The expression’ conspiracy’ means the joining of at least two individuals who are fully intended to commit a crime. This happens when two of the individuals consent to accomplish something that is unlawful under the law. ‘Unlawful’ is defined under Section 43 of the IPC as anything that is an offence, prohibited by law, or furnishes ground for a civil action. Originally, the term ‘conspiracy’ was used to refer to the acts of agreement of two or more persons to institute a false legal case against someone.
Conspiracy under Indian laws
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, 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 to prove the existence of the conspiracy or that any such person was a party to the conspiracy.
Criminal conspiracy is contained under Chapter VA, Section 120A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 120A 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.
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 an overt act is necessary only when the object of the conspiracy is committing an illegal act that does not amount to an offence.
Elements of Criminal Conspiracy
Agreement: The first and most important component of criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act or an act that is not illegal but is done illegally. The agreement must be made between two or more people before committing the crime.
Intention: The parties to the agreement must share a common intention to commit the illegal act. The intent must be to commit the crime, not just discuss it.
Act: The third element is an act in furtherance of the agreement. This act can be anything that aids in the commission of the crime, such as the purchase of weapons, the gathering of information about the victim, or the planning of the crime’s details.
Criminality: According to the fourth element of criminal conspiracy, the act must be illegal. The agreement must be to commit a legally punishable offence. If the act is legal but how it is carried out is illegal, it can still be considered a criminal conspiracy.
Parties: The final element of criminal conspiracy is that two or more people must be involved in the agreement. If the act is carried out by a single person, it does not constitute criminal conspiracy.
Punishment for Conspiracy
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code specifies the punishment for criminal conspiracy. According to this section, anyone found guilty of criminal conspiracy may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of up to six months, a fine, or both.
If the purpose of the conspiracy is to commit a criminal offence, the punishment for criminal conspiracy is specified in the section dealing with the specific offence. For example, suppose the goal of the criminal conspiracy is to commit murder. In that case, the punishment for criminal conspiracy is the same as for murder, which is life imprisonment or the death penalty. In addition to the above, the court may impose a fine on the accused. The fine can vary depending on the nature and gravity of the crime.
Proof of Conspiracy
It is important to note that for a person to be convicted under the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an illegal act and that an overt act was committed to further that agreement. 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 one of the primary evidence to prove the conspiracy under this section & it is also one of the hardest ones to prove because, as we all know, the fact that the 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 cases, there is no direct evidence to prove this.
Landmark judgements
Praveen v. State of Haryana, (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184) [1] in which four accused were escorted by the police from the central jail, Jaipur, to produce in court via train. On reaching the railway station, four young boys entered the compartment, attacked the police and tried to rescue the accused. Since he tried to escape, an attempt was made to snatch the carbine (rifle). One of the accused fired upon the Head constable, who got injured. The Sessions Court held the accused guilty, and on appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed their conviction. The appellant, Parveen, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is unsafe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120B I.P.C. without evidence to show a meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act.
Ram Narain Popli v. C.B.I. 2003 (1) SCR 119 [2], dealt with the issue of the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in investigating and prosecuting cases of criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court held that the CBI has the power to investigate and prosecute cases of criminal conspiracy.
Topandas v. State of Bombay 1956 AIR 33, 1955 SCR (5) 881 [3] dealt with the issue of the role of the prosecution in establishing the existence of a conspiracy. The court held that the prosecution must prove the existence of the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and that mere suspicion of a conspiracy is not enough.
R v. Barkat Ali (1918) ILR 40 All 38 [4] was one of the earliest cases related to criminal conspiracy in India. In this case, the court held that for a conspiracy to be established, there must be an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act and an intention to bring about the illegal act.
[1]2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184
[2]2003 (1) SCR 119
[3]AIR 33, 1955 SCR (5) 881
[4]ILR 40 All 38
