Section 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. —It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
In the case of Sushil Suri v. CBI, AIR 2011 SC while dealing ingredients of offence it
was held that the essential ingredients of the offence of ‘’criminal conspiracy” is an
agreement to commit an offence. Mere proof of such an agreement is sufficient to
establish criminal conspiracy.
In the case of Pratapbhai Hamirbhai solanke v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2012 SC, while
dealing with he necessarily requirement and mode of proof of criminal conspiracy, it was
held that the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and
such an agreement can be provided either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence or by both. Direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available and,
therefore, the circumstances provided before, during and after the occurrence have to
be consider to decide about the complicity of the accused.
Ingredients. —
The ingredients of this offence are—
(1) that there must be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire; and
(2) that the agreement should be
for doing of an illegal act, or
for doing by illegal means an act which may not itself be illegal. 5. Meeting of minds of
two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal
means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy.
Elements of Criminal Conspiracy. —
(a) an object to be accomplished,
(b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object,
(c) 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 (d) in the jurisdiction where the
statute required an overt act.
In the case of haradhan Chakraborty v. UOI, AIR 1990 SC, it was held that a single
person cannot do conspiracy.
Preparation by a single person different from conspiracy. It is the initial stage of attempt
of the crime
Agreement is the essential for this offence – In the case of Esher Singh v. State of
AP, AIR 2004 SC, it was held that Evidence relating to transmission of thoughts leading
to sharing of thought relating to the unlawful act is sufficient
ACTUS REUS. — As discussed in previous modules there are many offences where mens
rea is not essential, like kidnapping but this is one offence where actus reus is not
important.
The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal 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 give effect to an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary
that each conspirator should have been in communication with every other. 1 The illegal
act may or may not be don in pursuance of agreement, mere agreement is an offence. .
this principle was applied I the judgement of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
(1988) SCC
Section 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with
death, 1 [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.
1 KD Kaur, Page 240, IPC< lexis Nexis publication, 34 th edition
(2) 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.
Punishment
Para 1 – same as for abetment of the offence which is the object of the conspiracy –
according as offence which is the object of conspiracy is cognizable or non-cognizable
according as offence which is object of conspiracy is bailable or non-bailable – non-
compoundable
Para 2 – imprisonment for six months or fine or both – non-cognizable – bailable –
triable by magistrate (JMFC) – non-compoundable
While dealing with the issue of common intention, in the case of Sanjiv Kumar v. state of
HP, AIR 1999 SC, it was held that offence under section 120B is an agreement between
the parties to do a particular act.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge