. Thus, in the laws, as it is originally
existed, some overt act by way of furthering the object of the conspiracy on the part of the
accused was a pre-requisite for imposing criminal liability against them.

However, in 1868, the English common law on conspiracy was widened with the
judgement of the House of Lords in the well-known case of Mulcahy v R.9 which stated
that a conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more but in the agreement
of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means.10 The Mulcahy dictum introduced
the principle in common law that a mere agreement of two or more persons to do an
unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means was sufficient to attract liability under
conspiracy, even if no specific overt act had been committed. This development of the law
in England found echo in IPC, which was amended in 1870 by the Indian Penal Code
(Amendment) Act of 1870, in which the law of conspiracy was widened by the insertion of
s 121A in IPC making it an offence to commit any of the offences punishable under s 121.
Under this provision, it was not necessary that any act or omission had actually taken place
in pursuance of the conspiracy. Thus, except in respect of offences specifically mentioned
in s 121, IPC, conspiracy per se was not made an offence under the IPC. The Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

9
(1868) LR 3 HL 306.
10
K.D Gaur, Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, 5th Edition, Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2014,
p.199.
4|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

The position, however, changed with the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 (8
of 1913). It added chapter V – A (ss 120A and 120B) to the Penal Code to assimilate the
law of criminal conspiracy in India with that of England11 and to give extended effect to
the law of conspiracy in India.

Thus, with the inclusion of ss 120A and 120B, the IPC now encompasses the law of
conspiracy to cover the following:

(i) Conspiracy as a substantive offence (chapter V-A: ss 120A and 120B)

(ii) Conspiracy as a form of abetment (chapter V-A: s 107 Secondly);
(iii) Conspiracy to wage, attempt to or abet war against the Government of India (chapter-
VI: s 121A)
(iv) Involvement in specific offences (chapter XVI: ss 310 (Thug) and 311(Punishment of
thug) chapter XVII: ss 400 (Punishment for belonging to a gang of dacoits), 401
(Punishment for belonging to a gang of thieves), and 402) (assembling for the purpose of
committing dacoity).

11
Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, (11th ed.), Law Publishers, Allahabad, 2018, p 508.
5|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

CHAPTER-3

INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 120A, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. A criminal

conspiracy must be put to action; for so long as a crime is generated in the mind of the
accused, the same does not become punishable. Thoughts even criminal in character, often
involuntary, are not crimes but when they take a concrete shape of an agreement to do or
caused to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means then even if
nothing further is done, the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy. The
ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:12
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either
(a) an illegal act;
(b) an act which is not illegal in it but is done by illegal means.

In Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI,13 while dealing with the conspiracy the majority opinion
laid down that the elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be: (a) an object
to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c)
an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they
become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the
means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction
where the statute required an overt act.

The essence of the offences of both statutory and common law conspiracy is the fact of
combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express
and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the
agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination
persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its
performance or by abandonment or frustration or however it may be. The actus reus in a
conspiracy is therefore the agreement for the execution of the unlawful conduct, not the
execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object

12
Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643.
13
(2003) 3 SCC 641.
6|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a
consensus to affect an unlawful purpose.

It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication
with every other.14 In Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v State of Maharashtra,15 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that Criminal Conspiracy postulates an agreement
between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not
illegal, by illegal means. It differs from other offences in that mere agreement is made an
offence even if no step is taken to carry out that agreement. Though there is close
association of conspiracy with incitement and abetment the substantive offence of criminal
conspiracy is somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy as contemplated
by Section 107, I.P.C.

A conspiracy from its very nature is generally hatched in secret. It is, therefore, extremely
rare that direct evidence in proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly
disinterested, quarters or from utter strangers. But, like other offences, criminal conspiracy
can be proved by circumstantial evidence. In E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay,16 it was
stated by the Supreme Court that the gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law.
The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal
act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that
all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a
number of acts.

Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if
it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with having
conspired to do three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact that all of them could not
be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering
the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of
the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all of them may
not be liable. In short in order to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy, two or more
persons must agree to do an illegal act or an act which if not illegal by illegal means.

