New Law College

Subject: Indian Penal Code

Name - Dnyanesh Shinde

Roll No 140 Div B

Criminal Conspiracy

0
Index

Introduction 2

Definition 3

Essentials for Criminal Conspiracy 4-9

Punishment Under Sec 120B 10

Case Laws 11-12

LandMark Decisions 13

Conclusion 14

1
Introduction Conspiracy(civil) , Conspiracy(Criminal)

A Conspiracy is a typical activity which is conceived by multiple minds conspiring an activity which is
done for ulterior motives, from a legal perspective a conspiracy can be done both from and Civil and
Criminal standpoint and thus are defined accordingly under
The term conspiracy is a civil as well as a criminal offence. A civil conspiracy is a form of conspiracy
involving an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third
party to obtain an illegal objective

A civil conspiracy can exist when:

1. Conspirators agree to work to achieve an unlawful goal, or

2. Conspirators agree to achieve a lawful goal by unlawful means.

Conspiracy criminal is not the same as conspiracy tort. The Indian Penal Code of 1860 addresses it.
Under criminal law, an agreement between the parties to commit a crime or do a legal act by illegal means is
actionable. The conspirators are not necessary to have acted in line with their agreement, i.e., the conduct
conspired must not have been carried out. The tort of conspiracy, on the other hand, is not committed by a
simple agreement between the parties; rather the tort is complete only when the plaintiff suffers a significant
loss.
Thus Criminal Conspiracy is defined by IPC as Criminal conspiracy as an agreement of two or more
persons to do or cause to be done-

1. An illegal act, or;

2. An act that is not illegal by illegal means.

Criminal conspiracy is covered under Sec 120-A of IPC which is followed by Sec 120-B which covers
punishment for criminal conspiracy

INTRODUCTION - The Chapter V-A: Criminal Conspiracy was inserted in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in
1913 as the experience at that time showed that dangerous conspiracies are entered into in India and that the
existing law was inadequate to deal with the prevailing conditions. It comprises of only two sections 120A
and 120B. Conspiracy was originally used to explain the acts of agreement of those who combined to carry
on legal proceeding in vexatious or improper way.

2
Definition Criminal Conspiracy Section 120-A & Section 120-B

Section 120A, IPC defines criminal conspiracy. It is a substantive offence in itself. In simple terms, a
criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime. 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 reason that one cannot conspire with oneself.

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 a design rests in intention only, it
is not indictable. When two or more persons agree to carry it into effect the very plot is an act itself, and the
act of each parties, promise against promise actus contra actum capable of being enforced, if lawful,
punishable if for criminal object or for the use of criminal means. The gist of the offence of conspiracy lies
not in doing the act or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do any
of the acts nor in inducing others to do them, but in forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties.
The gist is an agreement to break the law. Conspiracy is a matter of inference deducted from certain criminal
acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose common between them.

Unless any nexus or any link is established between two persons there cannot be any conspiracy as
defined under section 120A, IPC. The meeting of minds is essential and mere knowledge is not sufficient.
The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete
when the combination is framed. Unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of
the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an
indictable offence.

As Criminal conspiracy is based out of intention a strong deterrent is forumatled under section 120-B of IPC
which comprises of Punishment for acts which are classified as criminal conspiracy .

As provided in the preceding Section 120-A criminal conspiracy may be of two kinds, namely,
(1) Conspiracy for committing serious offences which are punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more; and
(2) Conspiracy to commit other than the serious offence and act which is legal but done by illegal means. In
the former case, no overt act is deemed necessary and mere agreement if proved would be sufficient to
constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy, but in the latter case an overt act must have been done.

In view of these two categories of criminal conspiracies as contemplated by Section 120-A, the present
Section 120-B also divides criminal conspiracy into two classes for the purpose of punishment. Thus a party
to a conspiracy to commit a serious offence (punishable with death, life imprisonment or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or more), in the absence of any express provision in IPC, is punishable
in the same manner as if he had
A betted the offence." As provided in clause (2) of this section, conspiracy to commit any other offence
including those offences which are punishable only with fine, and conspiracy to commit illegal acts other
than offences, are uniformly punishable with imprisonment for a term upto six months with or without fine
or both.
Conspiracy being an offence in itself, the parties to it are punishable irrespective of the fact whether the
offence in pursuance of it is committed or not. Where an offence has been committed in pursuance of
conspiracy, the charges against the conspirators will be for both, the conspiracy as well as the resulting
offence. Even if charge of criminal conspiracy is not proved against the conspirators (accused persons) they
could still be punished for the offence, which they have committed.
3
Essentials Of Criminal Conspiracy

