Project on

Criminal conspiracy under

Indian penal code, 1860

Submitted by guided by
Ayushi pandey Apoorva ma’am
BBALLB
3rd semester
 Acknowledgment

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Apoorva ma’am who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic of criminal conspiracy,
which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things I
am thankful to them.
I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge my depth to all those who
have helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something
concrete.
Any attempt at any level can't be satisfactorily completed without the support and guidance of
MY parents and friends.
I would like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in gathering different
information, collecting data, and guiding me from time to time in making this project, despite
their busy schedules.
Thanking you,
Ayushi pandey
BBALLB
3rd semester
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(i) introduction
(ii) Definition of criminal conspiracy
(iii) Essentials of criminal conspiracy
(iv) Two or more person
(v) Consensus ad idem
(vi) Illegal Act
(vii) Commencement and continuous
(viii) Conviction
(ix) Punishment of criminal conspiracy
(x) Case laws
Introduction

As a result of experience at the time demonstrating that dangerous conspiracies are engaged in
India and that the existing law was insufficient to address the circumstances at the time,
Chapter VA: Criminal Conspiracy was added to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1913. There are
only two sections in it: 120A and 120B. The term "conspiracy" was first used to describe the
coordinated actions of those who joined forces to conduct legal proceedings annoyingly or
improperly.

A grouping of two or more individuals together for illegal purposes is referred to as a

conspiracy. It is an agreement between two or more people to do something that is against the
law. Under the Indian Penal Code of 1860, criminal conspiracy is a substantive offense. Criminal
conspiracy is defined in section 120 A of the Indian penal code

Definition of criminal conspiracy—when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be

done--,
(1) An illegal act, or
(2) An act that is not illegal by means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy:

When two or more two people agree to do or cause to be done any illegal act or any act which is
not against the law but done in an unlawful way or by any illegal means, such agreements are
known as a criminal conspiracy

Suppose 'A' and 'B' conspires to rob a bank then it's a criminal conspiracy, and merely conspiring
about a crime is punishable.

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.

Explanation—it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or
is merely incidental to that object.]

Suppose ‘A’ and ‘B’ agrees to perform a legal act through illegal means they will be liable
 A conspiracy includes not only two or more people intending to do something illegal, but also
two or more people agreeing to do something legal using illegal means. A design is not
criminally responsible as long as it is based solely on intention. When two or more people agree
to carry out a plan, that plan itself becomes an act. Each party's act is a promise against a promise
actus contra actum that can be enforced if it is legal and is punishable if it has a criminal
purpose or uses criminal methods.

The basic principle of the conspiracy offense is the formation of the plan or agreement between
the parties, not the performance of the act or accomplishment of the goal for which the
conspiracy is formed, or the attempt to perform any of the acts or the inciting of others to do
them. In essence, a deal is made to break the law. Conspiracy is a matter of inference drawn from
some criminal acts committed by the accused parties in furtherance of an ostensibly shared
criminal goal. There cannot be a conspiracy as that term is defined in section 120A of the IPC
without any connection or link being established between two individuals. A meeting of minds
consensus ad idem is required, and mere knowledge is insufficient. The unlawful combination is
the essential part of a criminal conspiracy, and the offense is usually completed when the
combination is framed. Unless the statute requires it, no observable act in furtherance of the
conspiracy is required, and the goal of the combination is not required to be accomplished, to
constitute an indictable offense.

Essentials of criminal conspiracy:

(1) An agreement between two or more persons

(2) An illegal act
(3) To do a legal act through illegal means
(4) An overt act is done in pursuance of the conspiracy

The significance of conspiracy is the agreement and association to violate the law or commit an
illegal act. An agreement to commit an illegal act constitutes a conspiracy as long as the
members of the conspiracy remain in the agreement and act by and in furtherance of the object
for which they agreed. There must be some sort of outward sign of agreement for conspiracy to
be considered a crime. However, neither the express agreement nor the actual words of
communication must be proved. Evidence of transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful
design may suffice.

Conspiracy exists only when the agreement to commit the essential act is reached, and it
continues to exist as long as the object for which the association was formed is in the process of
fulfillment as agreed. After making an exception for an agreement to commit an offense that is
punishable per se without proof of an overt result of the conspiracy or any overt act in pursuance
of the agreement, other conspiracies require some acts in addition to the mere agreement to be
punishable. Even if there is no agreement on how the goal will be achieved, the crime of criminal
conspiracy is complete. The unlawful agreement is the essence of the conspiracy crime.

The illegal agreement that amounts to a conspiracy does not have to be formal or express; it can
be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, particularly the conspirators' declarations,
acts, and conduct. The agreement does not have to be entered into by all of the parties at the
same time, but can be reached through successive actions demonstrating their participation in the
conspiracy.