14
Supra note 5.
15
AIR 1971 SC 885.
16
AIR 1961 SC 1762.
7|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

A three-Judge Bench in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab 17 had noted the ingredients of
the offence of criminal conspiracy and held that the main object of the criminal conspiracy
in the first charge is undoubtedly cheating by personation. The other means adopted, inter
alia, are preparation or causing to be prepared spurious passports; forging or causing to be
forged entries and endorsements in that connection; and use of or causing to be used
forged passports as genuine in order to facilitate travel of persons abroad. The final object
of the conspiracy in the first charge being the offence of cheating by personation, as we
find, the other offences described therein are steps, albeit, offences themselves, in aid of
the ultimate crime. The charge does not connote plurality of objects of the conspiracy.
That the appellant himself is not charged with the ultimate offence, which is the object of
the criminal conspiracy, is beside the point in a charge under Section 120- B IPC as long
as he is a party to the conspiracy with the end in view. Whether the charges will be
ultimately established against the accused is a completely different matter within the
domain of the trial court.

It was further held that the principal object of the criminal conspiracy in the first charge is
thus “cheating by personation”, and without achieving that goal other acts would be of no
material use in which any person could be necessarily interested. That the appellant
himself does not personate another person is beside the point when he is alleged to be a
collaborator of the conspiracy with that object. We have seen that some persons have been
individually and specifically charged with cheating by personation under Section 419 IPC.
They were also charged along with the appellant under Section 120-B IPC. The object of
criminal conspiracy is absolutely clear and there is no substance in the argument that the
object is merely to cheat simpliciter under Section 417, IPC.

17
(1977) 4 SCC 540.
8|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

Nature and Scope of section 120A

(i) Conspiracy is a substantive offence. The offence of criminal conspiracy exists in the
very agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offence, irrespective of
the further consideration whether or not the offence has actually been committed.18

(ii) ‘Agreement’ is the rock bottom of criminal conspiracy. Its essence is the unlawful
combination: It consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which
may be express or implied or partly express and partly implied. ‘Agreement’ is sine qua
non (absolute thing / essential condition) for constituting the offence of criminal
conspiracy. It is complete when the combination is framed to commit an offence. 19 It is
immaterial whether anything has been done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement.20

(iii) To constitute a conspiracy meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an
illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not
necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of conspirators takes
active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. Where in pursuance of
the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a
legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such
offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those
offences.21 Conspirators may appear and disappear from stage to stage in course of
conspiracy.22

(iv) If there are more than two persons involved in a conspiracy, and if it is shown that the
object of the conspiracy has been achieved, then even if some of the other accused had

18
Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 469, (1956) Cr LJ 831 (SC).
19
Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr, (2002) 6 SCC 234, AIR 2002 SC 1661: Mohd Khalid
v. State of West Bengal, (2002)' 7 SCC 334.
20
Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 469, (1956) Cr LJ 831 (SC), see also Devender Pal
Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2002) 5 SCC 234, AIR 2002 SC 1661.
21
State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini & Ors, AIR 1999 SC 2640, (1999) Cr LJ 3124 (SC); KR Puroshbothaman v.
State of Kerala, 2005 Cr LJ 4648(SC).
22
Rayhuvir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149, (1987) Cr LJ 157 (SC).
9|Page
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

been acquitted, the remaining accused (even if it is one) could be convicted under s 120B,
IPC.23

(v) The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is to break the law. There is no condition
imposed in the provision that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. The
conspiracy may comprise the commission of a number of illegal acts. It is sufficient if the
agreement to commit the illegal acts is established. In such a case, all of them will be held
liable for the offence of conspiracy; although for individual offences, all of them may not
be held liable.24

(vi) The essence of the agreement to break the law is the agreement to do an illegal act.
This implies that to establish the charge of conspiracy, knowledge about the involvement
or indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary.25

(vii) The essentials of a single conspiracy require that there must be a common design and
a common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design. A single
conspiracy is separate and distinct from separate acts committed by different people
without a common purpose. The nature of the role played by each participant member in
such a conspiracy is succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in Mohd Hussain Umar
Kachra v KS Dalip Singhji.26

