CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

-Deepali Mahawar

INTRODUCTION-

Conspiracy amounts to an act which is done with common intention by two or more than two
persons to commit an illegal act and taking steps towards the completion of a crime. The person
can be charged for both conspiracy and completion of the crime. Under English law, Conspiracy
means when two or more persons agree to do something together which is contrary to law or is
wrongful and harmful towards other person and the person who agrees commits the crime of
conspiracy. Unlike other criminal offences which require simultaneous occurrence of actus
reus and mens rea, Criminal conspiracy is made punishable only at the stage of mens
rea. Therefore, omission of the act in furtherance of intention is not an essential aspect of
criminal conspiracy.

CONSPIRACY: MEANING & DEFINITION-

Conspiracy is the secret planning by a group of people to do something illegal. When people
work together by agreement to commit an illegal act, a conspiracy may exist when the parties use
legal means to accomplish an illegal result, or to use illegal means to achieve something that in
itself is lawful. 

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or
an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.1

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY (SECTION 120-A)-

The Chapter VA: Criminal Conspiracy was inserted in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1913 as
the experience at that time showed that dangerous conspiracies are entered into in India and that
the existing law was inadequate to deal with the prevailing conditions. It comprises of only two

1
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy
sections 120A and 120B. Conspiracy was originally used to explain the acts of agreement of
those who combined to carry on legal proceeding in vexatious or improper way.2

Section 120-A. Definition of Criminal Conspiracy-

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

(i) an illegal act, or

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.

Explanations- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or
is merely incidental to that object.

INGREDIENTS-

The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:

(1) an agreement between two or more persons

NATURE & SCOPE-

 The agreement between two or more persons to plan out a crime gives origin to the
offence of conspiracy irrespective of the fact whether such act has been brought into
motion or not.

2
http://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S000020LA/P001795/M025763/ET/151377053419etext.
pdf
  To establish conviction under Section 120A the existence of ‘agreement’ needs to be
proved as it is the sine qua non i.e. and essential condition to prove the existence of
conspiracy for the commencement of a crime. The agreement can be expressed or
implied. The unity of objects is necessary a mere physical unity does not amount to
conspiracy.
 It is not necessary that all the conspirators might know each and every detail of the
conspiracy. Meeting of minds is required to commit an illegal act. Some individuals may
back out after hearing the plan for the commission of a crime and some may carry on.
The individuals who drop out the plan as they had no intention would not amount to
conspirators unless the act in a way that intention cannot be inferred. If an individual out
of the conspirators commits certain act to achieve the object of the conspiracy then all of
the will be held liable for the conspiracy even there has been no participation in that
particular offence. Also, there can be a possibility that the conspirators might not be a
part of every phase of the conspiracy.
 The Section does not state that for conspiracy to be perpetuated the conspirators must
agree to commit a single illegal act and the conviction of the individuals is established
when they agree to be a part of one of such illegal acts. In such case, all of them will be
convicted under Section 120-A, however other charges may be leveled for committing
the individual offences.
 Commission of conspiracy might not exist when different persons act in the same manner
but independently just because of the fact that the methods they applied were similar for
committing the illegal act.
 Every individual who has participated in the commission of a crime in furtherance of a
conspiracy is guilty for all the acts of its co-conspirators if they were directed towards
accomplishing a single object.
PROOF OF CONSPIRACY-
Proving a charge of Conspiracy is very difficult as it is always planned in secrecy and it is
difficult to produce primary evidence for the same. It can be done by drawing inferences from
the illegal omission committed by the conspirators. So, it is required to prove the circumstantial
evidence which might exist post and prior the commencement of the offence. Inferences can be
drawn by the conduct and circumstances of the accused persons.
A mere suspicion, without the presence of any direct or indirect evidence instituting the prior
meeting of minds, cannot be the ground for conviction. The court need to enquire the
independency of the accused pursuing the common intention. If this is proved the conspiracy
does not exist. The prosecution does not have the burden to prove the existence of an agreement
between the parties of common object of conspiracy and implications would suffice to entertain
conviction under Section 120-A.
COMMON INTENTION (SECTION-34)-
Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.-
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Ingredients-
(1) The criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person,
but more than one person.
(2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of the
criminal offence should have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such
persons.

Common intention is guided by several principles:

1. Mere surrender is not derivative of the fact that it will be counted as common intention.
2. It is necessary that there has been a prior conspiracy relating to that act.
3. When the offence is proved only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the
allegations of common intention cannot be established in the absence of meeting of
minds.
4. Section 34 is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence.
5. The common intention should be prior or antecedent to the occurrence.
6. Common intention may develop during the course of the occurrence and could develop
on the spot.
7. Common intention is different from same or similar intention.
SCOPE-
The section only provides for the constitution of joint liability, not the punishment. This section
is only a rule of evidence and does not constitute a substantive offence. It provides for the
principle of constructive liability. As this section is not an offence in itself, this section is always
read with other sections under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This is the limited scope of joint
liability under Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
CASE LAWS-
(i) Chhotu v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3501- it is deduced that Section
34 cannot be read alone and requires to be read with some other section under the
statute of India.
(ii) Topan Das v State of Bombay, 1956 A.I.R. 33- the court held that the person must
not be alone in conspiring for the offence. The accused was acquitted from the case
because he was the sole person who had conspired for the crime. The acquittal of this
case meant that the person was liable for all the other offences that had been
committed and proved.
(iii) State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 S.C.C. 253- 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.

(iv) State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors., (1996) 4 S.C.C. 659-  it
was held 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.”
(v) Kripal & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 706 the court said that the
common intention is supposed to be ascertained from the facts and the circumstances
of the case. The scope of common intention is also supposed to be ascertained by the
facts and circumstances of the case.

CASE STUDY-
Distinction is drawn between an agreement to commit an offence and an agreement of which
either object or means employed are illegal but does not constitute the offence. In case of an
agreement to commit offence mere Agreement is sufficient. But in case of an agreement to do an
act which would not amount to an offence, some overt act besides the agreement must be proved
to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy.

Therefore in the problem asked, X and Y reached to an agreement to commit the murder of C,
which is offence, so in this case, it is sufficient to prove that X and Y made agreement to commit
offence of murder of C, even though no overt act subsequently done by either X or Y. Offence of
criminal conspiracy is committed.

CONCLUSION-

Criminal conspiracy and joint liability are indispensable parts of our criminal legal system.
Where it is safe to say that there is still a large scope of possible reforms in the system, it has also
been modified according to the need of the hour from the time. In a conspiracy, it is essential for
there to be meeting of minds. This means that all the persons involved in the conspiracy and
aware of the objective and intention behind the conspiracy and is working towards the same.
Thus agreement between the parties to do a particular offence is an essential. To constitute an
offense in IPC, it is essential for there to be both actus reus and mens rea, i.e. ill intention and an
act towards the same. However, Criminal Conspiracy is an exception to same. This offence is
punishable at the stage of finding out ill intention itself. However, as they say, crime of
conspiracy is ‘hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness’, therefore it becomes difficult to
prove the offence through direct evidence.
REFERENCES-
(i) https://blog.ipleaders.in/criminal-conspiracy-joint-liability/
(ii) https://www.barandbench.com/columns/criminal-conspiracy-law-applicability
(iii) http://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S000020LA/P001795/M02
5763/ET/151377053419etext.pdf
(iv) http://lawtimesjournal.in/criminal-conspiracy-2/
(v) https://www.legalbites.in/criminal-conspiracy/