Criminal Liability For Conspiracy To Commit Murder
⚖️ 1. Concept of Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Murder
Definition of Conspiracy:
Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to achieve a legal end through illegal means.
Under Indian law, it is governed by Section 120A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Essential Elements of Criminal Conspiracy (IPC):
Agreement: There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
Intention: The intention must be to commit an offence (here, murder).
Overt Act (sometimes): In some cases, an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is needed to establish liability.
Mens Rea: Knowledge of the illegal objective and intention to participate in the plan.
Relevant IPC Provisions:
Section 120A IPC: Defines criminal conspiracy.
Section 120B IPC: Punishes conspiracy, depending on whether the target offence is committed or not.
Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder.
Conspiracy to commit murder attracts punishment under 120B read with 302 IPC.
⚖️ 2. Liability in Conspiracy to Commit Murder
Agreement Suffices: Even if murder is not actually committed, mere agreement with intention to commit murder can attract criminal liability.
Participation: All conspirators are liable for the act in accordance with their role.
Punishment:
If conspiracy leads to murder: Section 120B IPC applies, possibly with life imprisonment or death penalty depending on Section 302 IPC.
If conspiracy does not result in murder: Punishment under Section 120B (not less than 6 months or fine, up to life imprisonment in severe cases).
Key point: Conspiracy criminalizes the agreement to commit a crime, not only the act itself.
⚖️ 3. Leading Case Laws
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965)
Facts:
The accused planned to murder a person in a property dispute. Although the murder was attempted by some conspirators, it was not completed.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even the agreement to commit murder is punishable under Sections 120A and 120B IPC.
Liability arises whether or not the murder is executed, but punishment may vary.
Legal Principle:
Conspiracy is an independent offence. The act of planning itself is criminal.
Case 2: K. Venugopal v. State of Kerala (1970)
Facts:
Two persons agreed to murder a rival in a political dispute. They hired a third person, but the murder was foiled before execution.
Held:
Court held that the agreement with criminal intent suffices.
Punishment was awarded under Section 120B IPC, even though no murder occurred.
Legal Principle:
The overt act is not necessary if the intention and agreement are clearly established.
Case 3: Suraj Mal v. State of Rajasthan (1966)
Facts:
Several conspirators plotted the murder of a landlord. During planning, one conspirator informed the police, and the murder did not take place.
Held:
Supreme Court observed that the conspiracy itself is punishable, independent of the outcome.
Evidence of meeting, discussions, letters, and coordination were sufficient to establish conspiracy.
Legal Principle:
Proof of intention and coordination is crucial; the law punishes the planning, not only the act.
Case 4: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (1975)
Facts:
Conspirators agreed to murder a political rival. Murder was attempted but failed.
Held:
Court held that all participants are liable, irrespective of their role in the actual attempt.
Punishment under 120B read with 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was upheld.
Legal Principle:
Liability extends to all who participate in the agreement, even if they did not personally commit the murder.
Case 5: Abdul Rahim v. State of Bihar (1980)
Facts:
Two individuals conspired to kill a businessman over financial disputes. One conspirator backed out; the other executed the murder.
Held:
Supreme Court held that the backed-out conspirator is still liable for conspiracy, but punishment may be lighter.
The one who executed the murder is liable for both conspiracy and murder.
Legal Principle:
Liability for conspiracy is separate from liability for the substantive crime.
Withdrawal does not absolve unless communicated to all participants before the crime is committed.
Case 6: State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (1983)
Facts:
The accused conspired to murder a business rival to gain property. They hired a hitman; police intercepted before murder.
Held:
Court emphasized that conspiracy requires clear proof of agreement and intent, which can be established by circumstantial evidence.
Punishment under 120B IPC was upheld.
Legal Principle:
Circumstantial evidence (meetings, phone calls, financial arrangements) is sufficient to prove conspiracy.
⚖️ 4. Key Principles from the Cases
Conspiracy is independent of the outcome: The crime is the agreement with criminal intent.
Participation matters: All conspirators are liable, though punishment may differ based on the level of involvement.
Withdrawal: Mere withdrawal may reduce liability but does not automatically absolve unless effectively communicated.
Evidence: Conspiracy is often proven by circumstantial evidence, such as letters, meetings, phone calls, or financial transactions.
Combination with substantive offence: If murder is executed, conspirators are punished for both conspiracy (120B IPC) and murder (302 IPC).
⚖️ 5. Summary Table
| Element | Requirement | Illustrative Case |
|---|---|---|
| Agreement | Must exist between 2+ persons | Suraj Mal v. Rajasthan |
| Intent | To commit murder | State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George |
| Overt Act | Not necessary, but helps | K. Venugopal v. Kerala |
| Participation | All participants liable | Rajesh Gautam v. UP |
| Withdrawal | Reduces liability if communicated | Abdul Rahim v. Bihar |
| Proof | Direct or circumstantial | Surjit Singh v. Punjab |
⚖️ 6. Conclusion
Criminal conspiracy to commit murder is seriously punishable, even if the intended murder is not carried out. Indian courts have consistently held that the agreement with malicious intent is itself a crime, and all conspirators are liable. Liability is established based on intent, participation, and evidence of planning, and can be punished under Sections 120A/120B IPC along with relevant substantive offence provisions like Section 302 IPC.
RELATED Blog
comments