(viii) When an offence is committed by different persons acting in the same manner but
independently, it cannot be said that there was necessarily a conspiracy. Similarity of
methods followed by them does not establish a planned operation with Common intention
or consensus, hence, no conspiracy can be said to be established. In any case, since the
offences could have been committed by different persons acting in same manner, but
independently, it cannot be said that there necessarily was a conspiracy.27

23
Biribadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 469, (1955) Cr LJ 831 (SC).
24
BC Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762, (1961) 2 Cr LJ 828 (SC).
25
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744.
26
AIR 1970 SC 45.
27
Fakhruddin v. State Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326, (1967) Cr LJ 1197 (SC).
10 | P a g e
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

(ix) It is not necessary for all the conspirators to know each other. They may adopt many
devices to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of
performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every
collaborator must be aware of and in which each one of them must be interested. There
may be unity of object or purpose, but there may be plurality of means, sometimes even
unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by
some of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others, it will not affect the
culpability of those others when they are associated with the objects of the conspiracy.28

(x) When the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it is not necessary for the
prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the
conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator has done or would do, so long as
it is known that the collarbone would put the goods or service to an unlawful use. 29 It is
also not necessary that each conspirator to either know all the details of the scheme or
participate at every stage of the conspired act.30

(xi) Every conspirator is liable for all the acts of the co-conspirators, if they are towards
attaining the goals of the conspiracy, even if some of them had not actively participated in
the commission of the offences.31

(xii) Where the agreement between certain persons is a conspiracy to do or continue to do

something which is illegal, it is immaterial whether the agreement to do any of the acts in
furtherance of the commission of the offence does not strictly amount to an offence. The
entire agreement must be viewed as a whole and it has to be ascertained as to what in fact
conspirators intended to do or the object they wanted to achieve.

(xiii) Conspiracy is a continuing offence and it continues to subsist and committed,

whenever one of the conspirators does an act or a series of acts. So long as its performance
continues, it is continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or
necessity.
28
Yash Pal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2433, (1977) 4 SCC 540; see also RK Dalmia v. Delhi
Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821; Mohd Hussain Umar Kochra v. Dalip Singh, AIR 1970 SC 45; Nazir
KJ and Ors v. State of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 461.
29
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744.
30
Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637, (1993) Cr LJ 2516; State of Himachal Pradesh v.
Kishanlal Pardhan, AIR 1987 SC 773, (1987) Cr LJ 709 (SC).
31
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kishanlal Pardhan, AIR 1987 SC 773, (1987) Cr LJ 709.
11 | P a g e
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

CHAPTER-4
PUNISHMENT OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

As per Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

(1) whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with

death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards,
shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.32

Section 120B of the code is required to read with Section 196 (Prosecution for offences
against the state for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence) of the code. It mandates a
Court not to, without prior sanction of the State Government or the District Magistrate,
take cognisance of a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with
imprisonment of a term more than two years.

No prior sanction of the concerned State Government or of the District Magistrate is

required when the criminal conspiracy related to an offence punishable with imprisonment
for two or less than two years’ imprisonment.33 For initiating criminal proceedings parties
to a conspiracy made abroad, requires sanction of the Central Government. A conspiracy
hatched in India to commit an unlawful act outside India does not require sanction of the
Central Government.

32
https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/ipc-section-120b-punishment-of-criminal-
conspiracy, visited on 13 April 2021 at 2:12pm.
33
https://blog.ipleaders.in/prosecution-offences-state-criminal-procedure-code-crpc/ visited on 13 April
2021 at 2:40pm.

12 | P a g e
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

Nature and Scope of Section 120B

To make a person liable for the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the offender
ought to have been present from the very beginning or even during the entire period of the
conspiracy. A conspirator may come and leave the conspiracy at any time during the
pendency of the conspiracy. Any and every such conspirator will be liable for the
subsequent acts of the conspirators.

