CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE

**** **** **** **** **** **** ****
Law of Crimes - I
**** **** **** **** **** **** ****
PROJECT REPORT
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Under the Supervision of: Prof. Dr. P.K. MISHRA
Professor,
HOD AND DEAN,
School of Law & Governance
Central University of South Bihar.
Submitted By: -
Shivam Mishra
B.A. LL.B (Hons.)
3rd Semester (2018-2023)
Enrollment Number - CUSB1813125096

1|Page
 PREFACE

As a part of the B.A. LL.B. Curriculum (as prescribed by The Bar Council of
India) and in order to gain practical cum research knowledge in the field of law,
I’m required to make a report on prescribed topic as per given by the authority
(my mentor cum teacher). Here, I have got the topic Criminal Conspiracy. I
required to make a report on the specified topic. The Basic Objectives behind
doing this project report is to get knowledge tools of the term and
consequences of Law of Crimes-I.

In this project report I have included various concepts, effects and

implications regarding celebrity endorsement and analyses of the decision of
Hon’ble Court of Justice.

Doing this Project report helped me to enhance my knowledge regarding

the endorsement and implications of applying analytical cum factual occurrence
in this specified happened case so as on which undergoes with many
experiences related with my topic concerned.

2|Page
 Acknowledgement

I, Shivam Mishra take extreme pleasure in expressing my profound gratitude towards my Law of
Crimes teacher Pawan sir (Professor, School of Law and Governance) for inspiring me and giving
me the invaluable guidance and constant support throughout the course of my project work. I have
taken efforts in thus kind project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support
of my teacher, friends, colleagues and many more individual persons, writers, college staffs,
librarians and other sources of e-resource. I would like to sincere thanks to all of them.

I thank my parents for providing me everything whatever be required for the completion of this
project.

Finally, I would like to thanks all Kith & Kins who are a little bit part in helping me for this kind
project.

Shivam Mishra
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
3rd Semester (2018 – 2023)
E. No. -CUSB1813125096
3|Page
 Index

S.NO. CONTENT PAGE NUMBER

01. List of Cases 05

02. INTRODUCTION 06-07

03. Ingredients of criminal conspiracy 08

04. Section 120A 09-10

05. Elements of Crime 10-11

06. Evidence Section 10. 12

07. Case Law 13-17

08. Section 120B 17

09. Conclusion 18

10. Bibliography 19

4|Page
 List of Cases
1. Ajeet Singh Chauhan and others v State of U.P. and others\
2. N. Ratnakumari v State of Odisha and others
3. Pawan Kumar Mittal and others v State of Uttar Pradesh and another
4. State of Tamil Nadu Through Superintendent of Police CBI /SIT Vs Nalini
5. Bimbadhar Pradhan vs The State of Orissa

5|Page
 INTRODUCTION

Definition of criminal conspiracy

Section 120A. When two or more persons agree to do, or come to be done, -
1. an illegal act, or
2. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designed 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.
According to Britannica Encyclopaedia Conspiracy, in common law, an agreement between two or
more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful
means. Conspiracy is perhaps the most amorphous area in Anglo-American criminal law. Its terms are
vaguer and more elastic than any conception of conspiracy to be found in the continental European
codes or their imitators. In most civil-law countries, the punishment of agreements to commit
offenses, irrespective of whether the criminal purpose was attempted or executed, is largely confined
to political offenses against the state.

According to Duhaime’s Law Dictionary An agreement between two or more persons to commit a
criminal act.

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary the act of conspiring together.

According to Cambridge Dictionary the activity of secretly planning with other people to do
something bad or illegal.

Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons formed for the purpose of
committing a crime. It came into existence by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1913. Offence of
criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where the intent alone does not constitute a
crime. The application and to the evidence necessary to prove the existence of the agreement.
Criminalization of conspiracy performs two functions. The first function is that performed by any
inchoate offense-the interruption of criminal activity prior to its completion. At least in theory,
conspiracy subjects the defendant to criminal sanctions at a stage earlier than any other offense, even
attempt. "[Every criminal conspiracy is not an attempt. One may become guilty of conspiracy long
before his act has come so dangerously near to completion as to make him criminally liable for the
attempted crime." The courts rarely have stated the rationale for this early sanction, although a few
commentators have offered justifications for it, arguing that individuals who band together have
6|Page
expressed, immediately upon their agreement, a clear intent to violate society's laws. Also, it is
argued that when more than one person agrees to engage in the criminal activity, the likelihood of the
1
accomplishment of the crime is increased.

