Introduction

Criminal conspiracy, as defined in law, refers to an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to accomplish a lawful objective by unlawful means. The conspiracy itself becomes an offense the moment the agreement is formed, irrespective of whether the intended criminal act is executed. In this sense, criminal conspiracy is an inchoate crime, meaning it is punishable even before any substantive crime is committed.

The concept of criminal conspiracy is crucial because it allows for the prevention and punishment of collective criminal conduct, where multiple individuals are involved in planning and coordinating illegal acts. The law on conspiracy seeks to deter and punish these group activities that pose greater dangers than individual crimes.

Legal Definition of Criminal Conspiracy

In India, criminal conspiracy is codified under Section 120A and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 which is not converted into Section 61 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

• Section 120A (Definition of Criminal Conspiracy):

  "When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy."

• Section 120B (Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy):

  "Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offense."

These sections were introduced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 to address the increasing number of organized crimes in India. Conspiracy, as a criminal offense, is also recognized in many other jurisdictions across the world, such as the UK and the USA.

Elements of Criminal Conspiracy

For a successful prosecution under the offense of criminal conspiracy, the following essential elements must be established:

1. Agreement Between Two or More Persons: A criminal conspiracy is established the moment an agreement is reached between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. The agreement is the crux of the offense, and no overt act is necessary in most cases.

2. Illegal Object or Illegal Means: The object of the conspiracy must be to carry out an illegal act, or if the act itself is legal, it must be carried out by illegal means. The illegal act can be a crime under the penal code or any other statute.

3. Common Intention: The conspirators must share a common intention to commit the criminal act. It is not necessary for each conspirator to perform the same role or act in the conspiracy, but their involvement in the agreement to commit the crime must be established.

4. No Necessity of an Overt Act: Unlike the offense of abetment, where some overt act is required, criminal conspiracy is completed the moment the agreement is reached. An overt act is required only if the conspiracy involves an offense punishable with less than two years of imprisonment.

Landmark Judgments on Criminal Conspiracy

1. Kehar Singh & Ors v. State (Delhi Administration), 1988

   Facts: This case revolved around the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Kehar Singh was accused of being part of the conspiracy to kill her, although he did not directly participate in the murder.

   Judgment: The Supreme Court held that conspiracy is rarely proved by direct evidence and that circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role. In this case, the court found sufficient evidence of an agreement between the conspirators, making Kehar Singh liable for the offense of conspiracy.

   Principle Established: The court emphasized that conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the accused, even if they are not directly linked to the criminal act.

2. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors, 1996

   Facts: This case involved army officers and civilians accused of conspiring to steal and sell secret military documents to foreign entities. The key issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused were part of the conspiracy.

   Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a person can be convicted of conspiracy if there is prima facie evidence of their involvement in the agreement to commit the illegal act. The court clarified that mere knowledge of the conspiracy does not make someone guilty unless they actively participate in it.

   Principle Established: The court clarified the distinction between mere knowledge of a conspiracy and active participation in it. Only active participation leads to criminal liability.

3. Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, 2003

   Facts: In this case, Ram Narayan Popli and other bank officials were accused of conspiring with businessmen to defraud the bank by dishonestly issuing huge loans against non-existent securities.

   Judgment: The Supreme Court held that conspiracy, being a clandestine activity, is often proved by circumstantial evidence. In this case, the consistent behavior of the conspirators, coupled with the sequence of events, indicated a conspiracy to defraud the bank.

   Principle Established: The court reiterated that conspiracy can be inferred from a chain of circumstances and that there need not be direct evidence of the agreement between the conspirators.

4. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, 2013

   Facts: Yakub Memon was accused of being part of the conspiracy that led to the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, one of the deadliest terror attacks in Indian history. He played a key role in financing and facilitating the execution of the conspiracy.

   Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld Yakub Memon’s conviction, noting that his involvement in the conspiracy was evident from his actions, even though he did not physically plant any of the bombs. The court emphasized that even the smallest role in facilitating a conspiracy could attract criminal liability.

   Principle Established: The case underscored the notion that all participants in a conspiracy are equally liable, irrespective of the magnitude of their individual roles.

5. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005)

   Facts: This case, famously known as the Parliament Attack case, involved the prosecution of the accused, including Afzal Guru, for their involvement in the conspiracy to attack the Indian Parliament in 2001.

   Judgment: The Supreme Court held that conspiracy is largely a matter of inference, and in cases where there is no direct evidence, the court can rely on circumstantial evidence. The court found that the accused were part of the conspiracy and upheld the conviction.

   Principle Established: The court reiterated that a criminal conspiracy is often proved through indirect evidence, and the prosecution does not need to prove every link of the conspiracy chain.

Nature of Evidence in Criminal Conspiracy

The courts have consistently held that direct evidence in cases of conspiracy is rare due to the secretive nature of the offense. The following principles regarding the nature of evidence in conspiracy cases have emerged from judicial decisions:

• Circumstantial Evidence: Courts often rely on circumstantial evidence, such as the conduct of the accused before and after the alleged conspiracy, their interactions, and the sequence of events.

• Inference from Conduct: The involvement in conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused, including their roles in facilitating, financing, or planning the criminal act.

• Continuous Participation Not Necessary: A person need not be involved throughout the conspiracy; even limited involvement can lead to criminal liability if the person contributed to the criminal objective.

Conclusion

Criminal conspiracy, by its very nature, is a complex offense that involves multiple actors working together toward a common illegal goal. The law on conspiracy seeks to prevent and punish collective criminal behavior before the intended crime is committed, recognizing the heightened danger posed by organized criminal activities.

Indian courts, through various landmark judgments, have established critical principles concerning the offense of conspiracy. These rulings highlight that even the smallest role in the formation or execution of a conspiracy can result in criminal liability, and that conspiracy is often proven through circumstantial rather than direct evidence.

Understanding the law of criminal conspiracy is crucial for ensuring that organized criminal activities are effectively deterred and punished, thus safeguarding societal order.

Share this News