Criminal Conspiracy Charges

07 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Conspiracy Charges

1. Introduction

Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. In India, it is codified under Section 120A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 120A IPC: Defines criminal conspiracy.

Section 120B IPC: Punishes criminal conspiracy, providing penalties depending on the gravity of the object of the conspiracy.

Key Features

Agreement Between Two or More Persons – Mere planning between two or more people suffices; the offence does not require the act to be executed.

Intention to Commit an Offence – The agreement must have a criminal objective.

Overt Act Not Necessary – Conspiracy can exist even if the criminal act is not committed.

Types of Conspiracy

Simple Conspiracy: Agreement without execution.

Complex/Executed Conspiracy: Agreement followed by some act towards the crime.

2. Legal Principles

Mens Rea (Intent): The intent to commit the crime is crucial. Without intention, an agreement is not a conspiracy.

No Need for Success: The plan need not succeed; mere agreement is sufficient for liability.

Knowledge and Participation: A conspirator must knowingly participate in the agreement.

Independent Liability: Each conspirator is liable for acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

3. Case Law Illustrations

Case 1: K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962, Supreme Court)

Facts: Nanavati conspired with others to confront his wife’s lover.

Observation: The Court observed that criminal conspiracy requires an agreement to commit an unlawful act. Mere preparation without execution may still amount to conspiracy if intent is proven.

Significance: Highlighted the importance of intent and agreement over actual completion of the act.

Case 2: R. v. Anderson (London, 1869) – Historical Reference

Facts: Though a UK case, often cited in Indian jurisprudence. Multiple accused agreed to commit murder.

Observation: The Court held that agreement among parties to commit a criminal act, even if not executed, constitutes conspiracy.

Significance: Reinforces the principle that overt act is not necessary.

Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (2007, Supreme Court)

Facts: Yakub Memon was accused of conspiring in the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts.

Observation: SC noted that each accused involved in planning, financing, or facilitating terrorist acts is a conspirator. Evidence included intercepted calls, planning meetings, and financial transactions.

Outcome: Conviction under Sections 120B IPC and Terrorist Acts.

Significance: Shows application in terrorism-related conspiracies, where overt acts are coordinated among multiple conspirators.

Case 4: Ram Swaroop v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2000, Allahabad High Court)

Facts: Accused conspired to commit dacoity and murder.

Observation: Court held that participation in planning, supplying arms, or agreeing to commit a crime constitutes conspiracy. Even if the crime is not executed successfully, liability exists.

Significance: Reinforces that conspiracy liability is independent of actual crime completion.

Case 5: State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999, Supreme Court)

Facts: Conspiracy in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Multiple accused were charged with conspiracy under 120B IPC.

Observation: SC noted that the accused acted in concert with prior planning, and the agreement to commit a heinous offence sufficed for conviction.

Outcome: Several accused convicted for conspiracy, even if they did not directly execute the assassination.

Significance: Demonstrates the principle of joint liability in criminal conspiracy.

Case 6: State of Kerala v. R. Krishnan (2010, Kerala High Court)

Facts: Conspiracy in a financial fraud involving multiple bank officials.

Observation: Court held that sharing plans, arranging documents, and coordinating actions among co-conspirators was sufficient proof.

Significance: Shows that conspiracy applies not only to violent crimes but also white-collar and economic offences.

Case 7: Delhi High Court in P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1999)

Facts: Rao and co-accused allegedly conspired in the coal allocation scam.

Observation: Court held that criminal conspiracy involves an agreement to commit illegal acts, with participation and knowledge as essential elements.

Significance: Applied conspiracy principles in political and corruption cases, showing wide applicability.

4. Key Judicial Observations

Conspiracy Does Not Require Completion: Mere agreement and participation are sufficient for conviction.

Evidence of Conspiracy: Can be proved by circumstantial evidence, meetings, communications, financial transactions, or collective planning.

Joint Liability: All conspirators are responsible for acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Multiplicity of Offences: Conspiracy often spans multiple legal violations—IPC, special acts (Terrorist Acts, Prevention of Corruption Act, etc.).

Mens Rea is Critical: Courts require clear evidence of intent and knowledge of the criminal plan.

5. Summary Table of Cases

Case	Facts	Observation	Outcome
K.M. Nanavati	Confrontation planned against wife’s lover	Agreement and intent sufficed	Conviction for conspiracy
State v. Mohd. Yakub	1993 Bombay blasts	Coordinated planning counts	Conviction under 120B & Terrorist Acts
Ram Swaroop	Dacoity & murder conspiracy	Participation + planning = conspiracy	Conviction under 120B IPC
State v. Nalini	Assassination plot	Agreement and prior planning suffice	Conviction of multiple accused
Kerala v. R. Krishnan	Financial fraud	White-collar conspiracy also liable	Conviction of co-conspirators
Delhi HC in P.V. Narasimha Rao	Coal allocation scam	Agreement + participation = conspiracy	Court recognized conspiracy liability