Criminal Conspiracy under Indian Penal Code | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

What is section 120A and 120B of IPC?

• Criminal conspiracy is an offense defined in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code.
• Section 120B of the IPC outlines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Definition of Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120A of the IPC

• Criminal Conspiracy in the context of the Indian Penal Code refers to an agreement between two or more individuals to engage in either an illegal act or a legal act through illegal means.
• Essentially, it constitutes a criminal offense where a group of people come together to plan and carry out a criminal act.
• Section 120A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy as follows: "When two or more persons agree to perform an illegal act or an act that may not be illegal but through illegal means, such an agreement is termed as a criminal conspiracy."
• For a conspiracy to be proven, there must exist an agreement among the conspirators, a shared intention to commit an illegal act, and an overt action taken to further that intention.
• The agreement need not be explicitly stated in writing or verbally; it can be inferred from the behavior of the involved parties.
• The penalty for engaging in criminal conspiracy typically involves imprisonment for a period extending up to six months, a fine, or both. However, if the illegal act in question is relatively minor, the punishment may be less severe. On the contrary, for serious offenses, the punishment can escalate to life imprisonment.

Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy under Indian Penal Code

• Agreement between two or more persons: This requires a mutual understanding or agreement between individuals to commit a crime. The agreement can be implied from their actions and behavior rather than explicitly stated.
• Intent to commit an illegal act: The agreement must be coupled with the intention to engage in unlawful behavior or to achieve a lawful outcome through illegal means. It is essential for the conspirators to share a common goal of participating in criminal activities.
• Commission of an overt act: There needs to be a step taken in furtherance of the conspiracy, known as the "overt act," which advances the illegal agreement. This action can be any activity that promotes the conspiracy's objectives.
• Unlawfulness of the act: The act at the core of the conspiracy must either be inherently illegal or legal but carried out through illicit methods.

It is important to understand that for a criminal conspiracy to be proven, there must be an agreement among individuals to engage in illegal behavior or to achieve a lawful outcome through unlawful means. This agreement must be accompanied by the intention to execute the illegal act, along with the performance of an overt act that furthers this intention.

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

• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code deals with the consequences of being part of a criminal conspiracy aimed at committing serious offenses.
• Individuals involved in such conspiracies can face imprisonment for a duration of up to three years or a fine, or both, depending on the severity of the intended crime.
• To prove someone guilty of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must convincingly demonstrate that there was an agreement between two or more people to engage in illegal activities.
• Furthermore, it must be shown that an overt act was carried out to advance the planned unlawful action.

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

• R v. Barkat Ali (1914): In this early case on criminal conspiracy in India, it was established that for a conspiracy to be proven, there must be an agreement between individuals to commit an illegal act along with the intention to carry out that act. For example, if two or more people agree to smuggle contraband goods, that would constitute a criminal conspiracy.
• Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955): This case highlighted the burden on the prosecution to prove the existence of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion is insufficient; concrete evidence is necessary. For instance, if individuals plan to commit a robbery and there is clear communication or evidence of such a plan, it strengthens the case for conspiracy.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. K.D. Malpani (1956): This case addressed whether the actions of one conspirator can be attributed to others. The court ruled that if multiple individuals agree to commit a crime and one of them takes a step towards fulfilling that agreement, all involved can be held accountable. For example, if a group plans to vandalize a property and one member buys equipment for the act, all are implicated.
• Leo Roy Frey v. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (1958): Here, the issue of establishing a conspiracy without a formal agreement was discussed. The Supreme Court clarified that a formal agreement is not mandatory; a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances and actions. For instance, if a group of individuals frequently meets in secret and discusses plans to commit a crime, it can imply a conspiracy.
• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): This case emphasized that while an overt act is not a prerequisite to prove a conspiracy, its presence aids in establishing the conspiracy itself. For example, if individuals plan to forge documents, the physical act of creating fake papers solidifies the conspiracy.
• Major E.G. Barsay v. The State of Bombay (1962): The admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases was the focus here. The Supreme Court ruled that even if certain evidence is not independently admissible, it can be considered if it helps establish the existence of a conspiracy. For instance, intercepted communications discussing criminal plans could be admitted as evidence.
• R. v. Ganesh Narain Hegde (1971): This case expanded on the scope of criminal conspiracy, stating that any act furthering the conspiracy, whether part of the initial agreement or not, can be attributed to the conspirators. For example, if individuals plan a bank robbery and one member surveils the bank, this action can be linked to the conspiracy.
• Union of India v. S.N. Dhingra (1988): It discussed when a conspiracy can be deemed concluded. The court determined that a conspiracy ends once its objective is achieved or becomes unattainable. For example, if a group plans to sabotage a project but the project is completed before their intended act, the conspiracy concludes.
• Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988): This case clarified that individuals can be held liable for criminal conspiracy even if they don't directly participate in the crime. Merely being part of the conspiracy is sufficient for culpability. For instance, if a group plans a cyber-attack, even members not involved in the technical aspects can be held accountable.
• R. v. Basudev Ghosh (1993): It distinguished between criminal conspiracy and abetment, emphasizing that both are separate offenses requiring individual proof. While conspiracy involves planning and agreement, abetment entails aiding or encouraging the commission of a crime. For example, planning a theft together constitutes conspiracy, while driving the thief to the crime scene is abetment.
• Ram Narain Popli v. C.B.I. (2003): This case underscored the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in probing and prosecuting conspiracy cases. It affirmed the CBI's authority to handle such cases effectively. For example, if high-level corruption involving multiple parties is suspected, the CBI can investigate the conspiracy to ensure thorough scrutiny.
• Parveen v. State of Haryana (2021): The case explored inferring conspiracy from circumstances without explicit agreements. The Supreme Court ruled that circumstantial evidence can establish a conspiracy, even in the absence of direct agreements. For example, if individuals are seen frequently meeting in suspicious locations and their actions align with criminal intentions, a conspiracy can be inferred.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the offence of Criminal Conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) carries significant consequences for those found guilty. Requiring an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an unlawful act, coupled with the intention to carry out that act, criminal conspiracy is a grave offence.
• Landmark cases over the years have played a crucial role in elucidating the legal principles surrounding criminal conspiracy, offering valuable guidance to the courts. These cases underscore the necessity of proving the existence of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and establish that individuals can be held accountable for criminal conspiracy even if they did not directly partake in the actual commission of the crime.