Open Access Research Article
A CRITICAL STUDY OF LAW RELATING TO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. BY: PUNIT KUMAR VAISH & ARADHANA YADAV
Published Paper
Article Details
A
CRITICAL STUDY OF LAW RELATING TO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
AUTHORED
BY: PUNIT KUMAR VAISH,
Student,
Amity Law School, Lucknow
CO-
AUTHOR: ARADHANA YADAV,
Professor, Amity Law School, Lucknow
Abstract
An agreement between two or more people to
commit a crime is called a conspiracy. Conspiracy is defined as the parties’
simple agreement to conduct an offence. At first, there were just two sections
in the IPC that dealt with conspiracy offences. First, Section 107 made
conspiracies that involved aiding and abetting illegal. The remaining are
special clauses that deal with offences and include plots to conduct them. For
instance, Section 401 (belonging to a gang of thieves), Section 400 (belonging
to a gang of dacoits), Section 310 (in the definition of thugs), etc. However,
with the passage of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 (8 of 1913),
the law was altered. Chapter V-A of the IPC addresses “Criminal Conspiracy.”
There are two portions in it: 120A and 120B. The meaning of criminal conspiracy
is found in Section 120A. The penalties for committing the crime of criminal
conspiracy are outlined in Section 120B.
Keyword: Section 120A, Section 120B, Criminal Conspiracy.
Introduction
Section 120A’s Definition of Criminal
Conspiracy A criminal conspiracy is when two or more people come to an
agreement to either (1) commit illegal conduct or (2) carry out an act that is
lawful but not obtained through unlawful means. With the caveat that no
agreement—aside from an agreement to commit an offence—shall qualify as a
criminal conspiracy unless one or more parties to the agreement carry out an
act in furtherance of the agreement.
Justification: It makes no difference
if the unlawful activity is the main goal of the agreement or just one of its
byproducts. Ingredients: (1) The individuals who are accused of conspiring must
have an agreement; and (2) The agreement must be for the purpose of either (i)
is performing an illegal act or (ii) performing an act through the use of
illegal methods, even though the act itself may not be illegal.
EXPLAINING
“CONSPIRACY” :
“Two or more person needed” –
A group of two or more people must
agree to commit illegal conduct or to use illegal methods in order for it to be
considered a conspiracy because an individual cannot plot against themselves. A
ruling in ‘Topandas vs. State of Bombay’, which the Supreme Court cited in
Haradhan Chakrabarty vs. Union of India2, established that “one person alone
can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one
cannot conspire with oneself.” Two or more people must be parties to such an
agreement. In order for there to be a consensus between two or more minds, it
also seems acceptable to maintain that these two individuals must be natural
persons. Therefore, even if the company is a separate legal entity, “a director
who is the “one man” of a “one man” company cannot be found guilty of
conspiring with the company”. Under common law, a husband and wife who are the
only parties to an agreement cannot conspire to commit an offence because they
are one and the same person. If both conspirators' convictions are
irreconcilable with the other's acquittal, even one of them could be judged
guilty. For instance, one of the conspirators might have been cleared because
of an exception or a lack of authorization. Recently, the Bombay High Court
took the same position. As a result, if one of the two accused was a public
servant and had to be exonerated because his prosecution had been conducted
without permission in accordance with Cr.P.C. 197, the other could still be
found guilty of conspiracy because the other accused’s acquittal was based on
technical grounds rather than the facts and notwithstanding evidence that
established the facts of the conspiracy.
‘Agreement
is gist of the offence’ –
The essence of the crime is the simple act of
engaging in and conspiring to breach the law, regardless of whether the
conspirators actually carry out any actual actions to do so.5. The goal being
pursued or the techniques used ought to be unlawful, as that term is defined in
Section 43 above. An agreement that is intended to commit an offence and an
agreement whose purpose or means of implementation are unlawful but do not constitute
an offence are distinguished from one another. One of the two real killers and
two conspirators in the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime
minister at the time, went on trial. The two conspirators were not present at
the crime scene. The Supreme Court cleared one of them. His actions following
the incident were not adequately documented. There was no indication of any
agreement between him and the other accused in the documents that were
retrieved from his custody. All they revealed was his disturbed mentality,
gripped by a need for vengeance. This is insufficient to reach a consensus with
anyone. However, it was revealed that Kehar Singh was secretly speaking with
one of the real murderers, that they constantly tried to distance themselves
from their spouses and kids, that they shied away from the other family
members, and that when questioned about their conversations, they remained
enigmatic. These details were enough to prove that they were working on a
covert project. This was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
conspiracy in accordance with Section 10 of the Evidence Act and to place them
all under punishment for the actions of one.
