Criminal Conspiracy Case Laws

# 1. Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkand), 2014 Cri.L.J. 34

The essential ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy are (i) an agreement between two or more
persons; (ii) agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. What is, therefore,
necessary is to show meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be
done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. Mere knowledge or discussion or generation of
a crime in the mind of the accused, is not sufficient to constitute an offence. The offence
takes place with the meeting of minds even if nothing further is done. It is an offence
independent of other offences and punishable separately. Thus, the prosecution is required to
establish the offence by applying the same legal principles which are otherwise applicable for
the purpose of proving criminal misconduct on the part of an accused. Criminal conspiracy is
generally hatched in secrecy thus direct evidence is difficult to obtain or access. The offence
can be proved by adducing circumstantial evidence or by necessary implication. Meeting of
minds to form a criminal conspiracy has to be proved by adducing substantive evidence in
cases where circumstantial evidence is incomplete or vague. The gist of the offence of
conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is
formed, nor in attempting to do them between the parties. Agreement is essential.
# 2. Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh v. CBI, (2008) 15 SCC 49
In order to come under this provision it is not necessary for the accused to know the detailed
stages of conspiracy; mere knowledge of main object/ purpose of the conspiracy would
suffice for this Section.
# 3. Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1007
Apex Court dealt with a case where the accused had purchased fortwin injection and
chloroform. Thus, it was held that since the purchase of these materials was an initial step
towards commission of offence, the presence of co-accused Sonia, though not referred to by
the witnesses at the time of actual kidnapping would not imply that she was not privy to
conspiracy and conviction of the accused under Section 120-B IPC was upheld.
# 4. State v. Om Prakash Srivastava @ Bablooas, 2015 Cr.L.J 4759
A conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a
finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration
the circumstantial evidence. However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind that meeting
of mind is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be sufficient.
# 5. Subhash v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 444
To make out the offence under Section 120-B of IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to
prove the existence of some agreement between the accused persons. There is no specific
evidence as to where and when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific
purpose of such conspiracy. No such evidence has been adduced in the present case.
Therefore the conviction and sentence of the appellants have to be set aside.
# 6. Devender Pal Singh v. State N.C.T of Delhi, 2002 Cr.L.J 2035
The element 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 co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the
means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, (d) in the jurisdiction where
the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful
combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From
this, it necessarily follows that 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. Law making conspiracy a crime is
designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the
means. The encouragement and support which co-conspiratorsgive to one another rendering
enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish
the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is
held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member
of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. See Also : American
Jurisprudence Vol. II Section 23, p. 559 For an offence punishable under Section 120B,
prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to
be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Offence of
criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. 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. 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 an act of
each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if
lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means. No doubt in the case
of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there
should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement
should be for doing an illegal act or for doing illegal means an act which itself may not be
illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and
such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or
by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is
rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence
have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.
# 7. Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 Cr.L.J. 2884
While dealing with the facet of criminal conspiracy, it has to be kept in mind that in case of a
conspiracy, there cannot be any direct evidence. Express agreement between the parties
cannot be proved. Circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be
considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Such a conspiracy is never hatched
in open and, therefore, evaluation of proved circumstances play a vital role in establishing the
criminal conspiracy.
# 8. Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394
The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two
or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an
illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is,
therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done
an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy.
# 9. Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465
A conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of
the common intention of the conspirators. Therefore, the meeting of minds of the conspirators
can be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such inference is
possible.
# 10. Yakub Abdul Razak Menon v. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI, Bombay, 2013
(3) SCALE 565
For an offence Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code, the prosecution need not necessarily
prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the
agreement may be proved by necessary implication. It is not necessary that each member of
the conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. The offence can be proved largely
from the inferences drawn from the acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in
pursuance of a common design. Being a continuing offence, if any acts or omissions which
constitute an offence are done in India or outside its territory, the conspirators continuing to
be the parties to the conspiracy and since part of the acts were done in India, they would
obviate the need to obtain the sanction of the Central Government. All of them need not be
present in India nor continue to remain in India. The entire agreement must be viewed as a
whole and it has to be ascertained as to what in fact the conspirators intended to do or the
object they wanted to achieve.