When the conspiracy alleged is with regard to committing a serious crime of the nature
contemplated in s 120B read with proviso to s 120A, IPC, then, in that event, mere proof
of agreement between the accused for the commission of such a crime alone is enough to
bring about conviction under s 120B and the proof of an overt act by the accused or by any
one of them would not be necessary. There is no requirement that each and every one of
the conspirators must commit some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of the
conspiracy. Since, in most cases, a conspiracy is conceived evidences which lead to an
inference that an agreement between two or more people to commit an offence may be
drawn.34

To be roped in with the aid of s 120B, 35 there should be clear evidence that the accused
was not only a part of the conspiracy, but that he had the knowledge about and consented
for the same. This has been established in the case of Nand Kumar Singh v. State of
Bihar.36

34
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420, (1994) Cr LJ 3271 (SC).
35
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/section-120b/, visited on 14 April 2021 at 7:10am.
36
AIR 1992 SC 1939.
13 | P a g e
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

CHAPTER-5
CONCLUSION

Now more than ever, reforms to the system of criminal conspiracy are necessary to ensure
a legitimate criminal justice system that protects individual rights and ensures reliable
outcomes. It is important to understand the current system of criminal conspiracy both
because of its pervasive use in prosecutions and the growing consensus that the law targets
unpopular ideas and speech and produces erroneous outcomes.
The basic concepts of criminal conspiracy as enumerated above are losing their essence,
resulting in misuse of this provision to the detriment of proper manifestation of law on this
subject.37 It has been observed that trial courts in India are not following these principles. It
has to be ensured that all the stakeholders of the justice delivery mechanism do their duty
diligently, and in a manner which is in consonance with the concept of criminal law as
settled, followed and practiced.

There have been numerous instances of such invocation of Section 120B IPC, like in the
Indira Gandhi murder case, where Balbir Singh was convicted by the trial court. His
conviction was upheld by High Court, but he was ultimately acquitted by the Supreme
Court. In the Parliament House Attack case, the trial court convicted all the accused, but
the High Court acquitted SAR Gillani and Afsan Guru. The Supreme Court ultimately
upheld the judgment of the High Court for these two persons. Similarly, in the Jain Hawala
case, the trial court framed charges against both VC Shukla and LK Advani along with the
Jain Brothers. However, the High Court discharged them, an order which was confirmed
by the Supreme Court by dismissing the appeal of the CBI.

To sum up, it is obvious that certain pressure groups in their zeal to prove their relevance,
start exerting unnecessary pressure on our very robust and independent justice delivery
Steven R Morrison.: The System of Modern Criminal Conspiracy (November 11, 2012). 63 Cath. U. L.
37

Rev. 371 (2014).

14 | P a g e
 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

mechanism. This should be shunned; otherwise there are chances of misuse or wrong
implementation of the law of criminal conspiracy to achieve misplaced moral victories.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:
1. Gaur, K.D, Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, 5th Edition, Universal Law Publishing,
New Delhi, 2014.
2. Gour, Hari Singh, Penal Law of India, (11th ed.), Law Publishers, Allahabad, 2018.
3. Pillai’s, PSA, Criminal Law, 11th Edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur,
2012.
4. Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law: The General Part, second edn,
Stevens & Sons, London, 1983, New Delhi, Indian Reprint by Universal Publishing,
1999.

ARTICLES:
1. Morrison, Steven R., The System of Modern Criminal Conspiracy (November 11,
2012). 63 Cath. U. L. Rev. 371 (2014).
2. Stephen, Sir James fitziames, A History of the Criminal Law of England, (Macmillan
and Co. London, 1883), p.227.
3. Vijeta, The Law of Criminal Conspiracy Section 120A & 120B of Indian Penal Code,
International Journal of Recent Research Aspects, ISSN: 2349-7688, Vol. 4, Issue 1,
March 2017, pp. 148-151.
4. Russell on crime, 12th Edn, (1964) Vol. 1, p.200.
5. Halsbury’s, Laws of England, 5th Edition, Vol 25, LexisNexis, p.73.

WEBSITES:
1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/prosecution-offences-state-criminal-procedure-code-crpc/
visited on 13 April 2021 at 2:40pm.
2. https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/ipc-section-120b punishment-
of-criminal-conspiracy, visited on 13 April 2021 at 2:12pm.
3. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/section-120b/, visited on 14 April 2021 at
7:10am.

15 | P a g e
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN INDIA

16 | P a g e