Case Studies On Criminal Conspiracy
✅ Criminal Conspiracy
Under Section 120A IPC, criminal conspiracy means:
When two or more persons agree to do an illegal act, OR agree to do a legal act by illegal means.
Key elements:
Two or more persons
Agreement (even verbal; need not be written)
Object of agreement must be illegal, OR
Legal act done by illegal means
Overt act NOT required when the conspiracy is to commit a serious offence (punishable with death, life, or 2+ years imprisonment)
Section 120B IPC gives punishment for Criminal Conspiracy.
⭐ Major Case Laws on Criminal Conspiracy (Explained in Detail)
1️⃣ Kehar Singh vs State (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case)
Supreme Court of India
Facts
This case involved the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Kehar Singh was accused of being involved in the conspiracy to kill her along with her bodyguards.
Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court held:
Conspiracy usually happens secretly, so direct evidence is rare.
It can be proven through circumstantial evidence, such as the conduct of the accused.
The court reaffirmed that agreement itself is the essence of conspiracy, not the act.
Legal Principle
Conspiracy can be inferred from coordinated actions, common intention, and behaviour of participants.
2️⃣ State (NCT of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu (Parliament Attack Case)
(Also known as the Afzal Guru case)
Facts
Terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001. Several persons were accused of conspiring by arranging logistics, money, safe houses, phone calls, etc.
Court’s Observations
Conspiracy is usually proved by chain of circumstances.
It is not necessary for each conspirator to even know all other conspirators.
As long as they pursue the common illegal objective, they are liable.
Legal Principle
Participation can be limited or indirect; what matters is involvement in the plan.
3️⃣ State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case)
Facts
This case involved the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by LTTE members.
Court’s Holding
Conspiracy is a continuing offence; each conspirator is responsible for acts done by others in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Even if a person plays a small or supportive role, they may still be guilty.
The agreement need not be proved by a single piece of evidence; multiple small pieces can build the conclusion.
Legal Principle
Conspiracy may develop in stages, and members may join at different times.
4️⃣ K.R. Purushothaman vs State of Kerala
Facts
Accused were charged with conspiracy for political murder. The prosecution relied mainly on confessions.
Court’s Observation
Confessions of co-conspirators are weak evidence unless supported by independent corroboration.
The court emphasised that mere knowledge of a plan is not conspiracy.
There must be active agreement to participate.
Legal Principle
There must be a conscious agreement; passive presence or knowledge is not enough.
5️⃣ Ram Narayan Popli vs CBI (Bank Scam Case)
Facts
In this large economic fraud, certain bank employees and private individuals conspired to cheat the bank.
Court’s Findings
Conspiracy need not be proved by direct meeting or communication between all conspirators.
Financial, documentary, and conduct-based circumstantial evidence is enough.
Even if one conspirator did not commit the actual final act (fraud), they remain liable.
Legal Principle
Every conspirator is responsible for acts of others that are part of the conspiracy.
6️⃣ Quinn vs Leathem (UK House of Lords – Foundational Case)
Although foreign, Indian courts often refer to it.
Facts
A trade association induced others to boycott Quinn’s business, leading to loss.
Court’s Holding
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons combine to harm another unlawfully.
Agreement magnifies the wrong because collective power can cause greater damage.
Principle Adopted in India
An act legal for an individual can become illegal when done in concert with others if the object is unlawful.
🔍 Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Agreement is the core | Not the act, but the agreement to do an unlawful act constitutes conspiracy. |
| Circumstantial evidence is enough | Rarely proved by direct evidence; courts rely on conduct, communication, behaviour. |
| Common intention | Members may join at different stages, but common illegal objective is essential. |
| Each conspirator liable for others' acts | If done in furtherance of the conspiracy. |
| No need for all conspirators to know each other | Partial knowledge does not negate liability. |
| Overt act not required for serious offences | If the conspiracy is for grave crimes (life imprisonment, death, etc.). |
RELATED Blog
comments