Attempt and Criminal Conspiracy under IPC

1. ATTEMPT AND CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY

2.  Attempt
 Definition
 Essentials
 Classification
 Test
 Conspiracy

3.  CRIME
 A Crime is an unlawful Act punished by the state or
any lawful authority. A crime or an offence is an act
which is harmful not only to the person but also to the
community, society or state. Such acts are forbidden
and punished by law.
Fundamental elements of a crime
 a) Mens rea (guilty mind)
 b) Actus reus ( guilty act )

4. The crime involves 4 different stages.
1. Intention
2. Preparation
3. Attempt
4. Completion of crime.

5.  ATTEMPT
The general meaning of attempt is an effort to achieve tasks
or activities.
An attempt to commit a crime is where an individual has the
requisite Mens rea and sets out commit the offence but falls
short of such a commission.
The attempt is not defined in the Indian penal code.

6.  For example, if A intends to kill B, he has the requisite
mens rea in such a commission of the act. If he loads
the gun in order to commit the act but falls short due to
either being caught before he could complete the act or
because the gun would not fire, he will not be liable for
the murder of B but for the attempted murder of B.

7.  (a.) STEPHEN : “An attempt is an act done with intent
to commit a crime, forming a part of a series of acts
which would constitute the actual commission if it was
not interrupted.”
 (b.) MAYNE : “An attempt is a direct movement
towards commission of an act after preparation has
been made.”

8.  (c.) COPEN CJ in Queen v McPherson [2014] VSCA 59
 “An attempt is something that falls short of the
commission.”
 (d.)State of Uttar Pradesh v Ram Chandran 1976 AIR
2547 “An attempt is an intentional act which a person
does towards the commission of offence but it fails.

9.  The following are the essentials of an attempt to
commit a crime-
 there must be “an intention to commit a crime”
 Act so done must be “in furtherance of that intention” or
“towards the accomplishment of that crime”
 The act must be “an incomplete work” or “fall short of a
completed crime”

10.  IPC deals 3 kinds of offences
 General provisions
s. 511 and compare with chapter IV by virtue of S. 40 of the IPC
and same as S. 34 both sections
cannot stand on its own.
 imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a
term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life
or, as the case may be, one- half of the longest term of
imprisonment provided for that offence or with such fine as is
provided for the offence, or with both.

11. S. 307 – Offence of attempt murder
10 Y-Hurt- Imprisonment for Life/B
S. 308 – offence of attempt culpable homicide
3 Year/F/B hurt-Imprisonment for life
S. 309 – Offence of attempted suicide
1Yr/F/B
S. 393 – Offence of attempted robbery
rig7Y+ F

12.  Provisions which contain the offence and attempt to
commit the offence and its prescribed
punishment
S. 121Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting
waging of war, against the Government of India.—D
/Imprisonment for Life + F

13.  Offences against the state (s. 121,s. 124, s. 124-A, s. 125, s.
130)
 Abetting mutiny (s. 131)
 Offences against the public tranquility (s. 152, s. 153-A)
 Offences against public justice (s. 196, s. 198, s. 200 and s.
213)
Offences relating to coins and government stamps (s. 239-
241 and s. 251)
 Offences relating to extortion, robbery and dacoity (s. 385,
s. 387, s. 389, s. 391, s. 397, s. 398) and
 Criminal trespass (s 460)

14. The intention coupled with some overt act to achieve that
intention amounts to crime as it is an attempt to commit a
crime.
An attempt is known as preliminary crime or inchoate crime
as it is something which is not yet complete. Inchoate
means ‘just begun, incipient, in the early stages’.
The inchoate crimes are observed as “a crime committed by
doing an act with the purpose of affecting some other
offence.”

15.  An attempt is defined in the case of Aman Kumar v.
State of Haryana LQ 2006 HC 3071 as follows:
 Attempt consist in it the intent to commit the crime.
 If any person failed to achieve that intention.

