Criminal Conspiracy

What is Criminal Conspiracy?

**Criminal conspiracy** is an offence that occurs when two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act, or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means. Unlike most criminal offences that require a physical act (actus reus), criminal conspiracy is punishable the moment the **agreement** is made — the planned crime need not actually be committed. It is the agreement itself that constitutes the offence.

In everyday terms, if two or more people plan together to commit a crime — say, to rob a bank or forge documents — they are guilty of criminal conspiracy from the moment they reach that agreement, even if they never actually carry out the crime. The law treats the agreement as a completed offence.

Legal Definition and Framework

Criminal conspiracy is defined and punished under **Sections 120A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)** and under the new criminal laws by **Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023**.

Key Legal Provisions

- **Section 120A IPC (Definition):** When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done — (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means — such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. However, no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

- **Section 120B IPC (Punishment):**

- If the conspiracy is to commit an offence **punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for 2 years or more**, each conspirator shall be punished as if they had abetted such offence.

- In other cases, imprisonment up to **6 months**, or fine, or both.

- **Section 61 BNS:** Retains the substance of Sections 120A-120B IPC, defining criminal conspiracy and prescribing similar punishments.

Essential Ingredients

For criminal conspiracy to be established, the following elements must be proved:

1. **Agreement between two or more persons:** The conspiracy requires at least two persons. A person cannot conspire with themselves.

2. **Object of the agreement:** The agreement must be to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means.

3. **Meeting of minds:** There must be a consensus ad idem — all conspirators must share the same objective.

4. **For non-offence agreements, an overt act is required:** If the agreement is to commit an act that is illegal but not an offence (such as a civil wrong), at least one overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy must be done. However, if the agreement is to commit an offence, the mere agreement suffices.

How Criminal Conspiracy is Proved

Proving conspiracy presents unique challenges because agreements to commit crimes are rarely documented. Courts rely on:

- **Circumstantial evidence:** The conduct of the accused before, during, and after the alleged conspiracy.

- **Inference from acts:** The coordinated actions of the accused that can only be explained by a prior agreement.

- **Communication between accused:** Phone records, messages, meetings, and financial transactions that indicate coordination.

- **Confessions of co-conspirators:** Under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 6 BSA, 2023), anything said, done, or written by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the common intention, after the conspiracy was formed and before it was abandoned, is relevant against all conspirators.

The Supreme Court in **State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600** (Parliament Attack case) laid down detailed principles for proving conspiracy:

- Direct evidence of conspiracy is rarely available.

- Conspiracy must be inferred from circumstances and the conduct of the accused.

- The inference must be based on foundation facts that are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

- Each conspirator need not know every detail of the conspiracy — knowledge of the essential objective is sufficient.

When Does This Term Matter?

Terrorism and National Security

Criminal conspiracy is a key charge in terrorism cases, where multiple persons plan and execute acts of terror. The **Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)** also provides for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. In the **Bombay Blast Case (2013)** and the **Parliament Attack Case (2005)**, conspiracy was the primary charge that connected multiple accused who played different roles.

White-Collar Crime

In cases of financial fraud, corruption, and money laundering, conspiracy charges are used to hold all participants liable — from the planners to the executors. Bank frauds, Ponzi schemes, and corporate frauds often involve multiple actors whose roles are connected through a common conspiracy.

Drug Trafficking

The **Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)** provides separate provisions for conspiracy to commit drug offences. Conspiracy to traffic narcotics carries severe punishment, including imprisonment up to 20 years and fine.

Murder and Organised Crime

When a murder is planned by multiple persons — one hires, another plans, and a third executes — all are liable for conspiracy to commit murder. The conspiracy charge ties together persons who may not have been physically present at the crime scene.

Criminal Conspiracy vs. Abetment

| Feature | Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A) | Abetment (Section 107) |

|---------|-----------------------------------|------------------------|

| **Nature** | Substantive offence | Both substantive and accessory |

| **Requirement** | Agreement between two or more persons | Instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding |

| **Overt act** | Not required for offence-based conspiracy | Conspiracy limb requires an overt act |

| **Number of persons** | Minimum two persons required | Can involve one person abetting another |

| **Completion** | Offence complete upon agreement | Abetment by conspiracy requires an act in pursuance |

The Supreme Court in **R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration (1962) AIR SC 1821** distinguished the two concepts, noting that criminal conspiracy requires proof of agreement as a distinct offence, while abetment by conspiracy under Section 107 is a mode of committing the principal offence.

Landmark Judgments

- **Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609:** In the Indira Gandhi assassination case, the Supreme Court held that a conspirator is liable even if they did not participate in the actual commission of the offence. The agreement and shared objective are sufficient.

- **Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 11 SCC 585:** The Supreme Court held that mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the illegal act does not amount to conspiracy. There must be an active agreement to participate.

- **Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1:** In the Bombay blast case, the Supreme Court upheld conspiracy charges against the accused who facilitated the blasts through planning, financing, and coordination, even though they did not plant the bombs themselves.

Practical Significance

- Criminal conspiracy is a **standalone offence** — conviction is possible even without the planned crime being executed.

- **Section 10 of the Evidence Act** is a powerful tool for prosecutors — acts and statements of one conspirator are admissible against all others, provided they were made in furtherance of the common objective.

- **Acquittal of all co-accused:** If all alleged co-conspirators are acquitted, the remaining accused cannot be convicted of conspiracy, since conspiracy requires at least two persons. However, the acquittal of named co-conspirators does not prevent conviction if the conspiracy involved unknown persons as well.

- The **charge of conspiracy** is often added alongside the substantive offence to widen the net of criminal liability and connect persons who played different roles.

- Courts require **proof beyond reasonable doubt** — mere suspicion, association, or proximity to the conspirators is not sufficient for conviction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a person be convicted of conspiracy if the planned crime was never committed?

Yes. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120A IPC is complete the moment the agreement to commit an offence is reached. The planned offence need not be committed. However, for agreements to do illegal acts that are not offences, at least one overt act in pursuance of the agreement must be proved.

Can there be a conspiracy between a husband and wife?

Yes, under Indian law. Unlike the old English common law rule that treated husband and wife as one person (and therefore incapable of conspiring together), Indian law does not exempt spouses. Two or more persons, including spouses, can be charged with criminal conspiracy.

What is the difference between criminal conspiracy and common intention?

**Criminal conspiracy** (Section 120A) is a substantive offence — the agreement itself is the crime. **Common intention** (Section 34) is a rule of evidence that creates joint liability for acts done in furtherance of a shared intention. Conspiracy does not require an actual criminal act; common intention does. Conspiracy requires proof of an agreement; common intention can develop spontaneously.

Can a person join a conspiracy midway?

Yes. A person who joins an existing conspiracy and participates in it becomes a conspirator from the point of joining. They are liable for acts done in pursuance of the conspiracy after their joining, and may also be liable for prior acts if they adopted or ratified them. However, they cannot be held liable for acts that were completed before they joined and which they did not adopt.