Project Report on

Criminal Conspiracy

Submitted to: Ms. Priyanka Dhar

(Faculty of Indian Penal Code)

Submitted by: Shubhankar Thakur

Roll No:149
Semester:V

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………3

2. ABRTACT…………………………………………………….…4

3. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..5

4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS………………………………………6

5. NATURE OF STUDY……………………………………………6

6. CHAPTER 1: DEFINING CONSPIRACY……………………….7

7. INGREDIENTS OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY……………….9

8. PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY……………..14

9. CONCLUSION…………………………………………….…….15

10.REFERENCES……………………………………………..……17

2
 Acknowledgements
First & foremost, I take this opportunity to thank Ms. Priyanka Dhar, Faculty, Indian Penal Code,
HNLU, for allotting me this interesting topic to work on. She has been very kind in providing
inputs for this work, by way of suggestions.

I would also like to thank my dear colleagues and friends in the University, who have helped me
with ideas about this work. Last, but not the least I thank the University Administration for
equipping the University with such good library and I.T. facilities, without which, no doubt this
work would not have taken this shape in correct time.

Shubhankar Thakur
Semester-V,
Batch-XIII
Roll no- 149

3
 Abstracts:

Crime is an act or omission which is prohibited by law as injurious to the public and punished by
the state. “Disobedience to a command or prohibition made with reference to a matter affecting
public peace, order, or good Government to which a sanction is attached, by way of punishment
or as a whole, and not by way of compensation for the injury which the act or omission may have
caused to an individual.” Certain kinds of wrongs are considered as of a public character
because they possess elements of evil which affect the public as a whole and not merely
the person whose rights of property or person have been invaded. Such a wrong is called
“Crime”. It can it can be best define as any act or omission which is forbid den by law, to which
a punishment is annexed and which the State prosecutes in its own name. A crime is an act
deemed by law to be harmful to society in general, deemed by law to be harmful to society in
general, even though it immediate victim is an individual. Section 120A IPC as contained in
Chapter V-A defines the offence of criminal conspiracy and further Section 120 B prescribes its
punishment

4
 Introduction:
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. In
India the Law relating to criminal Conspiracy is contained by Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
function of the Code is to define the offence and thereafter to prescribe its punishment. The
provision was inserted by virtue of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1913. Conspiracy
under the Indian penal code originally was punishable only in two forms:-
1. Conspiracy by way of abetment
2. Conspiracy involved in certain offence.

In former an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of conspiracy in order to
be punishable while in the latter membership suffices to establish the charge of
conspiracy. However the law of conspiracy was widened in 1870 by insertion of Section 121A,
IPC. Under Section 121A, it is an offence to conspire to commit any of the offences
punishable by section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, or to conspire (to deprive the
government or any part thereof) to overawe by means of criminal force, or the show of
criminal force , the Government of India , or any local government . under this section it
was not necessary that any act or illegal omission should take place in pursuance thereof,
where as section 107 abetment includes the engaging with one or more persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of a thing, if an act or illegal omission take place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, and in order of doing that thing. In short except in respect of the offences
particularized in section 121A, conspiracy per se was not an offence under the Indian Penal
Code until Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913

For example: One who conspires with another to commit burglary and in fact commits the
burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.
Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes
are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act.

5
Scope and Limitation:
The scope of the project is to deal with the criminal conspiracy and the and the judgments of the
other countries.

Research Objectives:
Keeping in mind various phases of the procedure, following are the research questions that have
been framed:-
1. To define the concept of Conspiracy.
2. To evaluate the purposes for inserting section 120A and 120B in the Code.
3. To discuss the ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy.
4. To discuss the case laws for criminal conspiracy.
5. To mention the penal provisions and punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Nature of study
This project has been made by employing Doctrinal and Scholastic method of Research & by
using primary & secondary sources of information.

The data for this study has been mainly collected from the official sources that are the legal
provisions from the Penal Code and various new articles and case laws.
Scope of this project includes the legal provisions under Indian Penal Code for criminal
conspiracy.

6
 CHAPTER-I
DEFINING AND EXPLAINING CONSPIRACY

Under Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 120A as contained in Chapter V-A defines the offence of
criminal conspiracy. Section 120A reads as under:-120A.Definition of criminal conspiracy:-
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
1. An illegal act, or
2.an act which is not illegal by illegal means

Such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. 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.
Explanation attached to the Section provides that it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

In Quinn v. Leatham,1 Lord Brampton of the House of Lords had aptly defined conspiracy as:-
A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or
more, to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design
rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is
an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum,
capable of being enforced, if lawful; and punishable if for a criminal object, or for the use of
criminal means’.

