ARYAN GROVER
A conspiracy, in the most basic of terms, is an agreement between two or more people to do something unlawful. It is the offence which deals with the illegal acts of more than a single person in pursuance of an object, whether illegal or not. All the co-conspirators of such an unlawful act are jointly liable for the act. Unlike many legal systems where an overt act for the pursuance of the object is necessary to constitute the offence, a mere agreement or meeting of minds between two or more people to commit the unlawful act is enough to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy in India.
An example of a criminal conspiracy would be as follows: Four people, namely A, B, C and D conspire to rob the local bank for which they decide that A and B would threaten the bank manager at the counter, C would take care of the situation at the gate and D would keep the car ready for A, B, and C when they successfully rob the bank. Here, there is a criminal conspiracy between A, B, C and D to rob the bank and they shall all be liable for the act.
What does the IPC say?
Section 120 and its subsections deals with the concept of criminal conspiracy.
Simply put, Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code states that any person who decides to voluntarily conceal the existence of a plan to commit an offence by an act or illegal omission, intending to facilitate or knowing that he will facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, will be punished with imprisonment for one-fourth of the term provided for the offence if the offence is committed, and one eighth of the term if the offence is not committed, or be fined, or both.
Illustrating the following, A is a friend of B who knows that B is going to steal C’s money. If A conceals the existence of B’s plan, knowing that it facilitates the execution of B’s plan, he will be punished with one-fourth of B’s imprisonment term for theft if B is successful in stealing C’s money or one-eighth of B’s imprisonment term for theft if B is unsuccessful in stealing C’s money, or with fine, or with both.
Criminal Conspiracy in Indian Law is defined under Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as:
“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.
Provided that 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.
Explanation. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or is merely incidental to that object.”
From the following definition, a few key ingredients of a criminal conspiracy can be made out, these being:
- Involvement of two or more persons
- Agreement between the persons to do an act, or cause it to be done
- The act must be one that is illegal, or a legal act that is done by illegal means
As mentioned earlier, although an agreement to commit the act is sufficient to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy, when there is an involvement of illegal means, it becomes necessary to show that some overt act has been committed by either party which entered into the agreement in pursuance of the same.
To understand the above points, consider the following situation: A has an argument against C. Later during the day, A meets his friend B, and A suggests that they should kill C and steal his money. To this plan, B agrees and they both make preparations in the form of buying a gun, but before they are able to execute this plan, they are caught by the police. Here, criminal conspiracy is the offence committed, since:
1. There is the involvement of two parties, A and B..
2. There is an agreement between A and B to do an act, which is of killing C.
3. The act of killing another person constitutes the illegal act of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
Here, the overt act committed is of buying a gun, which shows seriousness towards the furtherance of the objective.
Proving a Criminal Conspiracy
The standard of proof required to prove a criminal conspiracy is the same as under every other criminal offence, which is “beyond reasonable doubt”. This is elaborated further in Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. It states that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an act which is an offence or an actionable wrong, then anything that is said, done, or written by either of the persons which gives reference to their common intention is a relevant fact against each of the persons who are believed to be conspiring. This can also be used for proving the existence of the conspiracy as well as to show that any such person was a party to the conspiracy.
The two parts to this section are of great importance. The first part, which requires the presence of some reasonable ground to believe the existence of a conspiracy. When this is satisfied, we can move on to the second part. This part says that anything said, done, or written by any of the persons believed to be a part of the conspiracy can be used as evidence against each and every one of the persons believed to be a part of the conspiracy.
For example,
If there exist reasonable grounds to believe that A has conspired to wage war against the government of India, and three random people B, C, and D are in support of this conspiracy, then the fact that B procured ammunitions in Europe, C accumulated money in Kolkata for this object, and D persuaded people to be a part of the conspiracy, all go towards proving the existence of a conspiracy. Although A did not explicitly do any of these acts and B, C, and D were strangers to him, they prove A’s complicity in the act of the criminal conspiracy.
Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy
The punishment for criminal conspiracy is laid down in Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. As per the provisions of this section, the punishment for criminal conspiracy:
1. When the conspiracy is to commit an offence which is punishable by death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for two years or more, the party to the conspiracy shall be punished in the same manner as if they had abetted the offence, if no express provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy.
2. When the conspiracy is to commit any other criminal conspiracy as apart from subsection 1, the party to the conspiracy shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both.
Case Laws
Reg v. Hodge (1838)
In this case, an important warning was addressed to the jury by Baron Alderson, on the danger of some acts which warrants conjecture or suspicion taking the place of legal proof, as is the case in a criminal conspiracy. He said, “The mind was apt to take pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole, and the more ingenious the mind of the individuals, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.”
Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala (2001)
In this case, it was held that it is not necessary for all the co-conspirators of the crime to have actively participated in committing that actual offence or having been involved in it from start to finish. Being involved in the conspiracy as part of an agreement is more important, by acts such as deliberation, planning and action in secret over a period of time. This agreement may be implied or at least in part implied.
Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (1958)
Here, it was decided that the offence of conspiring to commit a crime is to be considered an offence which is different from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy for the reason that the conspiracy precedes the actual commission of the crime and achieves completion before the crime is attempted or completed. Moreover, the crime that has been attempted or completed does not require conspiracy to be proven as an element, and therefore, these are separate offences.
State v. Nalini (1999)
This case dealt with the admissibility of evidence in the case of a conspiracy. This case held that acts that are subsequent to achieving the object of the conspiracy “may tend to prove” that an accused was a party to the conspiracy. However, once the object of the said conspiracy is achieved, any subsequent unlawful act would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy.
Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. (2017)
This landmark judgement laid down the essential agreements in the offence of a criminal conspiracy, which 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.
Importantly, it was held in the case that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing the illegal act or doing a legal act by illegal means is an essential and non-negotiable ingredient of criminal conspiracy.
Conclusion
Although the letter of law states that guilt needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, recent practices of the courts suggest otherwise, which has resulted in a dilution of the law which relates to criminal conspiracy. This is evident where we see the concept of “deemed presumption” in practice in various cases of criminal conspiracies. Although it is true that planning for conspiracies does take place in secrecy and the existence of a conspiracy can only be made out from the actions of the conspirators, the standard of proof must be upheld regardless. As a result, the letter of law seems to be losing its relevance, which makes it an arduous task to prevent the misuse and wrong implementation of the law of criminal conspiracy.
Sources:
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/criminal-conspiracy-law-applicability