Conspiracy under Indian Penal Code | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Abstract

• Conspiracy as a Historical Crime: Throughout the history of criminal law, conspiracy has been recognized as a significant offense. The concept of conspiracy as a criminal act has deep roots, dating back to ancient times.
• Origins of Conspiracy Sanctions: The origins of sanctions against conspiracy can be traced back to medieval England. Initially, these sanctions were designed to address abuses in criminal proceedings. Over time, they evolved into remedies for the harm caused by collusive actions aimed at obstructing justice.
• Modern Perspective on Conspiracy: In contemporary legal frameworks, conspiracy is viewed as the unlawful collaboration of two or more individuals to engage in activities that contravene the law. It can involve actions that harm others or pursue objectives through illicit means.
• Characteristics of a Conspiracy: A conspiracy typically involves an agreement among multiple individuals to either carry out illegal activities or achieve lawful goals through unlawful methods. Such collaborations can lead to harm, loss, or other detrimental consequences.
• Examples of Conspiracy: For instance, a group of individuals planning a bank robbery would constitute a criminal conspiracy. Similarly, individuals conspiring to commit fraud or engage in corrupt practices can also be held liable for conspiracy.

Introduction

• Understanding Legislation in India:
  • Legislation is a relatively straightforward concept in most legal systems.
  • In India, due to the influence of customary law, case laws play a crucial role.
  • Case laws often introduce important principles and add complexity to legal matters.
• Development of Conspiracy as a Criminal Offense:
  • The concept of conspiracy as a criminal offense evolved through various legal cases.
• Proving Conspiracy:
  • In a conspiracy case, the agreement between conspirators is not always explicit.
  • The existence of a conspiracy is inferred from the circumstances of each case.
  • Direct evidence of an agreement is not necessary; circumstantial evidence suffices.
  • Open acts can imply an agreement and knowledge of the conspiracy's purpose.
  • The focus should be on proving the conspiracy itself, not just individual acts of conspirators.

Background

• Conspiracy originally served as a legal solution to combat false accusations and wrongful prosecutions. It involved "a consultation and agreement between two or more individuals to falsely and maliciously accuse an innocent person of a crime, leading to their legal acquittal."
• The core concept of the offense revolved around the collaboration of two or more individuals and removed the necessity of actually carrying out a false accusation against an innocent party. This legal precedent established that a conspiracy could involve an attempted crime, emphasizing that the agreement itself constituted the criminal act.
• Over time, it was determined that the scope of conspiracy should not be limited to the specific crimes initially outlawed but should encompass any planned criminal activity. This broader interpretation allowed for legal action against agreements to commit a wide range of offenses, not just those originally specified.

Types of Conspiracy Theories

• The concept of conspiracy theories emerged from the theoretical aspect of conspiracy and was further developed by proposing a consensus within the framework of democracy. In this context, competing groups are seen as representatives of individual interests, operating within a political system where all parties agree on the boundaries of the conflict. Those who feel marginalized and unable to align their political interests with representative groups may become alienated from the system. This alienation can lead individuals to distrust opposing viewpoints, viewing differences of opinion with suspicion. Consequently, these marginalized individuals may develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, rendering them susceptible to charismatic, rather than practical and rational, leadership. Ultimately, this dynamic can erode democratic principles and pave the way for totalitarian governance.
• Another theory posits that the prevalence of conspiracy theories is not rooted in individual pathology but originates from social conflicts that give rise to fears and anxieties, sparking status struggles between conflicting groups. The emergence of conspiracy theories is often fueled by a collective sense of threat to a group, culture, or way of life. Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum can exhibit a paranoid style of thinking. While some may propagate paranoid ideas such as communist infiltration into institutions, others may believe in theories like the September 11, 2001 attacks being an "inside job" orchestrated by a collusion of government and corporate interests. Notably, this perspective attributes the genesis of conspiracies to intergroup dynamics, offering a framework to elucidate the ebb and flow of conspiracy theories over time.

Civil Versus Criminal Conspiracy

• Conspiracy is considered both a civil and criminal offense in India.
• In its criminal sense, conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit:
  1. an illegal act, or
  2. an act that, while not illegal, is achieved through illegal means.
• A criminal conspiracy exists when there is an agreement, except for an agreement to commit a crime, and unless an act other than the agreement is performed by one or more parties to that agreement.
• In civil law, the offense is against a specific individual, while in criminal law, it is against society, the state, or the government.
• Civil cases are typically initiated by private individuals, while criminal cases are brought by governmental bodies in response to a violation of the law.
• In the case of a criminal conspiracy, the intention is to commit an act punishable by criminal law.
• A civil conspiracy can occur when individuals conspire to commit an act that is not criminal but is still illegal, resulting in harm to another person.
• One key distinction between civil and criminal conspiracy lies in the requirement of a manifest act in civil conspiracy cases but not in criminal conspiracy cases.
• Under Indian law, the crime of criminal conspiracy is punishable under Article 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Conspiracy can lead to various damages such as loss of employment, business, or trade.
• In cases of criminal conspiracy involving multiple crimes, the individuals involved may be charged with a single act of criminal conspiracy, even if multiple crimes are committed as a result.

