THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
An association of two or more people together for illegal intentions is referred to as a conspiracy. It is an agreement between two or more people to do anything that is against the law. A substantive offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.) is a criminal conspiracy. In most cases, the accused is also charged with another substantive offence under the I.P.C. or another statute in addition to the crime of criminal conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120A of the I.P.C. as an agreement between two or more people to perform or cause to be performed either:
1. an illegal act; or
2. an act that is not illegal but is performed through illegal means.
According to the proviso attached to Section 120A, there is no need to prove overt conduct or illegal omission for there to be a criminal conspiracy—merely agreeing to commit a crime qualifies. Only when the conspiracy’s goal is the commission of an illegal act that does not constitute an offence does such an overt act become essential. Whether the illegal behaviour is the agreement’s primary goal or is just a byproduct of it is irrelevant.
Ingredients
1. There must be a minimum of two conspirators for an unlawful act or an act that is not illegal to be done or caused to be done by an illegal means to be committed. However, if the other conspirators are unidentified, absent, or deceased, one individual may be charged with criminal conspiracy on their own.
2. It is necessary to have a joint malevolent purpose to commit an unlawful conduct or an unlawful act through an unlawful act.
3. The agreement may be explicitly stated, implicitly stated, or partially stated and partially implied.
4. The conspiracy starts to form as soon as the agreement is reached, and the crime is then completed.
5. And as long as the combination exists, the same offence is still being committed.
Why criminal conspiracy is punished?
It is to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by combination of means. The engagement and support which co conspires give one another rendering enterprises possible, which if left to the hand of individual effort, would have been impossible.
Punishment for criminal conspiracy
- Whoever is a party to the criminal conspiracy, conspires to commit a crime exceeding two years will be punished in the same manner as if he/she had abetted that offence in case there is no expressed provision provided
- Other than the offence aforementioned, he/she will be punished not exceeding 6 months or with fine or both
RELEVANT SECTIONS
Before the insertion of Chapter V-A, conspiracy under I.P.C. was punishable only in two forms-
- By way of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C.
- By way of involvement in a certain offence (Section 310, Section 401, Section 400 I.P.C.)
Then, in 1870, Section 121A was added which provided punishment for conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121 i.e. conspiracy to wage or attempt to wage war against the Government of India. Thus, conspiracy per se was not a crime under I.P.C. before 1913. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 Inserted Chapter V-A in the I.P.C. which introduced criminal conspiracy as a substantive offence.
Section 120B of I.P.C. provides for the punishment of criminal conspiracy-
- Where the criminal conspiracy is to commit a serious offence: In cases where the conspiracy is to commit an offence-
- Punishable with death,
- Imprisonment for life or
- Rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards
- and where no express punishment is provided under the Code for such conspiracy, every person who is a party to such a criminal conspiracy shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
- Criminal conspiracy to commit offences other than those covered in the first category: Whoever is a party to such a criminal conspiracy shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with a fine or with both.
Section 10 of the 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.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Thappa (1996)
The broad definition of criminal conspiracy as knowledge of the offence has been provided by the Apex Court in the current instance. The accused must be aware that the crime will be committed as a result of his actions to establish a case of criminal conspiracy. By Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, the court penalized the conspirators who had a guilty purpose.
Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) SC
In this instance, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act is the most crucial element of the conspiracy crime. Whether or not such an illegal act is carried out by the agreement, it is nonetheless illegal and punished in and of itself.
Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955) SC
In this instance, the appellant and three other people were charged with an offence for conspiring to use falsified documents under Section 120B read with Sections 471 and 420 I.P.C. The Trial Court cleared every defendant, but the High Court overturned that decision in an appeal and found the appellant guilty of both the substantive offence and the crime of criminal conspiracy. In the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that it is obvious that one person cannot ever be held responsible for a criminal conspiracy since he cannot collude. It was decided that because his putative accomplices were exonerated of the crime, the appellant could not be found guilty under Section 120B. Unless it can be demonstrated that the accused conspired to conduct an offence not only with the co-accused but also with some third party who has not been prosecuted because he is a minor or is absconding, the accused alone cannot be judged guilty of conspiracy when all of the alleged co-conspirators have been found not guilty.
Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (1958) SC
In this decision, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that a conspiracy to commit a crime is a distinct offence from the crime that the conspiracy was intended to commit. A conspiracy is established before the crime is attempted or committed, and it is finished before the crime is committed.
B.Narsimha Rao Vs Govt. Of A.P
In this instance, the appellant and seven other defendants were found guilty of a criminal conspiracy violation. He was, nevertheless, singled out for prosecution for offences under Sections 120-B, 409, and 471, IPC, by Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(l)(d) of the 1947 Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court and the High Court simultaneously found all of the other conspirators not guilty. In the end, the Supreme Court cleared the accused based on the arguments that a second person was required to carry out the agreement and communicate with the first and that a conspiracy can never be attributed to a single individual.
IMPORTANT CONCEPTS
Knowledge of the offence
The existence of full knowledge of the crime is a crucial component in showing a conspiracy. The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of knowledge of the offence and ruled that knowledge alone was sufficient to prosecute someone for conspiracy by Section 120A of the IPC.
POINTS TO REMEMBER
- An association of two or more people together for illegal intentions is referred to as a conspiracy.
- It is necessary to have a joint malevolent purpose to commit an unlawful conduct or an unlawful act through an unlawful act.
- Abetment refers to the act of instigating, encouraging, or assisting someone to commit a crime and it is different from criminal conspiracy.
- Common intention refers to a shared intention or a pre-arranged plan between two or more persons to commit a criminal act and it is slightly different from criminal conspiracy.
- The offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence.
- Criminal conspiracy is based on the legal maxim Actus non facit reum, which means “an act does not make one guilty unless there is criminal intent or guilty mind,”.
- The existence of full knowledge of the crime is a crucial component in showing a conspiracy.