Conspiracy being activity of collective minds which holds certain essentials in order to be established as an
act of conspiracy , these essentials are to be proved in order to establish Criminal conspiracy . Thus before
filing such a case its imperative that the case need to comply with the essentials of conspiracy
The constituent elements of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:
(1) An agreement between two or more persons : In order to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy
there must be an agreement
(2) To do an illegal act, : Is any and all the activity under Sec 34 of IPC. Such activities are important for
the basis of criminal conspiracy
(3) To do a legal act by illegal means, : Certain acts which are legal in the eye of the law, but can be
also be archived by unfair and illicit means
(4) An overt act done in pursuance of the conspiracy. : Any action which might be innocent itself but if
part of the preparation and active furtherance of a crime, can be introduced as evidence of a defendant's
participation in a crime

The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement and association to break the law, or to do an
illegal act. An agreement to do an illegal act which amounts to a conspiracy as long as the members of the
conspiracy remain in agreement and as long as they are acting in accord and in furtherance of the object for
which they entered into agreement. It is essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of
physical manifestation of agreement. However, the express agreement need not be proved nor is it necessary
to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the
unlawful design may be sufficient. Conspiracy comes into being just the moment the agreement to commit
the crucial act is reached and it continues to exist so long as the object, for which the association was
formed, continues in the process of fulfilment as per agreement. Having carved an exception in favour of
agreement to commit offence which is punishable per se without proof of an overt result of conspiracy or
any overt act in pursuance of the agreement, other conspiracies need some acts besides the mere agreement
to render it punishable. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to
the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen
of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or
express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and
conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time,
but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy.

Two or More Persons: When two or more person agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then
regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken
by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and everyone who
joins in the agreement. Thus there have to be two conspirators and there may be more than that.11 It is not
necessary that every one of the persons, agreeing to do the illegal act or acts, should be capable, in law, of
committing an offence in respect of that act. It is not an ingredient of criminal conspiracy that all the parties
should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts.12 However,
where several persons are charged with the same conspiracy, it must be proved that there is one large
conspiracy involving all the persons charged and not a number of unrelated conspiracies entered into by
different groups of the accused.13 The unity of will and purpose amongst all the accused must be proved;
and an accused not shown to be a member of a large conspiracy is entitled to acquittal, however bad his
record may be and, however, much he may be suspected of this or that offence. Where it cannot be said that
everyone of the accused was in agreement to do the same illegal act or cause same illegal act to be done,
they cannot be held to have been parties to one and the same conspiracy within the meaning of this section.
4
Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy

Consensus ad idem: In order to prove a criminal conspiracy, there must be evidence to show that there was
an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. In the Parliament attack case, the accused
had never contacted the deceased terrorist on place but had helped one of the conspirators to flee a safer
place after the incident and was not held guilty as a conspirator. No charge of criminal conspiracy can
succeed unless if it shown that several persons have agreed to do an illegal act or a lawful act by unlawful
means. This implies that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the
conspirators regarding the commission of the offence. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi
assassination case), the Supreme Court had laid following important points relating to criminal conspiracy:

(1) Association of accused with one of main accused or even his knowledge about conspiracy would not
make him conspirator as agreement is sine qua non of agreement,
(2) Accused harbouring main accused persons knowing fully well their involvement in the commission of
offence is itself not sufficient to infer that he was member of conspiracy,
(3) If accused had no knowledge of conspiracy, then his mere association with the main conspirator would
not make him member of the conspiracy,
(4) It is not necessary for the conspirator to be present at the scene of the crime. However, conspirators may
be enrolled in a chain, A enrolling B, B enrolling C and so on and all will be members of a single conspiracy
if they so intend and agree, even though each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the
person whom he enrols. There may be a kind of umbrella spoke enrolment, where a single person at centre is
doing the enrolling and all other members being unknown to each other though they know that there are to
be other members.

