Criminal Conspiracy With Foreign Powers
π I. Meaning of Criminal Conspiracy
Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It involves:
βAn agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means.β
Section 120B IPC prescribes the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
π II. Criminal Conspiracy Involving Foreign Powers
When criminal conspiracy involves collaboration with or support to foreign governments, agencies, or entities, especially in matters relating to:
Espionage
Waging war against India
Undermining sovereignty or security
Economic or cyber sabotage
Terrorism
It is treated as a grave national security offence under IPC and various special laws like:
Official Secrets Act, 1923
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
National Security Act, 1980
π Relevant Legal Provisions
| Law | Section | Description |
|---|---|---|
| IPC | 120A & 120B | Criminal Conspiracy & Punishment |
| IPC | 121 | Waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India |
| IPC | 121A | Conspiracy to wage war against the State |
| IPC | 122 | Collecting arms with intent to wage war |
| Official Secrets Act | 3, 5 | Spying, communication of classified information to foreign powers |
| UAPA | 15, 16, 17, 18 | Terrorist acts, conspiracy, funding of terrorism |
| NSA | Sections 3β9 | Preventive detention for national security threats |
βοΈ Landmark Case Laws on Criminal Conspiracy with Foreign Powers
βοΈ **1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afzal Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600
(Parliament Attack Case)
πΉ Facts:
Afzal Guru and others were charged with criminal conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India, with alleged backing from foreign terrorist organizations (JeM) based in Pakistan.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for criminal conspiracy under Sections 120B, 121A IPC and under UAPA, holding that conspiracy with foreign terror outfits to attack Indian Parliament amounted to waging war.
β Significance:
Shows how criminal conspiracy with foreign powers is treated as an act of war.
TIP, confessions, and electronic evidence used to prove conspiracy.
βοΈ 2. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Hussain (2014) 1 SCC 258
(Dilsukhnagar Twin Blasts Case)
πΉ Facts:
Mohammed Hussain and others conspired with foreign-based terror groups (ISI) to execute serial blasts in Hyderabad.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Court confirmed the involvement of foreign agents and punished the accused under Sections 120B, 121A IPC, and provisions of UAPA and Explosives Act.
β Significance:
Reinforces that evidence of contact with foreign handlers, even through intermediaries, can establish conspiracy.
Admissions, digital data, and recovery of explosives considered strong evidence.
βοΈ 3. Shaukat Hussain Guru v. State (2008) 8 SCC 461
πΉ Facts:
Shaukat Hussain was accused of conspiring with foreign terrorists (Jaish-e-Mohammed) in the Parliament attack.
π§Ύ Judgment:
While the death sentence was overturned, the conviction under Section 123 IPC (concealing conspiracy to wage war) was upheld.
β Significance:
Even if active participation in conspiracy isn't proven, knowledge and failure to inform authorities can lead to conviction.
βοΈ 4. R v. Kashmira Singh (Privy Council, 1949)
πΉ Facts:
The accused was part of a covert spy ring assisting foreign powers during British India.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Privy Council upheld that circumstantial and documentary evidence can prove criminal conspiracy, even without direct evidence of agreement.
β Significance:
Sets precedent for convicting conspirators based on indirect or circumstantial evidence.
Often relied upon in cases involving foreign intelligence links.
βοΈ 5. Mohd. Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal (2014) 7 SCC 443
(American Center Attack Case)
πΉ Facts:
Accused conspired with Pakistani-based terrorist outfits to attack the American Center in Kolkata.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Conviction under Sections 120B, 121, 121A IPC, and UAPA upheld. Court accepted phone records, recovered weapons, and foreign links as sufficient evidence.
β Significance:
Link with foreign powers established through electronic evidence.
Highlights the seriousness of attacks on international targets within India.
βοΈ 6. State v. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar (2002) 5 SCC 234
(Punjab CM Bombing Case)
πΉ Facts:
Bhullar was charged with conspiring with Khalistani militants supported by foreign agencies to assassinate Punjab CM Beant Singh.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Conviction and death sentence upheld. Court emphasized that cross-border support and foreign funding for terror attacks amount to conspiracy against the State.
β Significance:
Establishes that foreign financial or ideological backing can convert a local crime into a crime against the nation.
π§ Key Legal Takeaways
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| π Agreement is the core | Even if the act is not committed, the mere agreement is punishable under conspiracy laws. |
| π Foreign nexus raises severity | Links with foreign powers can elevate conspiracy to the level of waging war. |
| π΅οΈ Proof can be circumstantial | Conspiracy is often proven through circumstantial, digital, or financial evidence. |
| π± Electronic evidence is vital | Call records, chats, emails, and surveillance are often used to establish foreign involvement. |
| βοΈ Special laws apply | IPC + UAPA + OSA + NSA may all apply in such cases. |
π Conclusion
Criminal conspiracy with foreign powers is not only an offence under the Indian Penal Code but also attracts special legislations aimed at protecting national sovereignty and security.
The courts treat such conspiracies with utmost seriousness, especially when there is:
Linkage with foreign terrorist groups
Espionage or sabotage activities
Acts that undermine Indiaβs sovereignty, unity, or friendly relations with foreign states
Convictions in such cases are often based on a mix of direct, circumstantial, and electronic evidence, and procedural safeguards are strictly followed due to the gravity of the offence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments