Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code >Criminal Conspiracy (Ss. 120A and 120B)
List of Sub-Topics:
One of the most serious offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is criminal conspiracy, which involves a group of people planning and carrying out illegal activities. The literal or dictionary meaning of the word “conspire” is “to plot or scheme together” which means the “joint participation” of several persons in the plot or the scheme, else, the word “together” would be superfluous and have no meaning. If a person were to draw up a plot or a scheme without associating any other person with it, such a person would be plotting alone, not scheming together and consequently would not be said to “conspire in the literal sense of the term. The literal meaning persists in the legal definition of the offence of conspiracy whereby one person alone can never be guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself.
Before 1913 amendment abetment by conspiracy was there but criminal conspiracy as a general offence was not there. In 1913, by amendment Chapter V A of criminal conspiracy added as a general offence. It comprises of only two sections 120A and 120B. Criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120A of the IPC while Section 120 B provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. The primary goal of criminal conspiracy is to commit an offence and achieve the desired result through illegal means. Criminal conspiracy can take many forms, such as plotting a robbery, carrying out a murder, or spreading false information.
Section 120 A IPC:
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.
Example 1:
A, B, C, and D decide to rob a bank and did the planning as to who will do what. In this case all will be held liable for criminal conspiracy.
Example 2:
A, B and C did all the planning to rob a bank. D was just driving them to the bank and didn’t know about this plan. D will not be held liable. Only A, B and C will be held liable.
Notes:
Criminal conspiracy is continuing offence.
Example:
A and B planned to rob a bank. Later on, C also joined them. Later on, they were caught. A, B, C will be held liable. Even though C joined them later, he will be held liable equally as A and B.
Conspiracy is based on joint and mutual agency. So every conspirator is liable for anything done by any conspirator in furtherance of common object.
Example:
A, B, C, and D went to rob a bank. While robbing ‘A’ killed the security guard. All four will be held liable for the act of A.
Ingredients of Section 120 A IPC:
The ingredients are as follows:
- There must be two or more persons;
- There must be an illegal act or a legal act in an illegal way in consequence of conspiracy;
- There must be a meeting of minds;
- There must be an agreement regarding the same thing.
In Mulcahy v. Regina, HL 1868 Case, the Court said that when two or more persons agree to carry it into effect the very plot is an act itself, and the act of each party, promise against promise actus contra actum capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for criminal object or for the use of criminal means.
In Rex v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284 case, the Court held that “Criminal Conspiracy ought to charge a conspiracy, either to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means”.
In Haradhan v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1210 case, the Court observed that Two or more persons must be parties to such an agreement and one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with onself.
In State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, 1999 Cr LJ 3124 (SC) case, the Court observed that when two or more person agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and everyone who joins in the agreement. Thus, there have to be two conspirators and there may be more than that.
In Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637 case, where the appellant a non-resident was running a business in the name of M/s. Sales International at Dubai and four others resident of India were running Similar business at Chandigarh. All five made a conspiracy at Chandigarh to cheat Punjab National Bank. In pursuance of such planning, they succeeded to cheat the Punjab National Bank of an amount of Rs. 40,30,329 on fabricated documents submitted by the appellant to Dubai Bank. The Court upheld the offence of conspiracy. The Supreme Court observed that criminal conspiracy is a continuing offence and it is also not necessary that each conspirator should know all details of the conspirated scheme.
No charge of criminal conspiracy can succeed unless if it shown that several persons have agreed to do an illegal act or a lawful act by unlawful means. This implies that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of the offence. A mere knowledge is not sufficient for common intention. Common intention requires a distinct agreement i.e., Meeting of mind to do the thing together whereas a mere knowledge does not manifest meeting of minds to do that things together. Knowledge on its own cannot create a liability for its criminal conspiracy. Burden lies upon prosecution to prove that there was not merely knowledge that offence may be committed rather there has to be a clear proof of common intention (agreement) to commit the offence together or committed by someone else.
