Criminal Law: Concept of Criminal Conspiracy: Section 120A

Criminal Law: Concept of Criminal
Conspiracy
Introduction
A criminal conspiracy is an inchoate crime as it does not actually require the illegal act to
have completed. It is a unique concept in the criminal law and consists of specific elements
pre-requisite for it to be treated as a crime. Indian Penal Code deems criminal conspiracy as a
substantive offence in itself and thus it is punishable separately. In this article, the author
systematically discusses the concept of criminal conspiracy and its elements.
Definition of conspiracy
Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120A in the Indian Penal Code. It is an
agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to commit an act by
illegal means. The act may be the ultimate object of such an agreement or it may be merely
incidental to the object. The agreement between the persons itself is treated as a crime and
thus it is called an inchoate crime because if the illegal act is committed then a person can be
charged with both conspiracy as well as the crime. Any steps taken to commit the actual act
come subsequent to the conspiracy. In some laws, conspiracy require a step taken in
furtherance of the illegal act or an act by illegal means. This step may be buying a weapon for
the act or organising a meeting in order to plan the act, etc. and is known as an overt act.
By criminalising conspiracy two purposes are served, first, the crime is interrupted at a very
nascent stage when it is just being planned and no particular action towards committing it has
been taken as such, second, it serves as a protection against group criminality which increases
the likelihood of the accomplishment of the crime and thus posing a heightened danger to the
society.
Relevant legal provisions

Here we discuss the legal provisions relating to the crime of conspiracy and its proof. For a
person to be deemed as a co-conspirator or a part of a criminal conspiracy, he must have the
knowledge of the planning to commit an illegal act, if he is merely used as an instrument by
the conspirators without his knowledge of the illegal act or a plan of committing the illegal
act, he cannot be treated as a conspirator, for example, if a person drives a group of people to
the bank without knowing that they intend to rob the bank or commit any unlawful activity
then he is not a part of that particular conspiracy to rob the said bank.
Criminal conspiracy is not easy to support by evidence. It becomes difficult to obtain
evidence for agreement to commit a crime and thus Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is required. It provides that anything said, written, or done by any of the persons, who
are believed to be a part of an agreement to commit an illegal act or any act by illegal means
based on reasonable grounds, serves as a relevant fact against them. The said piece of
evidence may be statements, writings, or actions, by the parties to the conspiracy, which
reflect their common intent to commit an illegal act. It also serves as an evidence to the
existence of the conspiracy and proves that a person is party to it. It is important to bear in
mind that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a person is party to a conspiracy,
only then anything said, done, or written by him, which shows common intention, may be
treated as an evidence against him.
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code defines punishment for the offence of criminal
conspiracy. It provides for same punishment as abetment of the conspired offence would
entail, in case the offence conspired is punishable by death, or life imprisonment, or rigorous
imprisonment for two years. In case of the offences other than those, the conspiracy to
commit the same is punishable by imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
The defendant charged with the crime of conspiracy can raise the defence of withdrawal or
abandonment. In order to do so he must show that affirmative communication was made by
him to his co-conspirator regarding his complete withdrawal from the conspiracy prior to its
completion. Following points must be kept in mind:
 He must have clearly communicated his withdrawal from the conspiracy to the other
conspirators.
 He must withdraw before the conspiracy is completed.
 He must completely withdraw from the conspiracy and not aid or communicate with
the co-conspirators, in this regard, after withdrawal.
Entrapment is another defence which can be raised by a person charged with the offence of
criminal conspiracy. In order to avail this defence, the accused must prove that he was
persuaded to take part in the conspiracy by a law enforcement officer or a government agent.
The person must prove that he would not have participated in the conspiracy had it not been
for that officer’s persuasion.
Salient features
The most important feature or element of a conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act.
The agreement may be in writing or may be oral. The defining feature of that agreement must
be an unlawful activity which was being planned to be committed. Another feature of
conspiracy is the common intention of the conspirators. All the conspirators must be aware
about the illegal activity that they are planning to commit which implies their common
intention to commit the crime. It is not important that each party be aware of every intricate
detail of the plan, but they must be aware of the illegal act which is being planned or any
illegal act to achieve a common objective. Thirdly, overt acts committed by the parties to
conspiracy important and are treated as a part of the conspiracy itself by some laws. Even
silence is treated, by some courts, as an overt act where it is planned, intentional, and done in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
Landmark judgments
The aspect of common intention is defined in the case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and
others vs. State of Kerala, where the court said that active participation of each of the
conspirators in the crime is not necessary. Their involvement in the conspiracy by the
combination of agreement, which may be express or implied, is sufficient. The definition of
conspiracy as an agreement to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is also expounded
upon in the case of Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P..
The proof of the criminal conspiracy must be absolute and beyond reasonable doubt as said in
the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, connecting obscure acts and conjecture by
the lawyers is not enough to prove criminal conspiracy. In the case of Subramaniam Swamy
v. A Raja, it was said by the court that suspicion cannot take place of legal proof. Just a
meeting between the people cannot make them party to a conspiracy without actual proof of a
common intention to commit a crime.
Critical analysis
While the law has tried to provide on sufficiently covering the field of criminal conspiracy in
order to prevent group crimes, the area of criminal conspiracy remains considerably
ambiguous. It is not an easy task to prove a person’s intention to commit a crime. While the
law states that once there is reasonable proof that a person in involved in an agreement to
commit an illegal activity, he is liable for criminal conspiracy, Section 10 of the Indian
Evidence Act also states that once it is reasonably established that a person is involved in any
such agreement, anything done by him can be treated as an evidence against him. But, in
practice, the law enforcement authorities are not able to establish suspicion beyond
reasonable doubt and thus, the commission of the illegal act and everything ancillary to it is
treated as an evidence to then establish the existence of the offence of conspiracy. This
practice defeats the main objective of the law on criminal conspiracy which was to prevent
the unlawful activity from being committed. Thus, there is a need for changing the way law
enforcement authorities operate in this area so that the initial objective of making conspiracy
a criminal offence can be achieved.
Conclusion
As has been stated above, there is considerable ambiguity in the area of criminal conspiracy
as it requires proof of intention of the people against whom there is suspicion, yet the law in
this regards is quite clear. It must be established that there was existence of an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or an act by illegal means. It is not
important to establish a complete knowledge of the crime by all the people involved, their
mere involvement in the agreement to do such illegal activity is sufficient. Thus, the law
against criminal conspiracy hold strong in order to prevent crime committed in groups.

Criminal Law: Concept of Criminal Conspiracy: Section 120A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law: Concept of Criminal Conspiracy: Section 120A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law: Concept of Criminal

Relevant legal provisions

You might also like