Criminal Conspiracy | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction 

A conspiracy involves the collaboration of two or more individuals for illegal purposes, constituting an agreement to engage in unlawful activities. Criminal conspiracy is considered an independent offense according to the Indian Penal Code of 1860 (IPC). Typically, the accused is accused of both the crime of criminal conspiracy and another underlying offense specified in the IPC or any other applicable law. Chapter V-A of the IPC, added in 1913, addresses the concept of criminal conspiracy. In this article, the author aims to dissect the standalone crime of criminal conspiracy by utilizing pertinent legal precedents. 

Background

• Historically, the term 'conspiracy' referred to the actions of two or more individuals joining together to falsely accuse someone in a legal case or to engage in legal proceedings in an improper or vexatious manner.
• In the case of Poulterer's case in 1611, the concept of the criminal aspect of conspiracy was first established by the Star Chamber, recognizing conspiracy as an independent offense.
• In this case, a man named Walters, along with other defendants, falsely accused Stone of robbery and went to great lengths to damage his family's reputation. Rumors were spread suggesting that Stone was a dishonest thief. However, Stone had an alibi and presented around 30 witnesses who testified that he was in London on the day of the alleged robbery. The jury found in favor of Stone, and he was acquitted. Subsequently, Stone took legal action before the Star Chamber to clear his name and restore his reputation. The defendants tried to settle the matter out of court and persuade Stone to drop the case. However, when the legal proceedings began, the defendants accused Stone of barratry and interfered with some of his witnesses. The court concluded that the presence of a conspiracy among the defendants, regardless of whether Stone was falsely accused or acquitted, constituted the essence of the offense and could be deemed a crime.
• In the case of Mulcahy v. R. in 1868, the House of Lords articulated that a conspiracy involves not just the intent of two or more individuals but also their agreement to commit an unlawful act through illicit means. As long as this plan remains in the realm of intention only, it is not subject to prosecution. Therefore, for a conspiracy to be indictable, two or more persons must agree to put it into action, and the very act of plotting itself is punishable when it pertains to a criminal objective or the use of illegal means.
• Before the inclusion of Chapter V-A, conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was punishable in only two ways:
  • As abetment under Section 107 of the IPC.
  • Involvement in a specific offense (Sections 310, 401, and 400 of the IPC).
• In 1870, Section 121A was added, which established penalties for conspiracies related to offenses punishable under Section 121 of the IPC, such as conspiring to wage or attempt to wage war against the Government of India.
• Thus, it is evident that conspiracy itself was not considered a crime under the IPC before 1913. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 introduced Chapter V-A in the IPC, which established criminal conspiracy as a distinct and independent offense.

Definition of Criminal Conspiracy

Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) outlines the concept of criminal conspiracy as an agreement involving two or more individuals to either:

• Engage in an unlawful act, or
• Perform an act that, while not inherently illegal, becomes so when carried out by illicit means.

Section 43 of the IPC defines "illegal" as anything that constitutes an offense or is prohibited by the law, or provides grounds for civil legal action.

The proviso attached to Section 120A specifies that a mere agreement to commit an offense constitutes criminal conspiracy, and there is no requirement to prove overt acts or illegal omissions. The need for an overt act arises only when the objective of the conspiracy involves an illegal act that does not qualify as an offense. Whether the illegal act is the ultimate goal of the agreement or merely an incidental part of it is immaterial.

Essential Elements

• The involvement of at least two or more individuals who agree to carry out an illegal act or an act that becomes illegal through unlawful means. In other words, there must be a conspiracy involving a minimum of two people.
• The presence of a shared malevolent intent to commit an unlawful act or an act that becomes illegal when executed through illicit means is a crucial requirement.

Note: A person may be charged individually with the offense of criminal conspiracy if the identity of the other co-conspirators is unknown, they are absent, or they are deceased.

Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy 

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) outlines the penalties for criminal conspiracy as follows:

• When the conspiracy aims to commit a grave offense: In situations where the conspiracy is directed towards committing an offense that is:
  • Punishable by death,
  • Punishable with life imprisonment, or
  • Punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years or more,
• and when the IPC does not expressly specify a punishment for such a conspiracy, every individual involved in such a criminal conspiracy will be penalized in the same manner as if they had abetted that offense.
• Criminal conspiracy related to offenses other than those falling under the first category: Any person involved in such a criminal conspiracy will be subject to imprisonment, which can take the form of either description, for a period not exceeding six months, a fine, or both.

Proof of conspiracy

Establishing a criminal conspiracy can rely on either direct or circumstantial evidence, given that conspiracies typically occur in secretive and private settings, making it challenging to provide concrete proof regarding when the conspiracy was formed, who was involved, the conspiracy's purpose, or how it was intended to be carried out. Most of this information must be inferred.

Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is relevant in conspiracy cases. It states that once a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act is demonstrated, the actions of one conspirator can be attributed to others. Section 10 deals with the admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases, allowing anything said, done, or written by any conspirator regarding their common intention to be used as evidence against all conspirators to establish the existence of the conspiracy or the participation of a particular person in the conspiracy.
However, the following conditions must be met before such evidence can be admitted:

• There must be a reasonable basis to believe that two or more individuals conspired to commit a crime or an actionable wrong.
• Anything said, done, or written by any of the conspirators about their common intention can be used as evidence against the others, but only if it occurred after the time when such intention was first conceived by any of them.

Case Laws

Parveen v. State of Haryana (2021) SC

In this case, four accused were being transported by the police from a jail to a court for trial. During the journey, some individuals attempted to rescue the accused, resulting in violence and the death of a police officer. The accused were charged with various offenses, including criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court ruled that it's unsafe to convict a person for conspiracy without clear evidence of an agreement among conspirators to commit an illegal act. The appellant was acquitted, and the court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence rather than relying solely on confessional statements.

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

In this case, the Supreme Court stressed that the essential element of a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to engage in an illegal act. The actual commission of the illegal act may or may not occur, but the agreement itself is a punishable offense.

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

The court ruled that an agreement to violate the law constitutes the core of the offense of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A of the IPC. Parties to such an agreement are guilty of conspiracy even if the agreed-upon illegal act is not executed. The court clarified that not all parties in a conspiracy need to agree on a single illegal act; a conspiracy can involve the commission of multiple acts.

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

The Supreme Court stated that the mere proof of an agreement between two or more individuals to carry out an unlawful act or an act using illegal means is sufficient to convict them of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B.

Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955) SC

This case involved a conspiracy to use forged documents. The Supreme Court held that an individual cannot be found guilty of criminal conspiracy if their alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted. Unless it can be proven that the accused conspired with third parties who were not tried, the individual cannot be held liable for conspiracy if all co-conspirators have been acquitted.

Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (1958) SC

In this case, the court emphasized that conspiracy to commit a crime is distinct from the crime itself. A conspiracy precedes the actual commission of the crime and is complete before the crime is attempted or executed.

Conclusion

Criminal conspiracy is considered an inchoate crime because it does not require the actual commission of an illegal act. It involves an agreement among conspirators to engage in unlawful activities. The cases discussed illustrate the importance of proving the existence of an agreement among conspirators to establish criminal conspiracy. Misuse of the provision should be avoided, and superior courts should uphold the rule of law while dealing with cases of criminal conspiracy.