Two or More Persons:

When two or more people agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, irrespective of whether or not
any plans for its commission are made or considered, and regardless of whether or not any such
person takes any steps to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by everyone
who participates in the agreement. As a result, there must be two collaborators, and there may be
more.

It is not required that each of the persons agreeing to commit the illegal act or acts be legally
capable of committing an offense concerning that act. It is not a requirement for a criminal
conspiracy that all parties agree to commit a single illegal act. It may include the commission of
several acts.

When multiple people are charged with the same conspiracy, it must be proven that there is one
large conspiracy involving all of the people charged, not a series of unrelated conspiracies
entered into by different groups of the accused.

Where it cannot be said that all of the accused were in agreement to commit the same illegal act
or cause the same illegal act to be committed, they cannot be held to be parties to the same
conspiracy under the terms of this section.

Consensus ad idem:

There must be evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more people to
commit an offense to prove a criminal conspiracy. In the Parliament attack case, the accused
never contacted the deceased terrorist on the scene, but he did assist one of the conspirators in
fleeing to a safer location after the incident and was not charged as a conspirator.

No charge of criminal conspiracy can be proven unless it is demonstrated that several people
agreed to commit an illegal act or a lawful act through illegal means. This implies that there must
be a meeting of minds, with the conspirators ultimately deciding on the commission of the crime.
In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi assassination case), the Supreme
Court had laid the following important points relating to criminal conspiracy
 (1) Because agreements are a sine qua non of agreement, an accuser’s association with one
of the main accused, or even his knowledge of the conspiracy, does not make him a
conspirator.
(2) The fact that the accused harbored the main accused persons while fully aware of their
involvement in the commission of the offense is insufficient to infer that he was a
member of the conspiracy.
(3) If the accused did not know of the conspiracy, his mere association with the main
conspirator would not make him a member of it.
(4) The conspirator does not have to be present at the scene of the crime. Confederates may,
however, be enrolled in a chain, with

An enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on, and all will be members of a single conspiracy if they
so intend and agree, even if each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the
person he enrolls. There may be a type of umbrella spoke enrolment in which a single person at
the Centre does the enrolling and all other members are unknown to each other even though they
are aware that other members will be present. 

7 people may be members of a single conspiracy, even if they are unaware of the identities of
many others who may play various roles. It is not a requirement for all conspirators to agree to
play the same or an active role in the crime of conspiracy.

Once the goal of the conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent unlawful act is prohibited.
Giving refuge to an absconder would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy. However, a
conspirator is not liable for acts committed by a co-conspirator after the fact. The conspiracy
ends.

Criminal conspiracy can and will exist as long as the individuals who comprise it remain in the
agreement and are acting in accord in furtherance of the objectives for which they agreed. Each
conspirator doesn't need to be aware of all of the conspirators' actions during the conspiracy.

The actions taken by any of the plotters in furtherance of the conspiracy's goal are merely
indicators of what the object of the conspiracy was. A conspirator can join the conspiracy at any
time and leave at any time. However, when different groups of people work together without
knowing each other's identities, each combination constitutes a separate conspiracy.

Illegal Act:

If the act is not illegal, there can be no conspiracy. According to section 43 of the IPC, the term
"illegal" refers to anything that is a criminal offense or gives rise to legal action. "Act" also
includes an illegal omission. Actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to carry out the illegal
behavior, not its execution. It is not enough that two or more people pursued the same illegal
object at the same time or in the same place; there must be a meeting of minds, a consensus.
Consensus to achieve an illegal goal. However, each conspirator doesn't need to have
communicated with each other.

The overt act necessary to be proved to establish conspiracy includes:

 I. acts signifying agreement,
II. acts preparatory to the offense, and
III. Acts constituting the offense itself.

To sustain a charge of conspiracy to commit an illegal act, the prosecution must prove that the
conspirators committed an illegal act. If the conspiracy is simply to commit an illegal act in the
hope and belief that it will result in the death or injury of some people that do not constitute
committing an illegal act.

For example, if A and B agree to prompt Y to point his finger at X, believing that Y is endowed
with some special power that will allow him to kill by doing so, there is no agreement to commit
an illegal act and no conspiracy to commit an offense. Every conspiracy contains an element of
illegality or a criminal act. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of the
agreement or is merely incidental to it. Because an act can be illegal without being criminal, an
agreement to commit an illegal act may constitute criminal conspiracy, even if it is not
punishable as such. It may be an offense to conspire with another to commit an act that would
not be criminal if done alone.

A person who conspires with another to use illegal means to achieve a legal goal may be
convicted of conspiracy. Obtaining credit without the ability to pay, for example, is illegal,
though not criminal. It has been deemed criminal to conspire to allow a person to obtain goods
on credit using a false certificate while knowing that the person did not intend to pay for them.
Where the agreement is not to commit an offense but to commit an illegal act or an act that is not
illegal, by illegal means, it does not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless one or more parties
to the agreement do something else in pursuance of the agreement.