Persons may be members of a single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others
who may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to
agree to play the same or an active role. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act
which may be unlawful would not make the accused part of the conspiracy, like giving shelter to absconder.
However, a conspirator is not responsible for acts done by co-conspirator after termination of the conspiracy.
Criminal conspiracy may come into existence, and may and will persist so long as the persons constituting
the same remain in agreement, and so long as they are acting in accord in furtherance of the objects for
which they entered into agreement. It is not necessary that each conspirator should be aware of all the acts
done by each of the conspirators in the course of the conspiracy. The acts done by any of the conspirators in
the furtherance of the purpose of the conspiracy are merely indication of what the object of conspiracy was.
A conspirator can join the conspiracy at any stage and similarly leave it at any stage. However, where
different groups of persons co-operate towards their separate ends without any privity with each other, each
combination constitutes a separate conspiracy.

Illegal Act: There can be no conspiracy if the act is not illegal. According to section 43, IPC, “illegal” is
applicable to everything which is an offence prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for an action.
“Act” includes an illegal omission also. Actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal
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 meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an
unlawful purpose. However, it is not necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication
with every other.

5
Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy

The overt act necessary to be proved to establish conspiracy includes

(i) acts signifying agreement,

(ii) acts preparatory to the offence, and
(iii) acts constituting the offence itself.

To sustain a charge of conspiracy to do an illegal act, the prosecution must prove the committing of an illegal
act by the conspirators. If the conspiracy is merely to do an act which is not illegal, though in the hope and
belief that that act may result in the death of, or injury to, some persons, that does not amount to do an illegal
act.
For instance, if A and B agree that they will induce Y to point his finger at X believing that Y is
endowed with some special power which will enable him to kill by so doing, there is no agreement to do an
illegal act and no conspiracy to commit an offence. Every conspiracy involves an element of illegality or
illegal act. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of the agreement or is merely
incidental to it. Since an act may be illegal without being criminal it follows that an agreement to do an
illegal act may amount to criminal conspiracy though it may not be punishable as such. It may be an offence
to conspire with another to do an act which, if done alone, would not be criminal. If one conspires with
another to employ illegal means to achieve a legal purpose one may be convicted for conspiracy. For
instance, obtaining credit without means to pay, though not criminal, is unlawful. It has been held criminal to
conspire to enable a person to get goods on credit by means of a false certificate, knowing that he did not
intend to pay for them.

Where the agreement is not to commit an offence but to commit an illegal act, or an act, which is not
illegal, by illegal means, it does not amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement, is
done by one or more parties to the agreement in pursuance thereof. Once a conspiracy to commit an illegal
act is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of another. The conspiracy can be inferred from
circumstances giving rise to exclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons
to commit an offence. Commencement & Continuance: The conspiracy to commit a crime and the crime
itself are two different offences. Conspiracy precedes the commission of crime and is complete before the
crime is attempted or completed. Although conspiracy is committed as soon as the agreement for the
‘unlawful’ object is made, it is clear that conspiracy is a continuing offence and is committed not only when
agreement is first reached but also as long as the agreement to effect the unlawful object continues. Thus, a
conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators
does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed
or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity.

To make out an offence of criminal conspiracy it does not suffice to establish that a number of persons
had a common intention to commit an act opposed to or forbidden by the law, it has further to be proved that
they ‘agreed’ to commit the relevant act. The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit offences
lies in the agreement or common intention of the accused and the question 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.

6
Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy (Conviction)

Conviction: It is not essential that more than one person should be convicted of the offence of criminal
conspiracy. It is enough that the court is in a position to find out that two or more persons were actually
concerned in the criminal conspiracy. For instance, an occasion may arise when conspiracy is proved against
three conspirators, but two of the three conspirators are not before the courts for reasons beyond the control
of the prosecution. In such a case, even one conspirator can be duly convicted and sentenced. If pursuant to a
criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences, then all of them will be liable for the offences
even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offences. When several persons
are charged of the offence of criminal conspiracy and all the accused except one is acquitted, the conviction
of the remaining one accused on that charge is illegal. The reason is that the conspiracy requires an
agreement and one cannot conspire with himself.