16.  In Aman Kumar v State of Haryana LQ 2006 HC
3071
 the Supreme Court held that the word ‘Attempt’ is to
be used in its ordinary meaning. There is a difference
between intention to commit offence and preparation.
Attempt begins and preparation ends. It means when
any step is taken towards committing that offence is
considered as ends of preparation and begins of
attempt.

17.  Proximity test
 Res ipsa loquitur test
 Equivocality test
 Locus Poenitentiae
 Probable Desistance Test
 Substantial step test

18. Proximity test measures the defendant’s progress by
examining how close the defendant is to completing the
offence. It measured the difference is the distance
between preparation for the offence and successfully
completion of that offence.
 Commonwealth V. Hamel 207 Va. 135 (1966)
The court held that the proximity rule amount left to be
done, not what has already been done, that is analyzed.

19.  R v. Taylor AIR 1970 SC 713, (1970) Cr Lj 750 (SC)
wherein A bought a matchbox and lit it near a haystack.
He then extinguished it perceiving that someone was
looking at him. If he had merely bought the matchbox
and not lit the matchstick, he would be absolved of any
responsibility. The lighting of the matchstick is the
actus reus necessary for prosecuting him for an attempt
to commit a crime.

20.  A ordered for making of 100 forms which are similar to the former
receipt forms used by Bengal Coal Company to some Burdwan Press.
First proof was altered and correct while the second proof was
suggested for corrections and alterations similar to that of the forms of
company. Police caught hold of them and charged them for attempted
forgery under section 464 of IPC
The court held that the act was not an attempt as the forms did not have
the name of the company nor its seal. This shows that the act was not
considered by the court to be proximate to the act of forgery i.e. when
there are the name and seal of the company, then it was ready or able to
cheat people with forged forms. Hence this case too helped in better
understanding what is the difference between attempt and preparation

21.  “In order to constitute ‘an attempt’
 first there must be an intention to commit a particular
offence,
 second, some act must have been done which would
necessarily have to be done towards the commission of
the offence and,
 third, such act must be proximate to the intended result.

22.  The measure of proximity is not in relation to time and
action but in relation to intention. The act must reveal, with
reasonable certainty, in conjunction with other facts and
circumstances and not necessarily in isolation, an intention,
as distinguished from a mere desire or object, to commit the
particular offence, though the act by itself may be merely
suggestive or indicative of such intention, but that it must
be indicative or suggestive of the intention”.
In this ruling, it shows that the judge wants the proximity
rule to mean proximate relation to that of the intention of
the accused to commit that crime.

23.  Res ipsa loquitur means the “the thing speaks for itself”
the test is also known as Unequivocality test. It
analyzes the facts of the each case separately and
independently.
 Under res ipsa loquitur or Unequivocality, the Trier of fact
must determine that at the moment the
defendant stopped progressing toward completion of the
offense, it was clear that the defendant had no other
purpose than commission of the specific crime at issue. This
determination is based on the defendant’s act—which
manifests the intent to commit the crime

24.  The Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been elaborately
discussed by the Supreme Court in this case.
 The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is
that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story.
There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself
so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the
accident and nothing more. It will then be for the
defendant to establish that the accident happened due to
some other cause than his own negligence

25.  Equivocality means susceptible of double interpretation, allowing the
possibility of several different meanings. The Equivocality test is used
to differentiate between preparation and attempt in a criminal case.
 State v . Ghanshyam on 19 September, 2012
 The Equivocality test: It is a situation wherein there are two opinions
about the crime here, as decided by the Madras High Court, an attempt
is an act of such a nature that it speaks for itself or that it is in itself
evidence of the criminal intent with which it is done. A criminal
attempt bears criminal intent upon its face. In other words, if what is
done indicates unequivocally and beyond reasonable doubt the
intention to commit the offence, it is an attempt, or else ti is a mere
preparation.

