Criminal Conspiracy Under Section 61 BNS: Elements, Proof and Important Case Law

Planning a crime together can itself be a crime, even if the crime is never carried out. That is the idea behind criminal conspiracy, one of the most tested topics in criminal law for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam.

Criminal conspiracy is explained here through Sections 120A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which correspond to Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Match each section number below with the BNS section in your Bare Act.

The idea of inchoate offences

The article opens with a basic point. Many people think that planning and arranging for a crime, but not doing it, is not a crime. Offences of this type are called inchoate, or incomplete. They cover the anticipation and preparation, even when the crime is not completed. Abetment and criminal conspiracy are the two main examples.

What the law says

Section 120A IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act that is not illegal by illegal means. The article says that under Section 43, illegal covers anything that is an offence, anything prohibited by law, or anything that gives ground for a civil action.

The proviso is where students slip. A mere agreement to commit an offence is enough. No overt act is needed. An overt act or illegal omission is required only where the agreement is for an illegal act that is not an offence, or for a legal act done by illegal means. It does not matter whether the illegal act is the main object of the agreement or merely incidental to it.

The article quotes the Latin roots of the word conspiracy, from con, together, and spirare, to breathe. It also refers to the old English case Mulcahy v Regina, where the Court said that when two or more persons agree to carry out a criminal act, the plot is itself the crime.

Also Check: Abetment Under BNS 2023: Sections 45–60 Explained

Essentials of the offence

According to Devender Pal Singh v NCT of Delhi (2002), as cited in the article, the broad essentials are an object to be accomplished, a plan to accomplish it and an agreement between two or more persons to do so. The article lists what the prosecution must prove: an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means, an agreement between two or more persons, and a meeting of minds.

A second element is knowledge of the offence. In State of Maharashtra v Somnath Thappa (1996), the Court held that the accused must know of the crime that would result from his act. The article says having this knowledge is enough to try a person for conspiracy.

How conspiracy is proved

Conspiracies are made in secret, so direct proof is rare. The article says that the evidence is usually circumstantial, and that the prosecution must show a meeting of minds. This is harder than proving abetment.

The Supreme Court applied this in Parveen v State of Haryana (2020). Police were moving four accused persons in a train when men entered the compartment, shot a policeman and helped the accused escape. The High Court found a conspiracy. The Supreme Court set that aside for one appellant. It said it is not safe to convict a person of criminal conspiracy when there is no circumstantial evidence showing a meeting of minds.

Section 10 of the Evidence Act

Once a reasonable ground to believe in a conspiracy exists, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allows anything said, done or written by one conspirator in reference to the common intention to be used against all of them. The article gives two conditions. There must be reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons conspired to commit an offence. And the statement or act must have been made after the intention was first formed.

It cites Badri Rai v State (1958) for the reason: conspiracies need secrecy, so the prosecution cannot be expected to tie each act of one accused to each act of another. It also cites Emperor v Shafi Ahmed (1925), which says each conspirator is responsible for what another does in furtherance of the common intention.

Conspiracy compared with abetment by conspiracy

This is the comparison examiners set most often. Abetment by conspiracy is one of the three modes of abetment in Section 107 IPC, and criminal conspiracy is a separate offence in Section 120A. The article states the difference this way:

·        In criminal conspiracy, a bare agreement to commit an offence is enough.

·        In abetment by conspiracy, a mere agreement is not enough. An act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy.

·        Once such an act or omission occurs, the conspirators become guilty of abetting the offence.

·        The article says criminal conspiracy is wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy.

Two cases are cited for this. In Pramatha Nath Talukdar v Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1961), the Court said the essence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement itself, so the plot is the crime. Mere agreement does not constitute abetment by conspiracy, since an act or omission must be done to carry out the conspiracy. In Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration) (1988), the Court said that for abetment by conspiracy, there must be evidence of more than a simple conspiracy. If a charge under the conspiracy section fails, some overt act by the accused is needed to convict.

The article also says that when a conspiracy amounts to abetment under Section 107, it is not necessary to bring in Sections 120A and 120B, since the Code already punishes such abetment under Sections 109, 114, 115 and 116. It would then be unnecessary to frame a charge under Section 120B.

The article's comparison also says that in Noor Mohammad Momin v State of Maharashtra (1971), the Court held the ambit of criminal conspiracy to be wider than abetment. In Jamuna Singh v State of Bihar (1967), the Court said abetment by instigation can be tried when the instigation is proved, without the offence having been committed.

About punishment

Punishment for criminal conspiracy is in Section 120B IPC. Read the exact punishment, which differs for conspiracy to commit a serious offence and for any other conspiracy, from Section 120B and its BNS counterpart in your Bare Act.

Choose the Best Judiciary Coaching in Bhopal to build strong legal concepts and prepare effectively for Civil Judge examinations. Get structured learning, expert mentorship, Bare Act guidance and regular practice to move closer to your judicial career.

Using this in answers

A strong answer has four parts. The definition and the proviso on overt act. The essentials, namely object, plan, agreement and meeting of minds, with the knowledge requirement. The proof by circumstantial evidence and Section 10 of the Evidence Act. And the distinction from abetment by conspiracy, using Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Kehar Singh.

Frequently Asked Questions on Criminal Conspiracy

Where is criminal conspiracy defined in the IPC?

Section 120A IPC, which corresponds to Section 61 BNS.

What is the basic definition?

An agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means.

Is an overt act needed?

Not for an agreement to commit an offence. It is needed where the agreement is to do an illegal act that is not an offence, or a legal act by illegal means.

What does the prosecution have to prove?

An illegal act or a legal act by illegal means, an agreement between two or more persons and a meeting of minds.

What did Parveen v State of Haryana (2020) decide?

That it is not safe to convict a person of criminal conspiracy without circumstantial evidence showing a meeting of minds.

What is the role of Section 10 of the Evidence Act?

It lets the acts and statements of one conspirator, made in reference to the common intention, be used against the others once a conspiracy is reasonably shown.

How does abetment by conspiracy differ from criminal conspiracy?

Abetment by conspiracy needs an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy can rest on the agreement alone, if it is to commit an offence.

Which cases explain the difference?

Pramatha Nath Talukdar v Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1961) and Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration) (1988).

Why is knowledge important?

State of Maharashtra v Somnath Thappa (1996) required the accused to know of the crime that would follow from his act.

Where should I read the punishment for criminal conspiracy?

In Section 120B IPC and its BNS counterpart, in your Bare Act.

Quick Recap

Criminal conspiracy turns on agreement and meeting of minds, which is proved through circumstances and through Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Always set it beside abetment by conspiracy when you revise.

Nitesh Sir and the Aashayein Judiciary team explain criminal law in simple language with Judiciary Notes, PYQ practice and Mock Tests for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam. For guided Judiciary Coaching, Online Judiciary Coaching and trusted Judiciary Study Material, join Aashayein Judiciary today.