Conviction just like any other instance which is based on facts and witness needs to be archived in a
way which ties in multiple parties together for the crim , unlike acts which are done by single person inorder
for provision of criminal conspiracy are to apply , one must find and formulate his approach which tie’s in
all the perpetrators

Conviction is based on the multiple aspects of a particular case . A case can be assessed in at the various
steps for forming a necessary trail to understand the chain of various people or elements which were
involved in the wrong doing . Cases which necessarily involved multiple culprits usually are a part of a
carefully concocted conspiracy

Conviction in such matter can only be archived by linking all the elements of the said case with one
another this will also involve those and all those culprits which have actively participated in planning and
formulation of such criminal act but may not be present on the actual day of the occurrence
Conviction can also be archived by finding documentary evidence which outlines clear proof for helping or
using funds for a particular criminal act or in abetment of the criminal act . This also implies that any and all
back seat or no active participant will also be liable for the criminal conspiracy . Fuding , sponsoring or
bribing with money or in other benefits would be considered as active participation and thus making the
person who made such funding available as party to the crime. Conviction in such matters involves a lot of
careful assessment and further requires a keen eye to the details for the case . It involves many different
aspects and sometimes involves different agencies with authority to pursue proof and help tie in the
necessary case. In matters of case where crime of greater gravity have taken place in such case , any and all
the facilitator of such happening is party to that crime . Supplying of weapons ,vehicle , medium or in some
instance leaking information will also constitute to being party to the crime . Although burden of proving
lies on the one filing the case its imperative that all the aspects of such collusion would need to be
meticulous looked in . As the justice system can only prosecute the one presented in front of it one needs to
have all the elements due considered and tested about all the possibilities before moving towards conviction
of said person. Although in some case the role of the person not directly attached to the crime varies upto a
certain degree, one needs to understand the aspect of participation , and under which circumstance was
participation done .

7
Proof of Conspiracy

Sometime the participate may not know the true nature of his working and might just be doing it
without comprehending the full nature of his actions , such case where one makes or facilitates the crime
without knowing

Proof of conspiracy In view of the peculiar nature of the offence of criminal conspiracy, direct evidence
to prove this offence is hardly available. As such, the offence is generally proved from the inferences drawn
from the acts or illegal omissions committed by conspirators in pursuance of a common design.

Expressing concern for the non-availability of direct evidence in case of criminal conspiracy, the Apex
Court in Devender Pal Singh v. State (N.C.T., Delhi), observed that privacy and secrecy being the main
characteristics of a conspiracy direct evidence to prove this offence is rarely available. That apart, it is not
always possible to give affirmative evidence about the exact date of formation of criminal conspiracy and the
persons who took part in the formation of combination as also the object of conspiracy. Therefore, inference
has generally to be drawn from the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence of
conspiracy. However, while appreciating the circumstantial evidence, care has to be taken that each and
every incriminating circumstance is clearly proved so as to form a chain of events on the basis of which an
irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be established beyond doubt.

A mere suspicion, in the absence of direct or indirect evidence cannot be a valid ground for conviction
of the accused for the offence of criminal conspiracy.

The Supreme Court in K. Hasim v. State of Tamil Nadu,' observed that 'unlawful combination' being the
main ingredient of criminal conspiracy, the offence is complete the moment such combination is formed for
committing an illegal act and therefore, neither it is necessary that there should have been an overt act nor is
it necessary to prove that the designed object of conspiracy was actually accomplished. The Apex Court, in
this case once again reiterated the essential elements of the offence of criminal conspiracy and held that
consent or agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means in itself
constitutes an act which takes the form of conspiracy and therefore the law does not insist that the object or
design should be accomplished by an overt act. The Supreme Court reiterated the essentials required to be
proved by

the prosecution for conviction of persons accused of criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court in Mir
Nagvi Askari v. CBI, held that the principle deduced from a number of judgments is that for proving a
charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators know each and every detail of conspiracy so
long as they are co-participators in the main object of conspiracy. It is also not necessary that all the
conspirators should participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of object or
purpose, all participators at different sages of crime will be guilty of conspiracy.

8
Evidence in Conspiracy and Distinction from Sec 107

Evidence in Conspiracy

The provisions relating to evidence in the case of criminal conspiracy are contained in Section 10 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as follows:

"Where there is a reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by anyone of such persons in
reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of
them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of
proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."

The section thus lays down the conditions for assessing the evidence of co-conspirators in order to prove
conspiracy as against other conspirators.' Obviously, the principle laid down in Section 10 of the Evidence
Act is an exception to the general rule of evidence that an act or action of one of the accused cannot be used
as evidence against the other.