26.  This test is a mingle of the above two principles. This test requires the
unequivocal intention through the act done which is considered to be fulfilling
beyond a reasonable doubt that the end is towards the intended crime.
 State v. Parasmal AIR 1969 Raj 65, 1969 CriLJ 437
 The accused received an order on buying diesel of good quality and they asked
the customer to come the next day. That night the accused were seen mixing
the diesel with kerosene and were charged with the offence by the next day
 The accused claimed that what they did was mere preparation. Then the court
observed that when they knew that the customer was going to come the next
day and in furtherance, the accused tried to add diesel and kerosene night itself
so that they are not caught or seen by the customer. And they did so to act in a
way to cheat that diesel was of good quality.

27.  The test explains that, a person cannot be charged for
an attempt if he is in position to give up or abandon his
plan out of his own accord after the formation of Mens
rea. Such intentional withdrawal prior to the
commission or attempt to commit the act will be
termed as mere preparation for the commission of the
crime and no legal liability will be imposed.

28.  So, the intender may have changed his kind or have
feared the consequences or due to any other reason, if
the act is in control of the intender to not to commit the
offence, then it is said to be mere preparation and not
an attempt; hence not punishable under the Penal law

29.  Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1969) 1 SCC
157
 the accused were a truck driver and cleaner who were
caught hold near a barrier check post in Punjab which
was few miles away from the inter-state border of
Punjab and Delhi. Th hey were accused of carrying 75
bags of paddy illegally being smuggled along with
evidence of a letter written by consinger in Punjab to
consignee in Delhi.

30.  The accused were charged for acts, i.e., attempt to smuggle
paddy in violation of Punjab Paddy (Export Control)
Order 1959. The supreme court held that it is mere
preparation but not an act of attempt as the carrying of
paddy in a truck was such an act which had ample scope for
the accused to change their mind or to be obstructed.
 In this case, the judges observed that the accused might
have been stop or rejected to proceed further at any point in
between the inter-state border. Hence was not punishable.

31.  State of Maharashtra v. Mohammad Yakub (1980) 3
SCC 57
 stated that the doctrine of locus poenitentiae is not a
general rule and its application differed upon the case
of the case and therefore there was no responsibility on
the Court to apply this doctrine.

32.  The Police received information that silver will be transferred illegally out of
India and that silver will be carried in a jeep and truck to the Ship. The police
and Central excise officers followed the jeep and truck on the night of
September 14, 1968, at the National Highway- 8, Bombay. The Truck and Jeep
proceeded towards the new National Highway leading to Ghodbunder Creek.
The Jeep and truck stopped and some heavy but small metals were unloaded
from the truck and some were placed on the ground near the river. The Police
and Customs authorities approached them and as they approached they heard
the sound of the engine of sea craft from the creek. Respondent 1 was the sole
occupant of the Jeep and there were two persons in the truck. There were 4
silver ingots found on the ground towards the creek.15 silver ingots in the jeep
and 24 silver ingots in Truck which were concealed were found by the Police.
An unlicensed pistol from respondent 1 was also found during a personal
search. The Respondents plainly denied all the allegations and said that they
were just employed to carry the Jeep and Truck to another destination and they
were not aware of the Silver ingots. The Trial Magistrate found them guilty and
convicted them to rigorous imprisonment.

33.  Procedural History
 An appeal was preferred against the order of the Trial
Magistrate. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the
appeals and acquitted all the 3 Respondents on the ground
that the act of the Respondents only amounted to
‘Preparation’ and fell short of ‘Attempt’. The Prosecution
appealed to the High Court of Bombay which upheld their
acquittal and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the State of
Maharashtra preferred this appeal before the Supreme
Court.
 Issues-
 1. Whether in the present case, it could be inferred beyond a
reasonable doubt that the respondents had attempted to
export the silver in contravention of law from India?

34.  Conclusion
 The present case focuses on what constitutes an attempt.
The Court took a broader view rather than a narrow view.
The case was related to smuggling outside India and hence
the broader view of ‘attempt’ could prevent mischief and
also promote the objective of such laws. The Court also did
not accept the reasoning of Malkiat Singh’s case because
then every accused person can take the defense that he
about to change his mind. The Court laid down general
characteristics of ‘attempt’ because an apt definition cannot
be made since it will vary from case to case. Hence, the
Court laid down the general definition by taking a broader
perspective to give effect to the penal provisions.