Once the existence of a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is established, the act of one
conspirator becomes the act of another. The conspiracy can be deduced from circumstances that
give rise to the exclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more people to
commit an offense.

Commencement & Continuance:

The conspiracy to commit a crime and the actual crime are two distinct offenses. Conspiracy
occurs before the commission of a crime and is finished before the crime is attempted or
completed.

Although conspiracy is committed as soon as the agreement for the 'unlawful' object is reached,
it is clear that conspiracy is a continuing offense that is committed not only when the agreement
is first reached, but also as long as the agreement to effect the unlawful object remains in effect.

Thus, a conspiracy is a continuing offense that is committed whenever one of the conspirators
commits an act or series of acts. It is a continuing offense as long as it is carried out until it is
executed, rescinded, or frustrated by necessity.
It is not enough to establish that a group of people had a common intention to commit an act that
is illegal or prohibited by law; it must also be proven that they 'agreed' to commit the relevant
act. The essence of the offense of criminal conspiracy to commit offenses is the agreement or
common intention of the accused, and whether such an agreement or common intention exists is
a matter of inference to be deduced from the facts of the case and the acts of the accused proved
in evidence and alleged to have been committed by them in pursuance of such agreement or
common intention.

Conviction:

It is not necessary for more than one person to be convicted of criminal conspiracy. It is
sufficient for the court to determine that two or more people were involved in the criminal
conspiracy. For example, suppose conspiracy is proven against three conspirators, but two of the
three conspirators are not in court for reasons beyond the prosecution's control. Even a single
conspirator can be convicted and sentenced in such a case.

If the conspirators commit multiple offenses as part of a criminal conspiracy, all of them are
liable for the offenses, even if some of them did not actively participate in the commission of the
offenses. When several people are charged with criminal conspiracy and all but one of them are
acquitted, the conviction of the remaining accused on that charge is illegal. The reason for this is
that a conspiracy requires agreement, and one cannot conspire with oneself.

PUNISHMENT OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:

Criminal conspiracy is punishable under Section 120B. The section specifies punishment for two
offenses of varying severity, namely

Criminal conspiracy as such, and (ii) Criminal conspiracy to commit an offense punishable with
at least two years or more of Rigorous imprisonment. Furthermore, section 120B is added as
criminal conspiracies. It is well established that for an offense under this section, the prosecution
must be brought. must not prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done
The illegal act has been committed; the agreement may be proven by necessary implication.
Criminal The IPC created and made punishable the offense of conspiracy. The crime of
Conspiracy to commit a crime is distinct from the crime and the object of the conspiracy.
because the conspiracy precedes the commission of the crime and is complete before the crime
is attempted or completed; similarly, the crime is attempted before the crime is completed The
element of conspiracy is not required as one of the ingredients.
Punishment under Sec 120-B Punishment under Sec 120-B
Criminal conspiracy to commit an offense Other Criminal Conspiracies
punishable by death, life imprisonment, or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years
or more.

Punishment as if he had abetted such offense. Imprisonment of either kind for a term not
exceeding six months, a fine, or both

Case laws

In State of Bihar v. Kailash,

where there were two rations in Patna, one in the name of respondent Kailash Prasad Singh and
the other in the name of respondent Shyam Sunder Singh Respondent Adya Prasad worked as the
Munshi in the first shop, while respondent Ragho Prasad worked as the Mumshi in the second.
Respondent Ambika Prasad assisted Adya Prasad. He also worked for the other shop on
occasion. The respondents were accused of conspiring to defraud the Patna Ration Office by
presenting forged challans, obtaining ration authorities based on those forged challans, and then
taking delivery of grains from Government godowns between October 1952 and February 1954.

The accused was a shop license holder, and there was evidence that he visited the offices. It was
not proven, however, that he filed any of the fabricated challans. The only evidence against him
was that he was aware of the passed challans and must have benefited from the fraud. As a result,
the evidence of his membership in the conspiracy was the commission of the offenses themselves
by others. The court ruled that he could not claim that the conspiracy charge against him had not
been proven.

In Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation,

The Supreme Court ruled that two Chartered Accountants dishonestly and fraudulently opened
several fictitious accounts in various banks with the intent and object of facilitating bank finance
for purposes other than those stated in the loan application.

Fake and forged invoices from fictitious/non-existent suppliers were submitted to the bank by the
accused. The essential component of criminal conspiracy is the accused's agreement to commit
the offense, and the commission of the offense alone is sufficient to result in a conviction under
Section 120B. The appellant, along with Directors and a Chartered Accountant, defrauded
revenue, robbing the public exchequer of crores of rupees, and were convicted under Sections
120B, 420, 409, and 471.