LIST OF CASES

1. TOPANDAS V S TATE OF BOMBAY

2. BIMBADHAR PRADHAN V STATE OF ORRISA
3.R V CHARSTNY
4.FIROZUDDIN BASHEERUDDIN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA, 2001 SCC (CRL) 1341
5.LEO ROY FREY V. SUPPDT. DISTT. J AIL (AIR 1958 SC 119)
6.RAJIV KUMAR V. S TATE OF U.P., (2017) 8 SCC 791
7.STATE V. NALINI, (1999) 5 SCC 253
 Abstract

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. 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.
Though Conspiracy was initially was considered as only a civil wrong,
but later on it was brought under the ambit of Indian Criminal Law.
Conspiracy was not an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) until
the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 was passed which added
the sections 120-A and 120-B to the IPC.
 Introduction
I. 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. Conspiracy under the Indian penal code originally was
punishable only in two forms:- 1. Conspiracy by way of abetment 2. Conspiracy
involved in certain offence. In former an act or illegal omission must take place
in pursuance of conspiracy in order to be punishable while in the latter
membership suffices to establish the charge of conspiracy. However the law of
conspiracy was widened in 1870 by insertion of Section 121A, IPC. Under
Section 121A, it is an offence to conspire to commit any of the offences
punishable by section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, or to conspire (to deprive
the government or any part thereof) to overawe by means of criminal force, or
the show of criminal force , the Government of India , or any local government .
under this section it was not necessary that any act or illegal omission should
take place in pursuance thereof, where as section 107 abetment includes the
engaging with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of a thing, if
an act or illegal omission take place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order of doing that thing.

II. PURPOSE OF INSERTION OF SECTION 120A & 120B IPC, 1860

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.
 Criminal Conspiracy
Ingredients
The ingredients of this offence are-

1. That there must be an agreement between the persons who are alleged
to conspire; and
2. That the agreement should be

 for doing an illegal act or

 for doing by illegal means a lawful act

A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is

executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During this
subsistence, any act done by one of the parties to it related to the agreement,
will come under the purview of this section.

Two or more persons needed

In Topandas v State of Bombay ,

it was held that there must be two or more persons and one person alone can never be held guilty
of criminal trespass for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself.

In Bimbadhar Pradhan v State of Orrisa,

it was held that it is not essential that more than one person should be convicted of the offence
of criminal conspiracy. All that is required is that the position is such that the court is aware that
two or more persons were actually concerned in the criminal conspiracy.

Under the common law since husband and wife constitute one person there cannot be any
conspiracy to commit an offence if husband and wife are the only parties to an agreement.
However, this state of law does not exist in India, where husband and wife by themselves alone
can be parties to a criminal conspiracy. It was held in R v Charstny that where the husband is a
party with some others in a conspiracy and his wife joined him in that with knowledge that he
was involved with others to commit an unlawful act; she would be guilty of criminal conspiracy.

Agreement is the gist of the Offence

Meeting of minds is an essential. However, mere knowledge or discussion is not sufficient. It is
intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. It would
not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish
that offence be committed. In the absence of an agreement, a mere thought to commit a crime
doesn’t constitute the offence. The offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence. It rende the
mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if no offence takes place pursuant to that
agreement.

Participation
It is not necessary that all conspirators should participate from the inception to the end of the
conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first
entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy.

Actus reus
The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution
of it.

Overt act
In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which itself constitutes an
offence, then in that event, unless the Statute so requires, no overt act is necessary to be proved
by the prosecution because criminal conspiracy becomes an offence once the agreement is
established. Where the agreement between the accused is a conspiracy to do or continue to do
something which is illegal, it is immaterial whether the agreement to any of the acts in
furtherance of the commission of the offence do not strictly amount to an offence.
The Law and its applicability

“The conspirators invariably deliberately, plan and act in secret over a period of time. It is
not necessary that each one of them must have actively participated in the commission of
the offence or was involved in it from start to finish. What is important is that they were
involved in the conspiracy or in other words, there is a combination by agreement, which
may be expression or implied or in part implied…” Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others
vs. State of Kerala, 2001 SCC (Crl) 1341.

“The offence of conspiracy to commit a crime is 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.” [Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (AIR 1958 SC
119)].

“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.” State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253

“The essential 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.
- Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 8 SCC 791

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.

However, it has to be kept in mind that the standard of proof for the act of criminal
conspiracy is the same as that of any other criminal offence i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.