Criminal Conspiracy under Indian Penal Code

Criminal Conspiracy is a criminal offence defined under Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

What is section 120A and 120B of IPC?

Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the offence of criminal conspiracy.

Section 120B of the IPC, on the other hand, defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Definition of Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120A of the IPC

Criminal Conspiracy under Indian Penal Code is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to commit a lawful act by illegal means. In other words, it is a criminal offence where two or more individuals agree to plan and execute a criminal act.

Section 120A of the IPC states: “When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.”

For a conspiracy to be established, there must be an agreement between the conspirators, a common intention to commit an illegal act, and an overt act in furtherance of that intention. The agreement does not have to be in writing or expressed verbally; it can be inferred from the conduct of the parties.

The punishment for criminal conspiracy is imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months or fine, or both unless the illegal act is a minor one, in which case the punishment will be lighter. However, if the illegal act is a serious one, the punishment can be more severe, up to life imprisonment.

Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy under Indian Penal Code

The ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be summed up as follows:

Agreement between two or more persons

This means that there must be a mutual understanding or agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime. The agreement does not have to be expressed or written, it can be inferred from the actions and conduct of the parties.

Intent to commit an illegal act

The agreement must be accompanied by an intention to commit an illegal act or to commit a lawful act by illegal means. This means that the conspirators must have a common intention to engage in criminal activity.

Commission of an overt act

There must be some act in furtherance of the conspiracy. This act, known as the “overt act,” is a step taken to carry out the illegal agreement. It can be any activity that helps to advance the conspiracy.

Unlawfulness of the act

The act that is the subject of the conspiracy must be illegal or an act that is not illegal but is being committed by illegal means.

For a criminal conspiracy to be established, there must be an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to commit a lawful act by illegal means, accompanied by an intention to bring about the illegal act, and the commission of an overt act in furtherance of that intention.

Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy under Indian Penal Code [Section 120B]

According to this section, 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 or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In simpler terms, Section 120B lays down the punishment for individuals who are involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit serious offences. The punishment can range from imprisonment for a term of up to three years to a fine, or both. The exact punishment will depend on the seriousness of the offence being conspired to commit.

It is important to note that for a person to be convicted under the offence of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an illegal act and that an overt act was committed in furtherance of that agreement.

Landmark cases dealing with Criminal Conspiracy under Sections 120A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code

R v. Barkat Ali (1914)

This was one of the earliest cases related to criminal conspiracy in India. In this case, the court held that for a conspiracy to be established, there must be an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act and an intention to bring about the illegal act.

Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955)

This case dealt with the issue of the role of the prosecution in establishing the existence of a conspiracy. The court held that the prosecution must prove the existence of the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and that mere suspicion of a conspiracy is not enough.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. K.D. Malpani (1956)

This case dealt with the issue of whether the act of one conspirator could be attributed to another conspirator. The court held that if two or more persons agree to commit a crime and one of them commits an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, then that act can be attributed to all the conspirators.

Leo Roy Frey v. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (1958)

This case dealt with the issue of whether a conspiracy can be established in the absence of a formal agreement between the conspirators. The Supreme Court held that a formal agreement is not necessary to establish a conspiracy and that a conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances and the actions of the parties.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad case dealt with the issue of whether a conspiracy can be established in the absence of an overt act. The court held that while an overt act is not essential to establish a conspiracy, it is necessary to prove the existence of the conspiracy.

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

This case dealt with the issue of the admissibility of evidence in a conspiracy case. The Supreme Court held that evidence that is not independently admissible can be admitted in a conspiracy case if it helps to establish the existence of the conspiracy.

R. v. Ganesh Narain Hegde (1971)

This case dealt with the issue of the scope of criminal conspiracy. The court held that a conspiracy can extend to any act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, regardless of whether it was a part of the original agreement or not.

Union of India v. S.N. Dhingra (1988)

This case dealt with the issue of when a conspiracy can be said to have come to an end. The court held that a conspiracy can be said to have come to an end when the object of the conspiracy has been achieved or when it has become impossible to achieve the object of the conspiracy.

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

The Kehar Singh case dealt with the issue of whether a person can be held liable for criminal conspiracy in the absence of a direct role in the commission of the crime. The Supreme Court held that a person can be held liable for criminal conspiracy even if they did not directly participate in the commission of the crime, as long as they were a party to the conspiracy.

R. v. Basudev Ghosh (1993)

This case dealt with the issue of the difference between criminal conspiracy and abetment. The court held that while both criminal conspiracy and abetment deal with the commission of a crime, they are distinct offenses and must be proved separately.

Ram Narain Popli v. C.B.I. (2003)

This case dealt with the issue of the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in investigating and prosecuting cases of criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court held that the CBI has the power to investigate and prosecute cases of criminal conspiracy.

Parveen v. State of Haryana (2021)

This case dealt with the issue of whether a conspiracy can be established when the agreement is inferred from the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that a conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances even if there is no express agreement between the conspirators.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Criminal Conspiracy under Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a serious offence that can result in severe consequences for those who are convicted of it. The offence of criminal conspiracy requires the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act and an intention to bring about that illegal act.

Over the years, various landmark cases have helped clarify the legal principles surrounding criminal conspiracy and have provided guidance to the courts in dealing with criminal conspiracy cases.

These cases have emphasized the importance of proving the existence of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, and have established that a person can be held liable for criminal conspiracy even if they did not directly participate in the commission of the crime.