In Abdul Rehman v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Cal 316 case, the Court observed that criminal conspiracy may come into existence, and may and will persist so long as the persons constituting the same remain in agreement, and so long as they are acting in accord in furtherance of the objects for which they entered into agreement.
In State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi assassination case), AIR 1999 SC 2640 case, the Supreme Court had laid following important points relating to criminal conspiracy:
- Association of accused with one of main accused or even his knowledge about conspiracy would not make him conspirator as agreement is sine qua non of agreement,
- Accused harbouring main accused persons knowing fully well their involvement in the commission of offence is itself not sufficient to infer that he was member of conspiracy,
- If accused had no knowledge of conspiracy, then his mere association with the main conspirator would not make him member of the conspiracy,
- It is not necessary for the conspirator to be present at the scene of the crime.
In Topan Das v State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 33 case, the court held that the person must not be alone in conspiring for the offence. The accused was acquitted from the case because he was the sole person who had conspired for the crime. The acquittal of this case meant that the person was liable for all the other offences that had been committed and proved.
According to section 43, IPC, “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for an action. “Act” includes an illegal omission also. Actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it.
In Shiv Narayan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439 case, the Court held that once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of another.
A conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts.
In Leo v. Supdt. District Jail, AIR 1958 SC 119 case, the Court observed that the conspiracy to commit a crime and the crime itself are two different offences. Conspiracy precedes the commission of crime and is complete before the crime is attempted or completed.
Difference between Section 107 (secondly) & Section 120A:
Criminal conspiracy under Section 120A is broader as compared to section 107 (secondly) read with section 108. In section 107 (secondly) the agreement can be only for an offence and the criminal liability for abetment by conspiracy will arise only upon some act or illegal omission committed by either of them in pursuance of criminal conspiracy.
Section 107 (secondly) does not include the cases of agreement to do an act prohibited by law or a civil wrong. Whereas section 120A includes both of them and also it punishes the criminal conspiracy to commit an offence per se even if no illegal act or omission has been committed in pursuance thereof. In the cases of criminal conspiracy to commit a civil wrong or an act prohibited by law, it is essential that one of the parties should have committed some act or illegal omission in pursuance thereof.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Section 120 B IPC:
Punishment of criminal conspiracy:
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 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.
(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.
Explanation:
It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
Section 120B specifies the punishment given to the persons convicted for the crime of conspiracy. They may be punished with death or rigorous imprisonment. The nature of this section is punitive. The scope of this section is limited to providing punishments after the accused has been convicted. It is a settled law that for an offence under this section, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.
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, if the goal of the criminal conspiracy is to commit murder, 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 also impose a fine on the accused. The amount of fine can vary depending on the nature and gravity of the crime.
According to Section 120B(1), if the criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards then punishment of such criminal conspiracy is as if he had abetted such offence.
According to Section 120B(2), if the criminal conspiracy to commit an offence other tan mentioned in 120B(1), then punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or with both. For this consent of SG or DM is required.
In Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2011 SC 1713 case, where two Chartered Accountants had dishonestly and fraudulently opened several fictitious accounts in some banks with an intention and object to facilitate of bank finance for the purpose other than stated in the loan application. The accused persons submitted to the bank, fake and forged invoices of fictitious/non-existent supplier. The Supreme Court held that the essential ingredient of criminal conspiracy is agreement to commit offence between accused and the commission of crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under section 120B. The appellant with Directors and Chartered Accountant defrauded revenue and in the process cheated the public exchequer of crores of rupees and were convicted under section 120B, 420, 409 and 471.
In Kehar Singh v State, AIR 1988 SC 1883 case, the accused were charged with criminal conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The court determined that the accused conspired with others to commit the crime and actively participated in the assassination. The court determined that the accused had committed the crime of criminal conspiracy, and the penalty was death.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Conclusion:
Criminal conspiracy is serious offence. The gist of the offence of conspiracy lies not in doing the act or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do any of the acts nor in inducing others to do them, but in forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. The offence of criminal conspiracy comes under the category of inchoate crimes as it does not require the commission of an illegal act.