According to the Halsbury’s Laws of England:-

The essence of the offences of both statutory and common law conspiracy is the fact of
combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in
part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the
agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination
persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its

1
(1901)AC 495

7
performance or by abandonment or frustration or however it may be. The actus
reus in a conspiracy is therefore the agreement for the execution of the unlawful conduct, not
the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at
the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a
consensus to affect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator
should have been in communication with every other.

The English law on ‘conspiracy’ has been succinctly explained in the following passage: The
gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose
for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do
them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is
essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough.

Lord Brampton of the House of Lords in Quinn v. Leatham,2 had aptly defined conspiracy which
definition was engrafted in Sections 120A and 120B IPC. Following was stated by the House of
Lords:-A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement
of two or more, to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as
such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into
effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against
promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful; and punishable if for a
criminal object, or for the use of criminal means.

PURPOSE OF INSERTION OF SECTION 120A & 120B IPC, 1860

The underlying purpose for the insertion of Sections 120A and 120B IPC was to make a mere
agreement to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means punishable under
law. The criminal thoughts in the mind when take concrete shape of an agreement to do or
cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means than even if
nothing further is done an agreement is designated as a criminal conspiracy. The proviso
to Section 120A engrafts a limitation that no agreement except an agreement to commit an

2
(1901) AC 495

8
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.3

INGREDIENTS OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:

1. Unlawful agreement :

It is an element of a criminal conspiracy. Generally, the crime of conspiracy is complete when

parties enter into a conspiratorial agreement. Moreover, if there is an agreement between two or
more persons for an unlawful purpose, it is considered a criminal conspiracy even where there is
no agreement regarding the details of the criminal scheme or the means by which the unlawful
purpose will be accomplished. The agreement will determine whether single or multiple
conspiracies exist between the parties. A single conspiratorial agreement will constitute a single
criminal conspiracy and multiple agreements to commit separate crimes will constitute multiple
conspiracies.

Similarly, conspiracy is considered a specific intent crime. A specific intent crime is one in
which a person acts with knowledge of what he/she is doing and also with the objective of
completing some unlawful act. The intent can be determined from words, acts, and conduct. If
the conspirators agree or conspire with specific intent to kill and commit an overt act in
furtherance of such agreement, then they are guilty of conspiracy to commit express malice
murder.4

2. Knowledge:-

To be more specific, to make a person liable for criminal conspiracy as a co conspirator, he/she
must have knowledge of the existence of the conspiracy and knowledge of the illegal object of
the conspiracy. At the same time, a person having no knowledge of a conspiracy cannot be
considered a conspirator.
Similarly, in order to satisfy the statute, the government must prove that a conspirator committed
an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. A conspiracy conviction requires proof of the

3
Mukesh & Anr v. State for NTC of Delhi & Ors, Criminal Appeal No : 609 -610 / 2017, Decided on
05.05.2017, Supreme Court of India
4
Ajeet Singh Chauhan and others v State of U.P. and others

9
commission of at least one overt act by one of the conspirators within the five-year statutory
period in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement.5

In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and another,6 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has explained the ingredients of criminal conspiracy as under:-The most important
ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal
act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the
two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue
the unlawful object. The former does not render those conspirators but the latter does.
For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be
established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of
thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which
continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its
subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or a series of acts, he would
be held guilty under Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860.

Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. A criminal

conspiracy must be put to action; for so long as a crime is generated in the mind of the accused,
the same does not become punishable. Thoughts even criminal in character, often involuntary,
are not crimes but when they take a concrete shape of an agreement to do or caused to be done
an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means then even if nothing further is
done, the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy. The ingredients of the offence of
criminal conspiracy are:7
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) (ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either
(a) An illegal act;
(b) An act which is not illegal in it but is done by illegal means.

5
State of Delhi v Bashir Ahmed Ponnu and others
6
(2013) 1 SCC 613
7
Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643

10
In Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI,8 while dealing with the conspiracy the majority opinion laid
down that the elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be:
An object to be accomplished,
a) A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object,
b) An agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons
whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the
accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any
effectual means, and
c) In the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act.

