Explanation of Section 120B of Indian Penal Code

S. 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Punishment of criminal conspiracy

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

A) Criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, Punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 Years or upwards- Then the punishment shall be Same as for Abetment of that Offence

B) Any other criminal conspiracy - Then the punishment shall be 6 Months or Fine or Both

Elements of a criminal conspiracy:-

When two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion.

The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law.

A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed.

The Ingredients of "Intent":-

Specific intent crimes, a person's intention is key.

The court shall also care about the mental states of the alleged partners in crime.

Other individuals in the conspiracy must intend to agree, as well as all must intend to achieve the outcome.

Only associating with people known to be involved in crime doesn't make you a co-conspirator. For instance, just because your friend tells you he is going to rob a bank doesn't mean you are part of the conspiracy. Not unless you also agree to participate by acting as a getaway driver or helping him scope out the bank ahead of time.

The criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code is a substantive offence in itself and punishable separately. There have been rare instances where persons have been tried for commission of the substantive act of criminal conspiracy.

Furthermore, most commonly, the charge of criminal conspiracy is slapped on an accused person along with the charge of a substantive offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law which he may be accused of committing along with other co-conspirators.

The criminal conspiracy is hatched to commit an illegal act which is an offence punishable under law. It is not essential that the accused person must do an overt act, and mere agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act is sufficient to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy.

It is not necessary that the object of the conspiracy should have been achieved for it to be considered as an offence. Even if the conspiracy fails on account of abandonment or detection before commission of offence, the act of entering into an agreement by the co-conspirators is itself an offence and punishable under the law.

Whereas, it has to be kept in mind that the standard of proof for the act of criminal conspiracy is the same as that of any other criminal offence i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Laws:

R.v. Blake

The English rule on this matter is, in general, well settled. It is a common law rule. It illustrates the two aspects of it, i.e. what is admissible and what is inadmissible. In the above landmark case it was held that to be admissible against the conspirator was the evidence of entries made by his fellow conspirator contained in various documents actually used for carrying out the fraud. But a document not created in the course of carrying out the transaction, but made by one of the conspirators after the fraud was completed, was held to be inadmissible against the other.

Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 8 SCC 791

Held that the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy.

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820

Held that, a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy.

Subramaniam Swamy v. A Raja, (2012) 9 SCC 257

Held that the suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof and existence of a meeting between the accused persons is not by itself sufficient to infer the existence of criminal conspiracy.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa &Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 659

Held that, for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the co-conspirators were wanting to achieve and thereafter having the intent to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment.

State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253

Held that the acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy.

Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail, AIR 1958 SC 119

Held that the offence of conspiracy to commit a crime is different offence from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy because the conspiracy precedes the commission of the crime and is complete before the crime is attempted or completed, equally the crime attempted or completed does not require the element of conspiracy as one of its ingredients they are, therefore quite separate offences.

Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala, 2001 SCC (Crl) 1341.

Held that the conspirators invariably deliberately, plan and act in secret over a period of time. It is not necessary that each one of them must have actively participated in the commission of the offence or was involved in it from start to finish. The most important element is that they were involved in the conspiracy or in other words, there is a combination by agreement, which may be expression or implied or in part implied.

It is difficult to get direct evidence for proving an offence under Section 120-A, which defines criminal conspiracy. Hence considering this fact, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play.

This section is divided into two parts:-

First part is where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. Only when this condition precedent is satisfied then the following second part comes in picture.

The second part of the section is, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to the common intention after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is a relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy. The same is held in the case of Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra [(1964) 2 SCR 378.

Held that it is necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of Section 10. The second part of section permits the use of evidence which otherwise could not be used against the accused person.