It was held in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. Narayan Rao, that agreement to do an act is
the essence of criminal conspiracy. Direct evidence of conspiracy is rarely available. It has to be proved on
basis of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances proved must clearly show that the crime was committed
in pursuance to meeting of minds between conspirators The instant case was related to a conspiracy to
defraud a bank by sanctioning dubious loans. Panel advocate along with Bank officials were charged for
allegedly. Submitting misleading and false details about house loans.

Distinction from Sec 107 .

In a view that conspiracy is an collective offence Under Sec 120-A and one of the form of abetment of
an offence it needs to be differentiated from Sec 107 . Unlike Sec 120-A which is a criminal offence which is
of substantive type where as Sec 107 dictates a form of abetment for doing an act or illegal omission.
Further Sec 120A is an ‘agreement’ between parties to the crime wheres as Sec 107 is an “engagement’ .

Though there is a close association of criminal conspiracy with incitement and abetment, the scope of
conspiracy as a substantive offence is wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy in the sense that mere
agreement to commit an illegal act is made an offence even if no step is taken to carry out that agreement.'

9
Punishment Under Sec 120B

This section provides punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy. As provided in the preceding
Section 120-A criminal conspiracy may be of two kinds, namely,

(1) Conspiracy for committing serious offences which are punishable with death, imprisonment for life
or rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more; and

(2) Conspiracy to commit other than the serious offence and act which is legal but done by illegal
means. In the former case, no overt act is deemed necessary and mere agreement if proved would be
sufficient to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy, but in the latter case an overt act must have been
done.

In view of these two categories of criminal conspiracies as contemplated by Section 120-A, the present
Section 120-B also divides criminal conspiracy into two classes for the purpose of punishment. Thus a party
to a conspiracy to commit a serious offence (punishable with death, life imprisonment or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or more), in the absence of any express provision in IPC, is punishable
in the same manner as if he had abetted the offence.'

As provided in clause (2) of this section, conspiracy to commit any other offence including those
offences which are punishable only with fine, and conspiracy to commit illegal acts other than offences, are
uniformly punishable with imprisonment for a term upto six months with or without fine or both. Conspiracy
being an offence in itself, the parties to it are punishable irrespective of the fact whether the offence in
pursuance of it is committed or not. Where an offence has been committed in pursuance of conspiracy.

The charges against the conspirators will be for both, the conspiracy as well as the resulting offence.
Even if charge of criminal conspiracy is not proved against the conspirators (accused persons) they could
still be punished for the offence, which they have committed.

Criminal conspiracy is a continuing offence and lasts until the object of the conspiracy is fulfilled or the
conspirators have resiled or given up their efforts to achieve the object of it. Therefore, the conspirators are
liable for punishment under this section throughout the period the conspiracy continues.

10
Case Laws on Criminal Conspiracy Landmark Decision

State of Maharashtra Vs Som nath Thapa

In the infamous Bombay Bomb Blast case, the accused was alleged to have sent his jeeps and men for
smuggling and transporting RDX. The jeeps had special cavities to conceal RDX and traces of RDX were
found in them.

The accused was charged under Section 3(3) of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 (later substituted by POTA) for indulging in illegal activities and conspiracy. The Apex Court held that
intent of unlawful use being made of goods or services, as in the instant case, may be inferred from the
knowledge itself. It was further held that when the offence involves a chain of actions, it is not necessary for
the prosecution to show that each participant in the conspiracy had the knowledge that the collaborators
would put the goods or services for an illegal purpose or an unlawful act

The conviction of the accused under TADA and Section 120-B was therefore, upheld by the Supreme
Court in this case

Parveen v. State of Haryana (2021) SC

The brief facts of the case are: Four accused were being escorted by the police from the Central Jail, Jaipur
by train to be produced in the Court of CJM, Bhiwani. On reaching the Railway Station Nangal Pathani, four
young boys entered their compartment, attacked the police party and tried to rescue the accused. The
accused, who were in custody also tried to escape and an attempt was also made to snatch the official
carbine. It was alleged that one of the accused fired upon the Head Constable, who got injured and later
succumbed to his injuries. One accused was apprehended and the other three fled. The accused were charged
under offences

Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 392, 307, 302, 120-B of the IPC and for certain offences under the Arms
Act. The accused were held guilty by the Sessions Court and on appeal, the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana confirmed their conviction.

The appellant Parveen Sonu filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120B
I.P.C. in absence of any evidence to show a meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended
object of committing an illegal act. The Court ordered the acquittal of the appellant and held that it is not
safe to maintain the conviction of the accused on the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused in
absence of any other corroborative evidence.

