Conspiracy In Indian Criminal Law
What is Conspiracy Under Indian Law?
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means. It is a distinct offence under the Indian Penal Code.
Legal Provision: Section 120A and 120B of the IPC
Section 120A IPC: Defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
Section 120B IPC: Punishes the act of criminal conspiracy.
Essential Elements of Conspiracy
Agreement: There must be an agreement or a meeting of minds between two or more persons.
Intent: The purpose of the agreement must be to commit an offence or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.
Number of Parties: At least two persons must be involved.
No Need for Overt Act: The offence is complete once the agreement is made, regardless of whether the act is carried out.
Nature of the Offence
It is a subsidiary offence; if the main offence is committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, punishment under conspiracy law applies additionally.
No need to prove the commission of the substantive offence to establish conspiracy.
It is a continuing offence until the purpose is achieved or abandoned.
Important Indian Case Laws on Conspiracy
1. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
Facts: Nanavati was charged with conspiring to murder.
Issue: Whether an agreement to commit murder existed.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that conspiracy requires a clear agreement to commit a criminal act.
Significance: Established the principle that mere suspicion or knowledge is insufficient; a clear agreement is necessary for conspiracy.
2. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1956 SC 329
Facts: Accused were charged under Section 120B for conspiracy to commit murder.
Issue: Whether the prosecution proved the existence of an agreement.
Holding: The court held that conspiracy is proved when the prosecution establishes that there was an agreement or meeting of minds.
Significance: Affirmed that the prosecution need not prove the completion of the conspiracy, only the agreement.
3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
Facts: Case involved conspiracy to commit offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issue: The extent of evidence required to prove conspiracy.
Holding: The Supreme Court clarified that conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances and conduct of accused.
Significance: Shows that direct evidence is not always necessary; circumstantial evidence can establish conspiracy.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
Facts: Involved conspiracy to defraud the government.
Issue: Whether participation of all accused is necessary for conspiracy.
Holding: Held that all conspirators need not participate in the same manner; once part of the agreement, all are guilty.
Significance: Established that conspiracy is a collective offence and responsibility extends to all who agree.
5. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
Facts: Related to abuse of power and alleged criminal conspiracy by public officials.
Issue: Scope of conspiracy in cases involving abuse of official position.
Holding: Court held that conspiracy charges should be framed only with adequate material and not based on vague allegations.
Significance: Emphasized safeguards against misuse of conspiracy charges in politically sensitive or official misconduct cases.
6. B. V. Subba Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1604
Facts: Involved conspiracy to cheat and dishonestly induce delivery of property.
Issue: Whether mere knowledge of the plan amounts to conspiracy.
Holding: Mere knowledge without agreement does not constitute conspiracy.
Significance: Reinforced that agreement is the key element, not mere awareness.
Summary Table: Key Aspects from Case Law
| Case | Key Point | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| K. M. Nanavati (1962) | Clear agreement necessary | Agreement is essential for conspiracy |
| Ramachandra Reddy (1956) | Prosecution must prove meeting of minds | Proof of agreement suffices even if act not committed |
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984) | Conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances | Direct evidence not always needed |
| State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965) | All conspirators liable, even if roles differ | Conspiracy is collective responsibility |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) | Charges must be based on material, not vague claims | Protection against misuse of conspiracy charges |
| B. V. Subba Rao (1961) | Knowledge alone insufficient | Agreement is necessary, not just knowledge |
Conclusion
In Indian criminal law, conspiracy is a serious offence focusing on the agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime. The courts require proof of a clear meeting of minds, but such an agreement can be inferred from actions and circumstances. Mere knowledge or suspicion is not enough. Conspiracy charges must be supported by substantial evidence and not filed arbitrarily.
RELATED Blog
0 comments