The effort of an individual to disturb this equilibrium can never be perceptible, nor carry the operation
of his interest on that of any other individual, beyond the limits of fair competition; but the increase of
power by combination of means, being in geometrical proportion to the number concerned, an
association may be able to give an impulse, not only oppressive to individuals, but mischievous to the
public at large; and it is the employment of an engine so powerful and dangerous, that gives
criminality to an act that would be perfectly innocent, at least in a legal view, when done by an
individual.'

Conspiracy is a crime at the moment the agreement is formed, or at the moment some minor act is
taken in furtherance of that agreement. This is an earlier stage of criminal activity than is required for
attempt, which usually involves either a substantial step toward the commission of the contemplated
crime, or else "conduct that, in fact, amounts to more than mere preparation for, and indicates intent
to complete, the commission of the crime. Regardless of whether attempt could handle the inchoate
conspiracy activities in theory, or whether it would be desirable, attempt would seem to be able to
handle those situations in which prosecutors actually charge conspiracy. Conversations with
prosecutors confirmed this. One stated that "[no one will prosecute a case without an overt act;
generally, there is at least an attempt unless you have an informant which is the rare situation, for you
find out about the conspiratorial relationship from the overt act."

A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more
to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in
intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in
itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being
enforced, if lawful, punishable of for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means.

1
scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1636&context..
7|Page
 Ingredients of criminal conspiracy

Unlawful agreement:

It is an element of a criminal conspiracy. Generally, the crime of conspiracy is complete when parties
enter into a conspiratorial agreement. Moreover, if there is an agreement between two or more
persons for an unlawful purpose, it is considered a criminal conspiracy even where there is no
agreement regarding the details of the criminal scheme or the means by which the unlawful purpose
will be accomplished. The agreement will determine whether single or multiple conspiracies exist
between the parties. A single conspiratorial agreement will constitute a single criminal conspiracy
and multiple agreements to commit separate crimes will constitute multiple conspiracies.

Similarly, conspiracy is considered a specific intent crime. A specific intent crime is one in which a
person acts with knowledge of what he/she is doing and also with the objective of completing some
unlawful act. The intent can be determined from words, acts, and conduct. If the conspirators agree
or conspire with specific intent to kill and commit an overt act in furtherance of such agreement, then
they are guilty of conspiracy to commit express malice murder.2

Knowledge: -

To be more specific, to make a person liable for criminal conspiracy as a co-conspirator, he/she must
have knowledge of the existence of the conspiracy and knowledge of the illegal object of the
conspiracy. At the same time, a person having no knowledge of a conspiracy cannot be considered a
conspirator.

Similarly, in order to satisfy the statute, the government must prove that a conspirator committed an
overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. A conspiracy conviction requires proof of the commission
of at least one overt act by one of the conspirators within the five-year statutory period in furtherance
of the conspiratorial agreement

2
Ajeet Singh Chauhan and others v State of U.P. and others

8|Page
 SECTION 120A
Section 120-A of the I.P.C. defines ‘conspiracy’ to mean that 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 as “criminal conspiracy.

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
furtherance thereof.

The main thing on which criminality lies under this section is the “agreement”, which requires at least
two persons. Here ‘Agreement’ is not merely the stage of intention which is not culpable, but is much
more than that.

It is a plan or a design to bring in action. The plot is an act in itself. It is not necessary that all the
members of the conspiracy must be aware of each detail of the conspiracy, but it is essential and
required that there has to be a common design among them and every conspirator from his end of the
design must carry out into effect or execute the plan.

However, every conspirator will be aware of the major and important details of the conspiracy if not
the minutest details.

For example- If there is a conspiracy of committing a murder amongst some persons, each of the
conspirator will have to be aware of the major detail of the conspiracy in order to execute the plan
properly. Major details here would be, who is to be murdered and how, when he is to be murdered
and by whom, even though the other minute details might not be known to each of them.

In determining criminal conspiracy it is immaterial whether the ultimate object of the agreement is
such illegal act or not. A conspirator to commit an offence punishable with death imprisonment for
life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upward and no specific provision is made for
such conspiracy then the offender will be punished in the same manner as he has abetted the offence.
If the conspiracy is not to commit an offence then the provided punishment shall be term not
exceeding six months or fine or both.

9|Page
It is important that the culpability of an offence is inconsonance with the degree or grade of the act of
perpetrator, while determining the guilt of the accused persons, the degree and the act of the
participants in the offence has to be carefully and cautiously assessed.

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME:

The Act of Agreement. -

Although every other common-law crime includes both a criminal act and a criminal intent, it has
been contended that the law of conspiracy punishes intent alone. Such a view seems unjustified. In its
early development the crime might have been explained by considering its criminal act to be the
physical act of communicating, by words or otherwise, mutual adherence to a common enterprise; for
originally the statute of limitations began to run on a conspiracy as soon as this communication was
made. Today, however, it is established that conspiracy is a continuing crime, extending beyond the
initial communication of agreement. It seems, therefore, that the criminal act of the modern crime is
not the communication of agreement, but the act of agreement itself, that is, the continuous and
conscious union of wills upon a common undertaking.