11
Case Laws on Criminal Conspiracy Landmark Decision

Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) SC

One of the most important case , which involved with the assisnation of the then prime minister Indira
Gandhi . The accused and some others were tried under various offence og which one of the offence was
with regards to having made a conspiracy for assination of the Prime minster

After addressing the due process of the law the case was finally put forth to trail and ultimately was preceded
by The Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, has held that the most important ingredient of the offence of
conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. Such an illegal act may or may
not be done in pursuance of the agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable.

Major E.G. Barsay v. The State of Bombay (1962) SC

In this case, it was held that an agreement to break the law constitutes the gist of the offence of criminal
conspiracy under Section 120A IPC. The parties to such an agreement are guilty of criminal conspiracy even
if the illegal act agreed to be done by them has not been done.

The Court also held that it is not an ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy that all the parties
should agree to do a single illegal act and a conspiracy may comprise the commission of several acts.

Ram Narain PoplI v. C.B.I. (2003) SC

In this case, the Supreme Court held that mere proof of the agreement between two or more persons to do an
unlawful act or an act by unlawful means is enough to convict the parties for criminal conspiracy under
Section 120B.

The scope and nature of criminal conspiracy is always changing and growing. The offence of conspiracy
itself is often complex and difficult to ascertain because the act of ‘scheming’ is always done in secrecy.
Since its addition to the Indian Penal Code, there have been various landmark judgements that attempt to
interpret the offence in its truest form.

12
Case Laws on Criminal Conspiracy Landmark Decision

In Topan Das v. State of Bombay is one one of the most important for establishing the virtue for the purpose
of fulfilling the basic requirement for the presence of one more person who has agreed to commence such an
action which is criminal in nature. The case stated a very important basis and thus mentioned that it was
established in the rule of law that the offence of conspiracy cannot apply to a singular person and that there
should be at least two persons for the same, and can be never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy since one
cannot conspire with oneself. Which further lead to quashing of 18 month or rigorous punishment but was
convicted to face the consequence of the other crimes

In B.H. Narasimha Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh[7] the appellant was convicted of an offence of
criminal conspiracy along with seven others. However, he alone was charged with offences under Ss. 120-B,
409 and 471, IPC under section 5(1)(c) and 5(l)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption
Act, 1947. Simultaneously, all the other co-conspirators were acquitted by the Trial Court and the High
Court. In the end, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the facts that there had to be another person to
communicate with and carry out the agreement and that a single person can never be accounted for
conspiracy

In Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail [8] the court held that “The offence of conspiracy to commit a crime
is a different offence from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy because the conspiracy precedes the
commission of the crime and is complete before the crime is attempted or completed, equally the crime
attempted or completed does not require the element of conspiracy as one of its ingredients they are,
therefore quite separate offences”

In The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Subbaiah,[9] the Supreme Court contended that “where the matter has
gone beyond the stage of mere conspiracy and offences are alleged to have been committed in pursuance
thereof the accused can be charged with the specific offences alleged to have flown out of the conspiracy
along with the charge of conspiracy.” The court stated the offence of conspiracy is a separate offence and an
individual can be separately charged with respect to a conspiracy along with any other offences resulting of
that conspiracy.

In State v. Nalini[10] held that once the object of the conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent actions
which may be unlawful in nature, would not make the accused party to the conspiracy.

In Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala[11], it was held that it is not necessary that
each one of the co-conspirators must have actively participated in the commission of the offence or was
involved in it from start to finish. If there is a combination by agreement, which may be an express or
implied or in part implied, then they are considered to be a party to the conspiracy.

13
Conclusion

The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general rule that in order to constitute a crime, both
mens rea and actus rea must be involved, here merely guilty mind is sufficient to render a person guilty if
there was an agreement was to commit an illegal act.

However, an act, or actus reus becomes essential again if the object of the agreement was to do a lawful act
by unlawful means. The criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the
conduct of the suspected or the accused person i.e using both direct and circumstantial evidence. A person
found to be guilty of criminal conspiracy is punished under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
This section of the Code is slowly losing its essence and there is a need to ensure that due diligence is
maintained in cases of criminal conspiracy. The well-established principle of criminal law, ‘fouler the crime,
higher the proof required’ must be kept in mind, and the sanctity of law upheld.

14