35.  It examines how far the defendant has progressed
toward commission of the crime, rather than analyzing
how much the defendant has left to accomplish.

36.  Attempt is there for comprised of three elements,
 one is intent to commit a crime, conduct that constitutes a
substantial step toward completing the crime and the
 last one is a failure to complete the crime.
 In addition to intent, most state require that a prosecutor
also establish that the defendant took a substantial step goes
beyond mere preparation to commit the crime. Simply
discussing the crime or contemplating it with a friend is
also not enough. Rather, the act much be such that it moves
the defendant toward the successful completion o the crime,
even though the crime is not fully executed.

37.  Koppula Venkata Rao V. State of A.P
The supreme court has said that ‘attempt’ should be taken
as ordinary meaning, i.e. attempt to commit an offence
is an act or series of acts which leads inevitably to the
commission of the offence unless something which the
doer of the act neither foresaw not intended happens to
prevent this.

38.  State of Uttar Pradesh V. Ram Chandra
 An attempt is an international act which a
person does towards the commission of
offence but fills in its object through
circumstances independent of the violation of
the person attempt.

39.  Aman Kumar V. State of Haryana 2004 appeal
(Crl.) 1016
The court clarifies the elements in a attempt,
first one is attempt consist in it the intent to
commit the crime and another one is any
person failed to achieve that intention.

40.  S. 511
 Imposible acts-try to cause abortion-not
pregant

41.  The penal law punishes attempt only. But in exceptional cases,
the preparation to commit an offence is also punishable under the
code. They are as follows-
 Preparations made for waging war
Preparations made for committing depredations on territories of
any power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India.
(s 126)
 Making or selling or being in possession of instruments for
counterfeiting coins or government stamps. (ss 233-2 235 and
257)
 Possessing counterfeit coins, government stamps, false weight,
or measures. (ss 242, 243, 259 and 266)
 Preparations made for committing dacoity. (s 399)

42.  Santhosh Kumar.A.S vs State Of Kerala on 2
November, 2015
 Attempt to murder
 Amarjeetsingh Jagatarsingh ... vs The State Of Mah
on 8 May, 2015
 Section 307 of IPC with an accusation that
he attempted to commit murder by firing bullets in
the campus of the Court itself

43.  Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307 and
Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Ma
harashra
(2000) 3 SCC 557 in support of his submission that for
causing a
single stab injury, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted

44. CONSPIRACY

45.  Definition of Criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC
“When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be
done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal
means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy, provided that no agreement except an
agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance
thereof.”

46.  Rajiv Kumar v State of UP (2017) 6 ADJ 13 the court took out
some basic necessary ingredients in order to constitute
conspiracy,
 There must be two or more persons;
 There must be an illegal act or an act in an illegal way;
 There must be a meeting of minds;
 There must be an agreement regarding the same thing.
 The ingredients must be present in any act in order to
constitute it as a crime of criminal conspiracy.

47.  Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and
another (2013) 1 SCC 613
 The apex court held that the most important
ingredient is the intent to cause an illegal act.

48.  Ram Narayan Popli v CBI (2009) 8 SCC 617
 The court laid down several aspects of Criminal
Conspiracy,
 (a) an object to be accomplished,
 (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that
object,
 (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of
the accused persons whereby, they become definitely
committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the
object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any
effectual means, and

49.  Certain conditions as provided by Section 10 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 which furnishes principles of the agency have
been enumerated as follows:
The involvement of the parties forming an agreement must be proved
by prima facie evidence
After the aforementioned condition is satisfied, then anything done,
written or said in furtherance of the common intention will be evidence
against all the parties
Anything done, written or said by any of the conspirators post the
formation of common intention by any of the parties would be
admissible

