Criminal Conspiracy: Section 120A and 120B of IPC
Author – Vrinda Agrawal
According to English law, if two or more persons agree together to do something (illegal) contrary to law, or wrongful and harmful towards another person, or to use unlawful means in the carrying out of an object not otherwise unlawful, the persons who agree, commit the crime of conspiracy.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120A and its punishment is given under Section 120B after the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 was passed.
A joint evil intent is necessary to constitute crimes. There is no requirement of physical action in advancement of such planning. I.e. no attempt or consummation of the act need to be done to be held liable for conspiracy. It is only if two people agree to carry a plot into effect, that every plot becomes an act in itself and punishable in law.
For instance: A and B plan to murder C, letters were passed between them about movements of C. A and B are liable for the charge of criminal conspiracy under this section since there was an agreement between A and B to do an illegal act i.e. to murder C.
Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy
- There should be an agreement between two or more persons who are alleged to conspire.
- The agreement should be to do or cause to be done:
- An illegal act
- An act that may not be illegal itself but is done through illegal means.
This section also provides that, except an agreement to commit an offence does not amount to criminal conspiracy. Unless some act is done which is illegal.
The word “illegal” is defined in Section 43 of the code which says that any offence is prohibited by law.
Since conspiracy is an agreement, so to fulfill the considerations of an agreement, there must be at least two people. Since a single person cannot conspire alone. However, there may be a situation where one of the conspirators is unknown, dead, incapable, uncaught, minor, the other person would be convicted.
The general justification of conspiracy is similar to that of an inchoate crime. It enables preventive action to be taken against intended offenders, in circumstances where it is clear that a fixed intention to commit the crime has been formed.
Definition of Criminal Conspiracy
When two or more persons agree to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term of 2 years or upwards, or to cause offence to be committed, this kind of agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
The mere agreement is sufficient to constitute a criminal conspiracy. Meeting of minds concerning a particular matter
SECTION 120B
Section 120B of IPC prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy.
In the first case,
If a person conspires to commit an offence punishable with
- death,
- imprisonment for life or
- rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more
The person would be liable to be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such an offence.
In the second case,
Conspiracy to commit an illegal act other than those covered above:
The person will be liable to imprisonment up to 6 months or fine or both.
The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case, where the agreement is for the accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event, no overt act is necessary to be proved because, in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement.
Commission of a serious crime of nature, mere proof of the agreement between the accused is enough to bring about conviction and the proof of any overt act is not necessary. Every person need not necessarily do some overt act, the essential thing is to be a part of the agreement.
CASE LAWS
Topan Das v. State of Bombay
Appellant and three other accused were charged under Section 120B with Section 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. They were charged for conspiring to use forged documents and thereby induced to grant import licenses. The magistrate acquitted all the accused. The High court reversed the order and convicted him for the substantive offence as well as conspiracy to commit such offences.
Held: The appellant could not be convicted when alleged co-conspirators were acquitted of the offence. When all the accused, except, one is acquitted of the charge the remaining one can’t be convicted unless the accused has conspired with any other person or has absconded, a minor below 7 years of age.
The appeal was allowed and the convictions were set aside.
Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa
The appellant – a government servant and four other accused were charged under Section 120B, 409 and 477A of IPC. For entering into a conspiracy to misuse government funds and falsified records to cover up their actions. One of the accused turned approver and the other three were acquitted but convicted the appellant.
It was held that the conviction was legal and justified because other than these four there was another person involved, who was granted immunity from prosecution as he turned out to be an approver.
The appeal was rejected.
State (Delhi Administration) v. VC Shukla, Sanjay Gandhi and Ors
VC Shukla and Sanjay Gandhi were convicted under Section 120B in respect of burning prints of the film “Kissa Kursi Ka” which according to prosecution was about the criticism of the functioning of the then central government.
PW1 applied for certification of the film in which with the ratio of 6:1, agreed for certification of the film.
At this time emergency was proclaimed due to which VC Shukla took charge as the Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting and thought that the film should be banned.
It was held that in criminal conspiracy there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to prove an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.
Since there is no such agreement it would result in acquittal.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu, (SC), (Parliament attack case)
To prove a criminal conspiracy that is punishable under section 120B there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. The accused had never contacted the deceased terrorist on the place but had helped one of the conspirators to flee to a safer place after the incident was not held guilty as a conspirator.
THIS MATERIAL CAN BE USED BY LAW AS WELL AS CS STUDENTS.
Read Similar articles:
For more information