Sections
34 and 120A-
Acting with a common aim as
defined by S. 34 and conspiracy as defined by S. 120A have comparable purviews.
As opposed to the former, which focuses on mere involvement and affiliation to
break the law even while the illegal conduct does not follow, the crime under
S. 34 is primarily the commission of a criminal act in furtherance of a single
goal shared by all of the offenders. This implies that criminal activity should
be coordinated in order to result in an action for which a person would face
consequences even if it were carried out by him alone.
Sections
107 and 120A –
If there is an agreement to conduct
an offence, such an agreement alone suffices to constitute an offence under
this section. However, an act or criminal omission committed in furtherance of
the plot is required for an offence under the second clause of S.107; agreement
alone is insufficient.
S. 120A I.P.C and S.10 Evidence Act –
When it is reasonable to believe that
two or more people have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong,
anything said, done, or written by any of these people about their shared
intention after the moment any of them first entertained such an idea is
relevant evidence against each of the people suspected of conspiring, as well
as for the purposes of proving the existence of the conspiracy and proving that
any such person was a party to it..
Punishment
of Criminal Conspiracy:
S.120B (1) Unless otherwise specified in this
Code, a person who is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
that carries a sentence of life in prison, the death penalty, or rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years or longer will be punished as though he
had participated in the commission of the offence. (2) A maximum penalty of six
months in either form of detention, a fine, or possibly both awaits anyone
found guilty of taking part in a criminal conspiracy other than the one to
commit an offence mentioned above.
CONCLUSION:
A criminal conspiracy is any
arrangement between two or more people to commit an offence. S. 120B
distinguishes between two groups of criminal conspiracies for the purposes of
punishment. In the absence of a specific clause in the I.P.C., a party to a
conspiracy to commit a major crime is penalized as though he had assisted in
the offence. Conspiracies to conduct any other crimes that carry a maximum six-month
jail sentence, a fine, or both. In cases where the accused is charged under
both S.109 and 120B of I.P.C. and it is proven that the offence abetted was
committed as a result of the abetment, S.120B I.P.C. does not require a
separate sentence to be recorded. The abettor should serve the prison term
specified for the primary offence under S.109. Even if the charge of conspiracy
is dropped, the defendant may still be found guilty of their crimes and
punished accordingly. In a case where the principal accused in a conspiracy
received no jail time and was just fined, it was decided that the other accused
received an unfair substantive penalty of imprisonment and that they should
simply be required to pay the fine. Of the seven people charged with criminal conspiracy,
six were found not guilty. Simply by virtue of leading the branch division
where the fraud was purportedly perpetrated, the remaining suspects could not
be found guilty. One accused admitted to taking part in a bank robbery and
murder case, claiming that the other accused killed someone outside the bank
while fleeing. The penalty was reduced to a life sentence in prison.
REFERENCES :
1. (1955) 2 SCR 881: AIR 1956 SC 33 : 1956
CrLJ 138.
2. (1990) 2 SCC 143: AIR 1990 SC 1210 : 1990
CrLJ 1246.
3. Mowji, (1957) All ER 385: (1957) 2 WLR
277.
4. Pradumna, 1981 CrLJ 1873(Bom).
5. Mohammad Ismail, (1936) Nag 152.
6. (1988) 3 SCC 609 :AIR 1988 SC 1883 : 1989
CrLJ 1.
7. Dinanath, 1939Nag 644.
8. Vinayak v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984
SC 1793
9. Pramath Nath v. Saroj Ranjan, AIR 1962 SC
876
10. State v. Savithri, 1976 Cr LJ 37 (Mad).
11. State of Orissa v. Bishnu Charan Muduli,
1985 CrLJ 1573 (Ori.)
12. C.R.Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, 1993
CrLJ 2863 (Bom).
13. B.N.Narsimha Rao v. Govt. Of A.P, 1995
CrLJ 4181 (SC).
14. State of Rajasthan v. Darbara Singh, 2000
CrLJ 2906 (Raj).
Article Information
A CRITICAL STUDY OF LAW RELATING TO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. BY: PUNIT KUMAR VAISH & ARADHANA YADAV
Authors: PUNIT KUMAR VAISH, ARADHANA YADAV
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/26
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.