50.  The crime is inherently psychological in nature. The
proof of such an act is also difficult. It can be
ascertained by the fact that some act was kept a secret.
However, this does not constitute an essential element
of the conspiracy. It can be done through:
 Direct Evidence or;
 Circumstantial Evidence

51.  It was held in the case of Quinn v. Leathern ([1901] A. C.
495).
 that inference is generally deduced from the acts of the
parties in pursuance of the predetermined acts. In such a
crime, circumstantial evidence and direct evidence turn out
to be the same because there has not been an act, yet. The
act is only being conspired.
 The Doctrine of Agency also comes into play in this
scenario. The fact that there was an agency in the
conspiracy may prove that there was involvement of this
person in the act. This was held in Bhagwan Swaroop Lai
Bishan Lai v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1971 SC 429

52.  In the case of Topan Das v State of Bombay [AIR 1953 SC
415].
 The court held that the person must not be alone in
conspiring for the offence. The accused was acquitted
from the case because he was the sole person who had
conspired for the crime. The acquittal of this case
meant that the person was liable for all the other
offences that had been committed and proved.

53.  Can there is the conviction of one only
Now the question is what if only one out of two or three
convicts is caught can the court make them punished for
criminal conspiracy because as we know that It is
mandatory to have minimum two-person, at first there is the
rule that there is no punishment if only one convict is found
but later in case of Bimbdhar pradhan vs. state of Orissa
1991 AIR (SC) 318
 it was held that court can convict only one person based on
sufficient evidence of the criminal conspiracy.
Point to be noted is that if in pursuance of crime there are
several small crimes committed than all of them will be
convicted for the same

54.  Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy (Section
120B)
 Death/Imprisonment for life/Rig-2 Yr.
 Parties-not commit offence-6M/F/B

55.  Rajaram Gupta vs Dharam Chand 1983 CriLJ 612
that the overact constituting a conspiracy are acts
either:
 Signifying the agreement
 Preparatory to the offence
 Also, the act constitutes the offence.

56.  Section 120B is mandated to be read with Section
196 of the CrPC. Without the prior leave of the
Central or the state Govt a court cannot take
cognizance of the criminal conspiracy to
 Perpetuate an offence against the state
 Promote communal displeasure Offend
religion’Perpetuate
 public mischief

57.  Similarly, without availing prior consent of the
Central or State Govt. or the district magistrate, a
court cannot take cognizance of the following
conspiracy to:
 Institution of an act adverse to the national integrity
Bring into existence and promote hatred and contempt
amongst racial groups and religious groups

58.  It is important to note that the objective to do such a crime
is very important in this act. In the case of Mulcahy v.
Regina [2000] EWCA Crim 106 it was said that the criminal
intent of doing an act is very indispensable from
constituting an act of conspiracy. In Rex v. Jones [1987] Crim
LR 123 it was first held that “Criminal Conspiracy ought to
charge a conspiracy, either to do an unlawful act or a lawful
act by unlawful means”. The idea of intent extends in
various cases in national and international law. Many have
argued on the constitution of the ‘unlawful’ act. The real
meaning to that is still getting scrutinised by the courts,
however, we can still count that as anything which is
against the law.

59.  Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states the
offence of Abetment. The section states that:
 If a person is aiding in an illegal act;
 Instigates a person to do an illegal act;
 Engages in a conspiracy and an act is performed in
pursuance of the conspiracy.
 Section 120B is suggestive of the punishment of conspiracy.
The basic difference lies in the fact that in one case, there
just needs to be a meeting of minds in order to do an illegal
act, abetment requires an act in pursuance of the agreement.
 Another point is that abetment involves aiding in a crime or
a conspiracy, whereas criminal conspiracy just requires a
meeting of minds.