The essence of the offences of both statutory and common law conspiracy is the fact of
combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in
part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is
made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is
until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or
by abandonment or frustration or however it may be. The actus reus in a conspiracy is
therefore the agreement for the execution of the unlawful conduct, not the execution of it. It is
not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time
or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an
unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in
communication with every other.9

In Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v Stateof Maharashtra,10 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed that Criminal conspiracy postulates an agreement between two or more
persons to do, or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. It
differs from other offences in that mere agreement is made an offence even if no step is taken to
carry out that agreement. Though there is close association of conspiracy with incitement and
abetment the substantive offence of criminal conspiracy is Somewhat wider in amplitude
than abetment by conspiracy as contemplated by Section 107, I.P.C. A conspiracy from its very

8
(2003) 3 SCC 641
9
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5thEdition, Vol 25, Page 73
10
7AIR 1961 SC 1762

11
nature is generally hatched in secret. It is, therefore, extremely rare that direct evidence in proof
of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly disinterested, quarters or from utter strangers.
But, like other offences, criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence.

In E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay11 it was stated by the Supreme Court that the gist of the
offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of
criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not
an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may
comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act
would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused
are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact
that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has
no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been
committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for
individual offences all of them may not be liable. In short in order to constitute an offence
of criminal conspiracy, two or more persons must agree to do an illegal act or an act which if
not illegal by illegal means.

Proving Criminal Conspiracy

In Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI,12 it has been highlighted that in case of conspiracy there cannot
be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement
between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an
illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the
essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement
can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it
is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.
Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be
considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.

11
AIR 1961 SC 1762
12
(2003) 3 SCC 641

12
In K. R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala,13 the Court has made the following observations it
is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy.
Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the
commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators
can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by
the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of
conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the
conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. While appreciating the
evidence of the conspiracy, it is incumbent on the court to keep in mind the well-known rule
governing circumstantial evidence viz. each and every incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved must form a
chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can
be safely drawn, and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.

In Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation,14 it was observed that the
condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal
conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of the fact which must be
established by the prosecution viz. meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or
causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. The courts, however, while
drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether
the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a
conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct
evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been
committed and the accused persons took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is necessary
to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may
also be proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and/or by necessary implication.

13
(2005) 12 SCC 631
14
(2009) 15 SCC 643

13
Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes following punishment for
committing criminal conspiracy that: -Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of
two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such
offence. further Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with
both.

14
 Conclusion
From the above discussion, it becomes clear that the prosecution must adduce evidence to prove
that:-
1. The accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act;
2. Such an act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means within the meaning of IPC;
3. Irrespective of whether some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the
agreement.
Under Section 120A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons
agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is legal act by
illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general
law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining
hands with persons having the same intention. Not only has the intention but there had to be
agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for
consideration in a case is did all the accused had the intention and did they agree that the
crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the
accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.

A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it is forced them into a
joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused . It
has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each
conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more
persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is
in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefore.
This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or
furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done, or written by each
of them. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators
pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral acts incident to and growing out
of the original purpose. A conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co-
conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new member
does not create a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the other conspirators, and the

15
mere fact that conspirators individually or in groups perform different tasks to a common end
does not split up a conspiracy into several different conspiracies.

As already stated, in a criminal conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for
doing an illegal act is the sine qua non but proving this by direct proof is not possible. Hence,
conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the
conduct of the accused. Moreover, it is also relevant to note that conspiracy being a continuing
offence continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by the choice of
necessity. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at
the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of
the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may
not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and
when he left. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal
responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an
existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty.
And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other
conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty
though he intends to take no active part in the crime.15

A person who is found to be the guilty of committing criminal conspiracy shall be punished as
per section 120B which prescribes punishment for the same to a person Whoever is a party to a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express
provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in
the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. And whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

15
State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and others, (1999) 5 SCC 253

16
REFERENCES

Articles referred: -
1) The Law of Criminal Conspiracy Section 120A & 120B of Indian Penal Code, Vijetaal.
International Journal of Recent Research Aspects ISSN: 2349-7688, Vol. 4, Issue 1,
March 2017, pp. 148-151
2) The Law of Criminal Conspiracy : Section 120-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Jitender
Singh al. International Journal of Institutional & Industrial Research ISSN: 2456-1274,
Vol. 3, Issue 1, Jan-April 2018, pp.87-90

Books Referred: -
1) Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, by Prof. K.D. Gaur, 2006 Edition, Universal Law
Publications.
2) Textbook on Indian Penal Code, By Prof. K.D. Gaur, 6th Edition, Universal Law
Publications.
3) Indian Penal Code, by Dr. S.N. Mishra, 21th Edition, Central Law Publications.

17