While this act is not physical, it still goes beyond the completely internal and subjective act of
intending. It requires on the part of each conspirator communion with a mind and will outside
himself, and it must be initiated by a communication of common intention and assent through
physical means. If some principle of law demands that the line of criminal responsibility never be
drawn short of a physical act, the act of agreeing should go unnoticed. But the line the common law
has chosen does not seem irrational. "Indeed, it seems a reduction to absurdity, that procuring a single
stand of arms should be a sufficient overt act to make the disloyal design indictable, and that
conspiring with a thousand men to enlist should not."

The Criminal Intent: -

In actuality, conspiracy defies division into the classic elements of criminal act and criminal intent,
since the act, being volitional, includes within itself the intent. For purposes of analysis, however, the
division remains meaningful. Therefore, this section is devoted to a second consideration of intent,
this time apart from its function as an element necessary to the commission of the criminal act, and in
its role as the mens rea required for criminal guilt under the common law' Specific Intent. - It has been
10 | P a g e
said that conspiracy requires "specific intent." This phrase is properly used to denote something more
than merely a corrupt or wrongful purpose; it indicates a particular kind of purpose characteristic of
the particular "species" of crime. Larceny, for example, requires the specific intent to deprive
someone of his property permanently. The intent to deprive him of it only temporarily, while it may
be corrupt and wrongful, will not support a conviction3. It has been observed that there are really two
intents required for the crime of conspiracy: an intent to agree and an intent to achieve the object of
the agreement. As applied to the former, the statement that conspiracy requires a specific intent is
clearly correct, for the intent to agree is indispensable to, and characteristic of, this species of crime.
But if the statement is meant to apply to the second intent, as appears to be the case, it seems
inaccurate. It is difficult, in fact, to conceive of any crime in which the intent is less specific.

Wrongful Intent. -

A question of more practical significance than whether the intent in the crime of conspiracy is specific
is whether it need be wrongful, that is, whether any mens rea need be shown at all. The view which
has won general acceptance in this country was first proposed in People v. Powell and was later well
expressed by Justice Qua in Commonwealth v. Benesch: "In the case of conspiracy, as with other
common law crimes, it is necessary that criminal intent be shown. Speaking in general terms, there
must be an intent to do wrong." If the act that is conspired to is malum in se, this intent merely
requires knowledge of the relevant facts, so that the parties know what they are planning; but if it is
an act not wrongful in itself and merely made unlawful by statute, the requisite intent to do wrong
does not exist without knowledge that the contemplated acts violate the law. Therefore, even when
the commission of a particular substantive offense does not require scienter, conspiracy to commit
that offense does. Such a view seems consistent with the general-danger rationale of conspiracy, since
it is difficult to say that a grouping is inherently antisocial and poses a continuing threat merely
because a contemplated act which it thinks to be lawful is in fact unlawful. It may be argued that if
the group plans such an act once, it may do so again, and so does constitute a continuing danger. But
merely informing the group of the illegality of its object, rather than invoking the severe sanction of
criminal punishment, may be all that is necessary to end such danger. If this is not effective, then the
group in its subsequent activity will possess the requisite scienter, and so will be antisocial and
punishable as a conspiracy.

3 N. Ratnakumari v State of Odisha and others

11 | P a g e
 Evidence

The problems of the conspiracy trial are complicated by the special evidentiary rules which apply to
this crime. The existence of conspiracy is usually proved in one or more of three ways: by
circumstantial evidence, by the testimony of a co-conspirator who has turned state's evidence, or by
evidence of the out-of-court declarations or acts of a co-conspirator or of the defendant himself.

1)Circumstantial Evidence: -

The gist of the conspiracy is the agreement, although many jurisdictions require an overt act in
addition. Since conspiracy is a crime which by its nature tends to be secret, the agreement is seldom
susceptible of direct proof. Most conspiracy convictions therefore rest on inferences from
circumstantial evidence. Further, there can be a conspiracy even if there is no express communication
of agreement. 4As a result, the courts have established less stringent standards of relevance for the
admission of circumstantial evidence in conspiracy trials than for other crimes. "Wide latitude is
allowed [the prosecution] in presenting evidence, and it is within the discretion of the trial court to
admit evidence which even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged." Evidence of criminal
offenses less related to the crime charged is allowed in conspiracy prosecutions"' than in the
prosecution of crimes other than conspiracy. Finally, once the jury has found an agreement, only
slight additional evidence is necessary to connect the defendant with the conspiracy. In these respects
the courts seem to be overcompensating for the difficulties faced by the prosecution.