60.  Commonly known as the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
 Facts: In this case, Prabakaran, Pottu, Amman, Akhila, and
Shrinivasan were the mastermind in an operation to kill
Rajiv Gandhi. The act was executed by Sivarasan, and
Dhanu and another was accused which provided them a
haven for the crime before and after their act.
 Judgment: The apex Court held that agreement between two
or more persons to do an illegal act amounts to the offence
of conspiracy. The person is not forced to take part in the
act actively. They were punished under Section 120(B) read
with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

61.  Sanichar Sahani vs State of Bihar (2009)
 Facts: In this case, the person was accused of
conspiring to murder his brother and his father for not
paying rangdhari under S.120B read with S. 300 of the
Indian Penal Code.
 Judgment: The Apex Court set aside the appeal the
appellant was held liable of the offence and there was
no prejudice against the appellant for framing such
charge. He was thus convinced under Section 120B
read with Section 300 of the Indian penal Code.

62.  Mohd Afzal Guru Shaukat hassian Guru vs State of NCT
Delhi (2005).
 Facts: In this case, five heavily-armed terrorists entered the
parliamentary house due to which many people died. All the terrorists
which were involved in this act. There were four accused namely Mohd
Afzal Guru, Shaukat Hussain, As Gillaini, Afsan guru. They were
accused of helping the terrorist from outside.
 Judgment: The Court convicted three terrorists under S.
121A, S302A read with S. 120A of the Indian Penal Code. However the
fourth accused was released from all his charges. The Court
condemned this act and ordered death sentences to the other accused.
 Though they didn’t take active participation in the act still they were
convicted of the offence because they had the common intention to
wage a war against the government.

63.  Mohammad Ajmal Kasab vs State of
Maharashtra (2012)
 Facts: In this case, the accused was one of the terrorists
who was involved in the Mumbai terror attack. Ten
terrorists including Kasab landed in Mumbai; they
killed many people across various places in Mumbai.
The death penalty of the accused was challenged in the
Supreme Court.
 Judgment: The Court dismissed the appeal of the
accused and held that the act committed by the accused
to wage a war against the government.

64.  The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment
dated 17.1.1995 found the appellants guilty and
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life
under section 120-B and to undergo a similar sentence
under section 302 read with section 120-B and section
34 IPC. The appellants were also found guilty and
sentenced to undergo RI for five years under section
201 read with section 120-B and section 34 IPC. The
appellants were found not guilty of the offences
charged under different sections of the IPC and sections
25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

65.  Param Hans Yadav Vs State Of Bihar 1987 AIR 955, 1987
SCR (2) 405
In this case, it was observed that it is difficult to support the
charges of conspiracy with direct evidence the only way by
which the one can prove is criminal conspiracy the prosecution
has to establish the link between the different chain events.
Hiralal harilal bhagwati vs CBI (2009)11 SCC 529
It was believed that to set up the charges of conspiracy first you
have to establish that there is an agreement between the parties.

66.  the Supreme Court held that where two Chartered
Accountants had dishonestly and fraudulently opened
several fictitious accounts in some banks with an intention
and object to facilitate of bank finance for the purpose other
than stated in the loan application. The accused persons
submitted to the bank, fake and forged invoices of
fictitious/non-existent supplier. The essential ingredient of
criminal conspiracy is agreement to commit offence
between accused and the commission of crime alone is
enough to bring about a conviction under section 120B. The
appellant with Directors and Chartered Accountant
defrauded revenue and in the process cheated the public
exchequer of crores of rupees and were convicted under
section 120B, 420, 409 and 471

67.  Scope of the Principle of Joint Liability as Provided in
Section 34
 The section only provides for the constitution of joint
liability, not the punishment. This section is only a rule
of evidence and does not constitute a substantive
offence. It provides for the principle of constructive
liability. As this section is not an offence in itself, this
section is always read with other sections under the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. This is the limited scope of
joint liability under Section 34, Indian Penal Code,
1860.

68.  In the case of Chhotu v State of Maharashtra AIR 1997
SC 3501, the complainant and the proofs proved that
there were three persons assaulting the victim. The
three persons were held liable under joint liability and
assault. So. it can be deduced that the section cannot be
read alone and requires to be read with some other
section under the statute of India.