The Statement of Problem

• Both supporters and detractors of conspiracy theories tend to selectively accept information that aligns with their beliefs, a phenomenon known as biased assimilation.
• Biased assimilation leads individuals to uncritically accept supportive evidence while discrediting contradictory information.
• People often reinforce their existing beliefs even more strongly when faced with ambiguous information due to polarization attitudes.
• Conspiracy beliefs are fueled by the fundamental attribution error, where individuals overemphasize personal motivations and traits while underestimating situational influences in explaining others' behavior.
• Conspiracy thinkers are inclined to uphold their beliefs as rejecting conspiracy theories would mean disregarding human motives behind events.
• Human evolution has shaped individuals to be sensitive to detecting malevolent intentions, leading to a bias towards attributing behavior to personal traits rather than situational factors.
• Considering the Indian Penal Code of 1860, the question arises whether the concept of conspiracy within this legal framework is incomplete or inchoate.

Hypothesis

• Section 120B outlines the consequences for criminal conspiracy, while section 120A provides the definition of criminal conspiracy.
• According to section 120A, a criminal conspiracy occurs when two or more individuals agree to:
  • Commit an unlawful act, or
  • Perform a legal act through unlawful means.
• A crucial condition for an agreement to qualify as a criminal conspiracy is that at least one party must undertake an action beyond the agreement itself.
• In essence, criminal law is equated with the gratification of vengeance, similar to how marriage is linked with fulfilling sexual desires.
• The primary function of criminal law is not solely to punish offenses against society but also to provide a regulated outlet for personal desires for retribution.

Concept of Criminal Conspiracy

• Under criminal law, a crime requires both mens rea (guilty mind or intent) and actus reus (guilty act) to be present.
• Merely intending to commit a crime without taking steps to carry it out is not punishable.
• However, an agreement to commit a crime can itself constitute a criminal conspiracy.

Establishing Conspiracy

• In conspiracy cases, when there is no direct evidence, courts rely on inferences from proven circumstances.
• Conspiracies are inferred from the conduct of the parties and the overall circumstances of the case.

Essential Elements of Conspiracy

• Malice or ill will is not a necessary element for proving conspiracy.
• Conspirators may not be liable if their actions are lawful and do not cause harm by illegal means.

Legal Precedents

• Case of shipowners offering reduced tariffs to monopolize trade, resulting in losses for a rival trader.
• Case involving iron workers conspiring to have shipbuilders fired, leading to a lawsuit for conspiracy.

Interpretation of Conspiracy Laws

• Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not require actual harm to result from conspiracy.
• Courts distinguish between lawful combinations and dishonest conspiracies to eliminate competition.

Prosecution and Penalties

• Conspiracy charges are commonly used in white-collar criminal cases such as fraud.
• A conspiracy charge holds all members responsible for acts committed in support of the conspiracy.
• Prosecutors often charge conspiracy to enhance the consequences of a guilty verdict.

Withdrawal from a Conspiracy

• To exit a conspiracy, an individual must take action to demonstrate their disassociation from the conspiracy.
• An individual who withdraws may still be held liable for acts committed while they were a member.

Conclusion

• Understanding the concept of common intent is crucial, and it distinguishes itself from "similar intent" or "common object." In the context of common intention, all conspirators must be aware of and share the intention to commit a specific illegal act. In contrast, with "similar intent," the intention is common among all defendants, but there is no necessary "meeting of minds" among them. An example is the Babri case, where individual conspirators may have desired the destruction of the Babri mosque, but their intentions were not known to the other co-conspirators, indicating the absence of common intention and, consequently, no conspiracy. Despite this, each defendant may still be individually liable for inciting actions leading to public harm or riots.
• This situation differs from cases where conspirators exchange thoughts or share their intention, indicating a true "common intention."
• The legal complexities in this case are multifaceted. A pivotal issue revolves around whether there was an agreement among the defendants to carry out the demolition or if it was an unintended consequence of their actions. A favorable ruling for the former could result in significant prison time for the defendant, while the latter may lead to a lesser penalty. The interpretation of Section 120A by the court in this case holds substantial importance and is likely to set a precedent for future criminal conspiracy cases in India.