FACULTY OF LAW

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Name- Apoorva Bhatnagar

Subject- Criminal Law

Roll No- 17

Course- B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

Year- 2nd (Regular) Semester- 4th

Topic
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

Submitted to-
Prof. Enam Firdos
Introduction

The offence of criminal conspiracy and its section(section 120A & 120B) came into existence
by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1913. It is an exception to the general law where
intent alone doesn’t constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with
persons having the same intention. Conspiracy has been made an offence with the aim to curb
immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. Offence of
criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. 

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.

The mind was apt to take pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in
straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole, and the
more ingenious the mind of the individuals, the more likely was it, considering such matters,
to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted
some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete” – A
warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg v. Hodge1, on danger that
conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof.

“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 Kerala2

1
(1838) 2 Lew 227
2
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. Jail3

“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. Nalini4, 

“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.5

The above mentioned judicial pronouncements crystallize the law on criminal conspiracy as
applicable in India.

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.

Criminal conspiracy under Sec.120-A

When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done

3
AIR 1958 SC 119
4
(1999) 5 SCC 253
5
(2017) 8 SCC 791
I) An illegal Act

II) An act which is not illegal but when it is done by illegal means.

Such an agreement is designated/made a criminal conspiracy.

INGREDIENTS:-

1.There shall be minimum two or more person.

2. Agree for illegal act. The expression ‘ illegal’ has been defined in Sec.43 of the code.
According to this section, the word illegal is applicable to everything :

i) Which is an offence

ii) Which is prohibited by law

iii) Which is furnishes ground for a civil action

iv) Act is done by illegal means.

Further 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.

It is immaterial whether he illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or is merely
incidental to that object.  In other words, the conspirator is guilty of criminal conspiracy;
whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of the agreement or it is merely incidental to the
object of the agreement. The law does not treat these cases differently.

For example: ‘A’ the wife of  ‘B’ had illicit connection with ‘C’,  who wanted to murder ‘B’.
Instead of telling B that C waned to murder him, told C that B would go to lonely place on a
particular day & time.  C murdered B at that particular place, date and time. Thus A  and C
both are guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy. C is also guilty of adultery and murder.

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.

Explain the object of Criminal Conspiracy a three-Judge Bench in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of
Punjab, 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

Mohd. Usman v/s State6 : In this case the accused persons were selling explosive substances
without valid license for a very long time.  The SC held that they were guilty of criminal
conspiracy, as they had been doing this for a very long time, which could not have been
possible without an agreement between then, and this agreement was proved by necessary
implication.

In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu7, , it was held that:

“A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be
adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy”.

Also, in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa &Ors 8., it  was
observed that:

“for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the co-conspirators
were wanting to achieve and thereafter having the intent to further the illegal act takes
recourse to a course of conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment.”

In Subramaniam Swamy v. A Raja9, it was held that,

6
1981
7
AIR 2005 SC 3820
8
(1996) 4 SCC 659
9
(2012) 9 SCC 257
“suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof and existence of a meeting between the
accused persons is not by itself sufficient to infer the existence of criminal conspiracy.

CONVICTION OF A SINGLE PERSON FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:-

An important question arises whether a single individual can be held guilty of this offence.
For criminal conspiracy, there ‘must’ be at-least two persons. Thus the section only says that
agreement must be between two or more persons and not that the connection must be of at-
least two persons.

ILLUSTRATION: - Where the prosecution case is that, four : persons had entered into an
agreement to commit murder of ‘Z’ and out of these four one is ‘D’ without a shadow of
doubt.  The other three might be A,B and C or might not be A,B and C because the evidence
against them is doubtly. In such case, since two things are certain the member of conspirators
was four and one of these four was definitely “D’ thus D alone is guilty of criminal
conspiracy.

Case : B.H. Narasimha Rao V/s Govt. Of A.P 1995, The accused was charged for
committing an offence in conspiracy with seven other who were  al acquitted. It was held that
the accused could not be convicted under section 120-B on the mere ground that he was head
of a section of he branch where the fraud was alleged to have been committed.

Section 120-B : Punishment of criminal conspiracy:

  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 of upwards shall,
where were no express provision is made in this code for punishment of such conspiracy, be
punished in he same manner as if he had abetted of such offence.

Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an

offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six month or with fine or
with both.

Conclusion

Under Section 120A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more
persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is
legal act by illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception
to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit
crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only has the intention
but there had to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The
question for consideration in a case is did all the accused had the intention and did they agree
that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some
of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence be
committed. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it is forced them into a
joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused . It
has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each
conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or
more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement
is in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefore.
This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or
furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done, or written by each of
them. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators
pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral acts incident to and growing out of
the original purpose. A conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co-
conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new member
does not create a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the other conspirators, and
the mere fact that conspirators individually or in groups perform different tasks to a common
end does not split up a conspiracy into several different conspiracies