69.  Scope of ‘Common Intention’
 Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, specifies that there must
be a common intention along with the unlawful act. The section
holds the people in the act of unlawful assembly jointly liable for
the act done through a common intention.
 In the case of Queen v Sabib Ali (1894) I.L.R. 21, common intention
was viewed as a pathway to complete the unlawful action.
 In the case of Ganesh Singh v Ram Raja (1869) 3 Beng LR (PC) 44, 45 the
court said that the common objective must be achieved through a
common intention of doing the task. It is generally ascertained by
prior meetings, meeting of minds and pre-arranged plans of
doing something which is not legal.

70.  Relevant legal provisions
 The relevant legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code which
deal with the offence of criminal conspiracy are as follows:
 Section 120A and Section 120B which deal with conspiracy as a
substantive offence, i.e., an act, which in itself constitutes as a
crime, and a punishment for the same;
 Section 107, which deals with conspiracy as it being a form of
abetment;
 Section 121A which deals with an act constituting an offence of
conspiracy to wage, attempt to, or abet war against the
Government of India;
 Section 310, Section 311, Section 400, Section 401 and Section
402, which deal with conspiracy as constituting involvement in
the commission of an offence.

71.  In this case, the court submitted that since there was no
prima facie evidence showing an alleged conspiracy
and that the mere presence of a few assumed entries
and loose sheets cannot entertain the above offence, the
court humbly acquitted the accused on the counts of the
offence of criminal conspiracy and further explained
that to establish conspiracy there shall be evidence of
acting on a common intention to carry out an illegal
act.

72.  The court in the aforementioned case stated that it is an established rule
of the law that only one person cannot conspire and that there should be
at least two persons for the same, and can be never be held guilty of
criminal conspiracy since one cannot conspire with oneself.
 B. Narsimha Rao v. Govt. of A.P AIR 1996 SC 64
 In this case, the appellant was convicted of an offence of criminal
conspiracy along with seven others. However, he alone was charged
with offences under Ss. 120-B, 409 and 471, IPC under section 5(1)(c)
and 5(l)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption Act,
1947. Simultaneously, all the other co-conspirators were acquitted by
the Trial Court and the High Court. In the end, the Supreme Court
acquitted the accused on the facts that there had to be another person to
communicate with and carry out the agreement and that a single person
can never be accounted for conspiracy.

73.  The Supreme Court in the above case contended that
“where the matter has gone beyond the stage of mere
conspiracy and offences are alleged to have been
committed in pursuance thereof the accused can be
charged with the specific offences alleged to have
flown out of the conspiracy along with the charge of
conspiracy. The court observed, “Conspiracy to commit
an offence is itself an offence and a person can be
separately charged with respect to such a conspiracy”.

74.  In the above case the court observed that: “To prove a
criminal conspiracy which is punishable under S. 120-B of
IPC, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to
show that there was an agreement between two or more
persons to commit an offence. This envisages that there
must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate
decision taken by the conspirators regarding the
commission of an offence. It is true that in most cases it will
be difficult to get direct evidence of an agreement to
conspire but a conspiracy can be inferred even from
circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible
inference of an agreement between two or more persons to
commit an offence.”

75.  The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general rule
that in order to constitute a crime, both mens rea and actus rea must be
involved, here merely guilty mind is sufficient to render a person guilty
if the agreement was to commit an illegal act. However, an act, or actus
reus becomes essential again if the object of the agreement was to do a
lawful act by unlawful means. The criminal conspiracy can be inferred
from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the suspected
or the accused person. A person found to be guilty of criminal
conspiracy, is punished under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. This Section of the Code, is slowly losing its essence and there is
a need to ensure that due diligence is maintained in cases of criminal
conspiracy to propagate true manifestation of the law and justice. The
well-established principle of criminal law, ‘fouler the crime, higher the
proof required’ must be kept in mind, and the sanctity of law upheld.

76. THANK YOU
PRINCY A.F
Mail; princyaf555@gmail.com