A criminal conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Section 61(1) defines 'criminal conspiracy' and Section 61(2) provides punishment for criminal conspiracy.
Essential ingredients of Section 61(1)
Following are the essential ingredients of Section 61(1):-
1. An agreement between two or more persons with the common object to do or cause to be done -
i. An illegal act; or
ii. A legal act by illegal means;
2. An overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy is necessary in cases other than the conspiracy to commit an offence.
In case of a conspiracy to commit an offence, mere agreement is sufficient to impose liability. Overt act is not necessary. Whereas, in case of a conspiracy to do a legal act by illegal means, there ought to be some overt act. It must be noted here that in Section 61(1), the term 'act' is prefixed by the 'Illegal'. The term 'Illegal' is defined in Section 2(15) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. It is applicable to everthing which is (1) an offence, or which is (2) prohibited by law of which (3) furnishes ground for a civil action. For an offence under Section 61(1) a mere agreement is enough if the agreement is to commit an offence. An overt act is necessary only when the object of conspiracy is the commission of an illegal act not amounting to an offence.
In Mohd. Khalid. v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334 Supreme Court summarised the law relating to conspiracy by stating broad essentails:-
1. An object to be accomplished.
2. A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object.
3. An agreement or understanding between two or more persons.
4. An overt act in pursuance of an agreement (in case of non-offence act).
Agreement is sine qua non for the offence. Agreement consists of scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied. It is not necessary that all conspirators know each other. Each conspirator may have a separate part in one integrated scheme [State of Karnataka v. Selvi J Jayalalitha, (2017) 6 SCC 263].
In Yogesh alia Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 8 SCC 617 Supreme Court held that to constitute an offence of conspiracy meeting of mind of two or more persons is sine qua non. Conspiracy can be inferred from surrounding circumstances as direct proof is difficult to find.
Supreme Court in State v. Nalini, AIR 1999 SC 2640 held that agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act amounts to criminal conspiracy. The court further said that each one of the conspirators need not have taken active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial act. Court held that mere association of the accused with the main accused or knowledge of conspiracy would not make the accused a conspirator. There has to be meeting of minds of those persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means. In Nalini's case Supreme Court laid down the following main principles governing the law of conspiracy:-
1. Offence of conspiracy is an exception to the general rule that intent alone does not constitute crime. It is the intention to commit crime that is punishable.
2. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time.
3. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused had knowledge of the object of the conspiracy, but also the agreement between theem. It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment which is the gist of the offence. Such agreement need not be formal or express. It can be inferred from the circumstances.
4. Conspiracy is hatched in privacy and in secrecy. It is rarely possible to find direct evidence establishing conspiracy. Therefore, circumstantial evidence plays a major role.
5. A Conspirator is not responsible for the acts of co-conspirator after the termination of conspiracy.
In Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharshtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 Supreme Court held that merely because the accused has been charged with larger conspiracy to destabilize the Government of India and to weaken its economic power, it cannot be said that the charge of conspiracy was vague.
Requirement of two or more persons: Since the conspiracy is an agreement it logically follows that there must be at least two persons. In Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1954 SC 469 the Supreme Court observed that it is not essential that more than one person should be convicted of the offence of conspiracy. It is enough if the court is in a position to find that two or more persons wre actually concerned in the conspiracy.
Supreme Court in Mohd. Arif v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2011) 13 SCC 621 placed reliance on Bimbadhar Pradhan's case and reiterated that it is not essential that more than one person should be convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy. Sole accused can be convicted if prosecution proves that he hatched the conspiracy with others and the Court is convinced that some other persons were actually involved in the conspiracy.
Punishment for conspiracy
Section 61(2) provides punishment for conspiracy. It provides that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigourous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this sanhita for the punishment of such a conspiracy, by punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence and whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit and offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine of with both.
0 Comments