SOME LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

1. *Lalita Kumari v. State of UP*
:FIR mandatory in cognizable cases
2. *Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum*
:Section 125 of CrPC is Secular
3. *D.K. Basu v. State of Bengal*
:SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person
4. *Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa*
:Compensation in case of unlawful arrest and detention
5. *Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra*
:Rights of women relating to arrest
6. *Joginder Kumar v. State of UP*
:SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person
7. *Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha*
:Right of maintenance in Live-in-Relationships
8. *Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar*
:Filing of Multiple FIR
9. *Satya Pal Singh v. State of MP*
:Father of deceased victim has right to appeal
10. *State of UP v. Singhara Singh*
:Section 164 by necessary implication prohibits the magistrate from giving oral evidence of
the confession made to him
11. *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustum*
:Computation of period of 60/90 Days u/s 167 of CrPC
12. *CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni*
:Police Remand can not exceed 15 Days
13. *Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay*
:Offence triable where the act is done
14. *Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.*
:Availability of Civil Remedy does not bar filing of a case u/s 200 of CrPC
15. *Dina Nath v. Emperor*
:No summary trial in serious or complicated cases
16. *Surendra Singh v. State of UP*
:Where a Judge who wrote the Judgment dies before it was delivered or pronounced, another
Judge can not deliver it
17. *Naresh v. State of UP*
:Alteration of Conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 IPC by HC is not justified u/s 362 of
CrPC
18. *Ashok Kumar v. UOI*
:Constitutional validity of Section 433-A of CrPC
19. *Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani*
:Right to bail u/s 436 in bailable offences is an absolute and indefeasible right
20. *Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab*
:SC guidelines relating to anticipatory bail
21. *Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan*
:Quashing of FIR on account of delay
22. *State of MP v. Madan Lal*
:No compromise in Rape cases
23. *Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan*
:Compensation to victim of Crime
24. *S.R. Sukumar v. Sunnad Raghuram*
:Amendment in complaint can be done
25. *Siddaharth Vashisht v. State(NCT of Delhi)*
:Cryptic Telephonic Message of a cognizable offence not to be treated as FIR

Difference between Common Intention & Common Object

COMMON INTENTION
Section 34 of IPC defines Common Intention
Based on Common Intention
In common intention two or more persons are required.
Each member should have participated in the act.
Prior meeting together is not necessary.
Everyones liability in common intention is primary.
Act should have been done in furtherance of common intention.
COMMON OBJECT
Section 149 of IPC defines Common Object.
Based on Common object.
In Common object at least five persons are necessary.
Merely being a member of that group is sufficient.
Unlawful assembly is necessary.
In common intention liability is always vicarious.
Act should be done in prosecution of common object or known to be likely committed in
furtherance of the common object.

"Temporary Injunction" ____ Few leading judgments of the Supreme Court of India
_________________________________________
1. Rathnavathi v. Kavita Ganashamdas, (2015) 5 SCC 223
2. Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan, (2013) 11 SCC 296
3. Lakshmi v. E. Jayaram, (2013) 9 SCC 311
4. Best Sellers Retail (India) (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 792
5. Esha Ekta Appartments CHS Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai, (2012) 4 SCC 689
6. Ranjit Kaur v. Major Harmohinder Singh, (2011) 15 SCC 95 : (2014) 2 SCC
7. Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. B.D. Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774
8. Skyline Education Institute (India) (P) Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, (2010) 2 SCC 142
9. Home Care Retail Marts (P) Ltd. v. New Era Fabrics Ltd., (2009) 17 SCC 429
10. Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388
11. Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra, (2008) 11 SCC 1
12. D. Dwarakanath Reddy v. Chaitanya Bharathi Educational Society, (2007) 6 SCC 130
13. M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan, (2006) 8 SCC 367
14. Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, (2006) 5 SCC 282
15. Rajasthan Housing Board v. Krishna Kumari, (2005) 13 SCC 151
16. Fargo Freight Ltd. v. Commodities Exchange Corpn., (2004) 7 SCC 203
17. State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 673
18. Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese, (2004) 6 SCC 378,
19. Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Timblo Minerals (P) Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 64
20. Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 600
21. Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC
147
22. Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad, (2001) 5 SCC 568
23. Uniply Industries Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood (P) Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 95
24. A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695
25. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 573
26. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1
27. Sree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid (S) v. Phundan Singh, (1999) 2 SCC 377
28. Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1
29. N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714
30. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545
31. Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corpn.(1995) 3 SCC 33
32. Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161
33. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719
34. Cotton Corpn. of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd., (1983) 4 SCC 625
______