CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY –

SECTION 120A&120B
Definition of ‘Conspiracy‘
The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120-A of Chapter V-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 120A of the I.P.C. defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement of two or more
persons to do or cause to be done:
 An illegal act, or;
 An act that is not illegal by illegal means.
Section 43 of the I.P.C. defines the term ‘illegal’ as everything that is an offence or is
prohibited by law or furnishes ground for a civil action.
The Proviso attached to Section 120A provides that a mere agreement to commit an offence
shall amount to criminal conspiracy and no overt act or illegal omission is required to be
proved. Such overt act is necessary only when the object of the conspiracy is the commission
of an illegal act not amounting to an offence. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement or is merely incidental to that object.
Hence, the unique feature of the offence under section 120A is that an “agreement to commit
an offence” can by itself amount to a criminal conspiracy. This means that it is sufficient for
the prosecution to prove that there was an agreement between two or more persons.
Therefore, the basic ingredients of criminal conspiracy are,
1. There should be an agreement between two or more persons: There must be an
agreement between two or more persons. If the conspirators commit several offences
in accordance with the criminal conspiracy, all of them shall be liable for the offences,
even if some of them did not actively participate in the commission of the crimes.
2. Such an agreement should be done:
(a)To do an illegal act -To make a person liable for the criminal conspiracy, the
agreement must be to do any act which is either forbidden by law or is opposed to the
law.
(b) Or to do a legal act by illegal means
When any act is done even though it is lawful but done by illegal means, it constitutes
criminal conspiracy.
3. The agreement may be expressed or implied or partly expressed and partly implied.
4. As soon as the agreement is made, the conspiracy arises, and the offence is
committed.
5. And, the same offence is continued to be committed so long as the combination
persists.
The Supreme Court has outlined the above-mentioned essential ingredients of criminal
conspiracy in R Venkatkrishnan vs CBI.

Punishment for Conspiracy

Section 120-B prescribes the punishment for the commission of the crime of criminal
conspiracy. According to Section 120-B, if the parties involved in the conspiracy, conspired
to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment
for a term of two years or more, shall be punishable in the same manner as if he/she had
abetted the commission of such an offence, if no explicit punishment for the commission of
such a conspiracy has been provided for, by the Code.
However, if the parties involved in the conspiracy, conspired to commit an offence
punishable with terms not prescribed previously, such persons shall be sentenced to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both.

Proof Of Conspiracy
The offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence.
A conspiracy is usually hatched in a secret and private setting which is why it is almost
impossible to produce any affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the
criminal conspiracy, the persons involved in it or the object of such conspiracy or how such
object is to be carried out. All of this is more or less a matter of inference.
It was believed that agreement or meeting of minds is the one of the main evidence to prove
the conspiracy under this section & also it is one of the hardest one to prove because as we all
known to the fact that offender by himself does not agree to a fact that he is involved with
someone It is only matter of circumstances that one can prove that there is a meeting of
minds or an agreement between those two. Hence, criminal conspiracy is based on
circumstantial evidence in most of the cases there is no direct evidence to prove the same.
Also, point to be noted that there is no conspiracy between husband & wife because they are
considered as the one person.

Section 10 Of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act contains the principle that once a conspiracy to
commit an illegal act is proved, an act of one conspirator becomes the act of another. Section
10 deals with the admissibility of evidence in a conspiracy case. It provides that anything
said, done or written by any one of the conspirators in respect of their common intention is
admissible against all the conspirators for proving the existence of the conspiracy or that any
such person was a party to the conspiracy. However, the following conditions are to be
satisfied before such fact can be admitted:
There should be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong.
Anything said, done or written by any one of them about their common intention will be
evidence against the others provided it is said, done or written after the time when such
intention was first formed by any one of them.

Landmark Judgements
The scope and nature of criminal conspiracy is always changing and growing. The offence of
conspiracy itself is often complex and difficult to ascertain because the act of ‘scheming’ is
always done in secrecy. Since its addition to the Indian Penal Code, there have been various
landmark judgements that attempt to interpret the offence in its truest form.
 In Topan Das v. State of Bombay stated that it was established in the rule of law that
the offence of conspiracy cannot apply to a singular person and that there should be at
least two persons for the same, and can be never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy
since one cannot conspire with oneself.
 In B.H. Narasimha Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh the appellant was
convicted of an offence of criminal conspiracy along with seven others. However, he
alone was charged with offences under Ss. 120-B, 409 and 471, IPC under section
5(1)(c) and 5(l)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption Act, 1947.
Simultaneously, all the other co-conspirators were acquitted by the Trial Court and
the High Court. In the end, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the facts that
there had to be another person to communicate with and carry out the agreement and
that a single person can never be accounted for conspiracy.
 In Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail the court held that “The offence of conspiracy
to commit a crime is a different offence from the crime that is the object of the
conspiracy because the conspiracy precedes the commission of the crime and is
complete before the crime is attempted or completed, equally the crime attempted or
completed does not require the element of conspiracy as one of its ingredients they
are, therefore quite separate offences”
 The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Subbaiah, the Supreme Court contended that “where
the matter has gone beyond the stage of mere conspiracy and offences are alleged to
have been committed in pursuance thereof the accused can be charged with the
specific offences alleged to have flown out of the conspiracy along with the charge of
conspiracy.” The court stated the offence of conspiracy is a separate offence and an
individual can be separately charged with respect to a conspiracy along with any other
offences resulting of that conspiracy.
 In State v. Nalini held that once the object of the conspiracy has been achieved, any
subsequent actions which may be unlawful in nature, would not make the accused
party to the conspiracy.
 In Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala, it was held that it is not
necessary that each one of the co-conspirators must have actively participated in the
commission of the offence or was involved in it from start to finish. If there is a
combination by agreement, which may be an express or implied or in part implied,
then they are considered to be a party to the conspiracy.
Conclusion
The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general rules that in order to
constitute a crime, both mens rea and actus rea must be involved, here merely guilty mind is
sufficient to render a person guilty if the agreement was to commit an illegal act. However,
an act, or actus reus becomes essential again if the object of the agreement was to do a lawful
act by unlawful means. The criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances and the conduct of the suspected or the accused person. A person found to be
guilty of criminal conspiracy, is punished under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.

This Section of the Code, is slowly losing its essence and there is a need to ensure that due
diligence is maintained in cases of criminal conspiracy to propagate true manifestation of the
law and justice. The well-established principle of criminal law, fouler the crime, higher the
proof required' must be kept in mind, and the sanctity of law upheld.

Nowadays, it is seen that the provision of criminal conspiracy is very loosely invoked which
is not in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Hence, it is very much
required that the superior courts keep a check on the misuse of the provision while upholding
the rule of law.