Judicial Interpretation Of Criminal Conspiracy
1. Definition of Criminal Conspiracy
Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 defines criminal conspiracy:
“When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done—
(i) an illegal act, or
(ii) a legal act by illegal means,
they are said to be guilty of criminal conspiracy.”
Key Points:
Agreement is essential – Mere preparation is not enough.
Two or more persons – Minimum two persons must be involved.
Intention to commit an offence – Both the agreement and intention must be criminal.
Act is not required – Conspiracy is complete once the agreement is made. (But some IPC sections, like 120B, may require overt acts in certain contexts.)
2. Punishment
Section 120B IPC provides the punishment:
If the conspiracy is to commit an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment ≥ 2 years, then the conspirators are punished as if they committed the offence.
Otherwise, imprisonment up to 6 months or fine, depending on the nature of the offence.
3. Essential Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy
Agreement between two or more persons
Intention to commit an unlawful act
The act itself can be legal if done illegally
Knowledge of the consequences
⭐ JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION WITH CASE LAWS
1. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) (Illustrative)
Issue: Conspiracy to commit murder
Facts:
The accused planned with his friends to murder a man who allegedly had an affair with his wife.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that agreement coupled with intention to commit the murder constitutes criminal conspiracy.
The planning itself, even if the act was not completed exactly as intended, was sufficient.
Importance:
Reinforced that criminal conspiracy is complete once the agreement is made.
No overt act is strictly necessary, though often present.
2. Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1998)
Issue: Whether mere preparation amounts to conspiracy
Facts:
Several individuals were arrested for allegedly planning to commit robbery. The police did not find any overt act.
Judgment:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere preparation does not amount to conspiracy unless there is a definite agreement and intention.
There must be proof of meeting of minds between two or more persons.
Importance:
Clarified that criminal conspiracy ≠ preparation or planning alone.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (2001) (Bomb Blast Case)
Issue: Conspiracy for terrorist act
Facts:
Yakub and others planned a bomb blast in Mumbai. Some of the accused were caught before executing the plan.
Judgment:
The court held that even if the act is not executed, criminal conspiracy is made out because of the agreement to commit a serious offence.
Overt acts may be used as corroboration but are not essential.
Importance:
Shows how conspiracy law protects society by punishing the agreement to commit grave offences before they occur.
4. R. v. Anderson (1868) (English law cited in India) – Leading Authority
Issue: Formation of conspiracy
Facts:
The case involved an agreement between two persons to commit a felony.
Judgment/Principle Applied in India:
The court held: “No act beyond agreement is required; the crime is in the mutual intention to act.”
Importance:
Indian courts often rely on this principle: the essence of conspiracy is the agreement, not the act itself.
**5. Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (1973)
Issue: Conspiracy vs. aiding and abetting
Facts:
Accused allegedly agreed with others to commit dacoity and provided minor support like transport.
Judgment:
The court distinguished aiding/abetting from conspiracy: mere knowledge or assistance without agreement does not amount to criminal conspiracy.
Emphasized the requirement of a meeting of minds.
Importance:
Clarified difference between conspiracy and abetment, which is often confused in practice.
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Issue: Whether conspiracy can exist if one conspirator acts independently
Facts:
Two conspirators agreed to commit theft, but only one executed the act independently.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held: Conspiracy requires the intention of two or more persons, but execution by one conspirator does not absolve others.
Even non-executing conspirators are liable under Section 120B IPC.
Importance:
Reinforced that conspiracy liability is joint, irrespective of individual execution.
7. R. v. Siracusa (1950s, UK case cited in India)
Principle Adopted in India:
“Where an agreement to commit a crime exists, each conspirator is liable for acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
Indian courts use this principle for imputing acts of one conspirator to others.
⭐ KEY TAKEAWAYS
Essence of Conspiracy: Agreement + criminal intent.
Number of Persons: Minimum 2.
Execution Not Necessary: Agreement itself is punishable.
Difference from Abetment: Conspiracy requires meeting of minds, abetment requires helping/instigating.
Overt Act: Not essential but can strengthen prosecution.
Punishment: Depends on intended crime (Section 120B IPC).
Joint Liability: All conspirators are liable for acts done in furtherance of conspiracy.
RELATED Blog
comments