This Article is written by Om & this article discuss the concept of Criminal Conspiracy – Meaning, Nature and Scope.
Introduction
Originally, the term ‘conspiracy’ referred to the agreement of two or more people to file a false court complaint against someone or to conduct legal processes in a vexatious or inappropriate manner.
In Poulterer’s case (1611), the Star Chamber developed the criminal component of conspiracy for the first time, and conspiracy was acknowledged as a substantive offence.
Brief facts of the case: One Walters, along with other defendants, falsely accused Stone of robbery and did everything necessary to harm his family’s image. Rumours circulated that Stone was a gentleman thief and a knave. Stone, on the other hand, had an alibi and brought with him 30 witnesses who testified that he was in London on the day of the alleged heist. Stone was dismissed after the jury deemed him to be an ignoramus. Stone then filed an action in the Star Chamber to clear himself of the accusations levied against him and restore his reputation.
The defendants attempted to settle the dispute outside of court and to get Stone to abandon the lawsuit. However, once the proceedings began, the defendants accused Stone of barratry and intimidated several of his witnesses. The court ruled that the sheer presence of conspiracy among the defendants, regardless of whether Stone was wrongly accused or acquitted, is the essence of the offence and constitutes a crime.
In Mulcahy v. R. (1868), the House of Lords declared that “A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means.”. Thus, two or more people must agree to carry it out, and the scheme itself is penalised as a criminal conduct or the use of illegal means.
Definition of Criminal Conspiracy
Section 120A I.P.C.
According to Section 120A of the I.P.C., a criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to do either an unlawful conduct or a non-illegal act using illegal methods.
Section 43 of the I.P.C. defines ‘illegal’ as everything that constitutes an offence, is banned by law, or provides grounds for a civil action.
The Proviso to Section 120A states that a simple agreement to commit an offence constitutes criminal conspiracy, and no overt conduct or illegal omission is necessary to be shown. Such an overt conduct is required only when the goal of the conspiracy is to commit an illegal act that does not constitute a crime. It makes no difference whether the illegal behaviour is the ultimate goal of such an arrangement or is just incidental to it.
Ingredients
- A conspiracy occurs when two or more individuals agree to commit a criminal conduct or use illegal methods to perform an otherwise legal act. If the other co-conspirators are unknown, missing, or deceased, a person may be charged with criminal conspiracy on his or her own.
- Joint evil intent is required to commit unlawful or non-criminal acts via illegal methods.
Punishment of criminal conspiracy
Section 120B of I.P.C. punishes criminal conspiracy when it involves committing a severe offence. Conspiracy to commit a crime can result in death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for at least two years.
If no specific punishment is specified in the Code, anybody involved in a criminal plot will face the same penalties as if they had assisted the offence.
Criminal conspiracy to commit offences other than those listed in the first category: Anyone who is a party to such a criminal conspiracy will be punished with imprisonment of either sort for no more than six months, a fine, or both.
Nature and Scope of the Law of Conspiracy in Section 120A, Indian Penal Code 1860
The nature and extent of criminal conspiracy are confined to two or more people planning to do an unlawful act together. No single individual may commit the offence. It needs two or more people to agree to accomplish anything. The fundamental goal of the Sections was to prevent any illegal act from occurring prior to the creation of a criminal crime. The nature of the portions is preventative. It contributes to the prevention of any criminal action. The next step following this stage is to do the act. As a result, the reach of the legislation is restricted to consent and mutual understanding of a criminal conduct.
In Ram Narayan Popli v CBI, the court defined Criminal Conspiracy as:
(a) an object to be accomplished,
(b) a plan or scheme to achieve that object,
(c) an agreement or understanding between two or more accused persons, and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute requires.
Proof of Conspiracy
The offence is mostly psychological in character. Proving such an act is equally challenging. It can be determined by the fact that some actions were kept hidden. However, this is not a crucial component of the conspiracy. It may be done as follows:
• Direct or circumstantial evidence.
In the case of Quinn v. Leathern, it was established that inference is often derived from the parties’ actions in accordance with the predefined acts. Because there has not yet been an act, circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are equivalent in this case. The deed is just a conspiracy.
This scenario also involves the Doctrine of Agency. The existence of an agency in the conspiracy may indicate that this individual was involved in the deed. This was decided in Bhagwan Swaroop Lai Bishan Lai vs. State of Maharashtra.
Nature and Scope of Section 120B
Effect of Acquittal of Accused
Framing the Charge
Charges are established based on the type and severity of the offence. Frequently, the accused is charged with both a substantive offence and criminal conspiracy. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors., it was stated that charges would be filed only if the individual was aware of the co-conspirators and their motivations. Because the crime cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is critical to realise that there is a considered presumption of the offence if overt efforts are taken to prove it.
Case Laws
Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) SC
The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in this instance that the most crucial component of conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful conduct. Such an illegal conduct may or may not be committed in accordance with the agreement, but the agreement itself is a crime that is punished.
Major E.G. Barsay v. The State of Bombay (1962) SC
In this instance, it was determined that an agreement to breach the law constituted the essence of the crime of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A IPC. The parties to such an agreement are guilty of criminal conspiracy even if the illegal conduct agreed upon is not carried out. The Court also ruled that all participants agreeing to do a single illegal act is not a need for a criminal conspiracy, and that a conspiracy might consist of many acts.
Conclusion
Criminal conspiracy is classified as an inchoate crime since it does not include the commission of an illegal act. Criminal conspiracy is a criminal partnership in which a joint or mutual agency exists for the purpose of carrying out a shared plan. Nowadays, the provision of criminal conspiracy is used extremely loosely, which is inconsistent with the norms given out by the Supreme Court. As a result, it is critical that superior courts maintain a close eye on the exploitation of the provision while respecting legal principles.
References
1. Conditional Objectives of Conspiracies- Patrick A. Broderick https://www.jstor.org/stable/796289
2. Intent in Criminal Conspiracy- Albert J. Harno
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3309198
- Criminal Conspiracy: Specific Intent as an Element of the Crime- Harvard Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1328972
- The history and rationale of criminal conspiracy- CR Snyman