2) Testimony of a Co-conspirator -

The testimony of a co-conspirator as to facts within his knowledge involves no hearsay problem,
since the statements are given on the stand and are open to cross-examination. Some states, however,
have statutory provisions that this testimony must be corroborated, although there is no such federal
statute. This requirement is sometimes relaxed by imposing a less rigid standard for corroborative
evidence in a conspiracy trial than would usually be the case.

4
Pawan Kumar Mittal and others v State of Uttar Pradesh and another

12 | P a g e
 Case Law
State of Tamil Nadu Through Superintendent of Police CBI /SIT Vs Nalini5

Under section 120A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons
agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is legal act by
illegal means overact is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general law
where the intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit and joining hands with
persons having the same intention. Not one intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the
object intention which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case all the accused had the
intention and did they agree that the crime committed. It would not be enough for the offence of
conspiracy where the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it that offence be
committed.

 Acts subsequent to the achieving of object of conspiracy may tend to that a particular accused
was party to the conspiracy. Once the conspiracy has been achieved any subsequent act which
may be would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy like giving should absconder.
 Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely establishing a conspiracy by direct
evidence. Usually both the existence conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the
circumstance conduct of the accused.
 Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by
direct evidence. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be
inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
 conspirators may for example be enrolled in chain A and enrolling B, B enrolling in C, and so
on and all will be members of the single conspiracy if they so intend and agree, even though
each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the person whom he enrolls. there
may be a kind of umbrella - spoke enrollment, where a single person at the centre doing the
enrolling and all the other members being unknown to each other though they know that there
are to be other members.
 These are theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell whether the conspiracy in a
particular case falls into which category. it may however even overlap. but then there has to be

5
AIR (1999) 5 SCC 253

13 | P a g e
 present mutual interest. persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is
ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of
the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active
role.
 It is not necessary that all the conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same
time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the
intended objective, and all are equally responsible.
 What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a
conspirator is to play may not be known to every one or the fact as to when a conspirator
joined the conspiracy and when he left.
 A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it is forced them into a joint trial
and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has
to procedure evidence not only shown that each of the accused has knowledge of object of
conspiracy but also of the agreement.
 In the charge of the conspiracy court has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the
accused. Introduction of evidence against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to
be avoided.

Case Analysis: -

 On the night of 21.5.1991 a diabolical crime was committed. It stunned the whole nation.
Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by a human bomb. With him
15 persons including 9 policemen perished and 43 suffered grievous or simple injuries.
Assassin Dhanu an LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) activist, who detonated the belt
bomb concealed under her waist and Haribabu, a photographer (and also a conspirator)
engaged to take photographs of the horrific sight, also died in the blast.
 As in any crime, criminals leave some footprints. In this case it was a camera which was
found intact on the body of Haribabu at the scene of the crime. Film in the camera when
developed led to unfolding of the dastardly act committed by the accused and others. A charge
of conspiracy for offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 (TADA), Indian Penal Code (IPC), Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Arms Act,
1959, Passport Act, 1967, Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act,
1933 was laid against 41 persons, 12 of whom were already dead having committed suicide

14 | P a g e
 and three absconded. Out of these, 26 faced the trial before the Designated Court. Prosecution
examined 288 witnesses and produced numerous documents and material objects.
 Statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Code). They denied their involvement. The Designated Court found them guilty of
the offences charged against them. Thereafter all the accused were heard on the question of
sentence. Designated Court awarded death sentence to all of them on the charge of conspiracy
to murder. "A judicial massacre", bemoaned Mr. Natarajan, learned senior counsel for the
accused, and rightly so in our opinion. Designated Court also sentenced each of the accused
individually for various offences for which they had been separately charged.
 In view of the provisions of Section 20 of TADA, Designated Court submitted the sentence of
death to this Court for confirmation. The accused also filed appeals under Section 19 of
TADA challenging their conviction and sentence.
 The accused have different alias and while mentioning the accused name it may not be
necessary to refer to them with all their respective alias and alias of an accused will be
indicated wherever necessary. There is no dispute about this alias. For proper comprehension
of the facts it will be appropriate to refer to the appellants as accused.
 Three absconding accused are (1) Prabhakaran, (2) Pottu Amman @ Shanmuganathan
Sivasankaran and (3) Akila @ Akilakka. Prabhakaran is alleged to be the supreme leader of
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) - a Sri Lankan Tamil organization, who along with
Pottu Amman, Chief of Intelligence Wing of LTTE, Akila, Deputy Chief of Women Wing of
LTTE, and others designed criminal conspiracy to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi and commit other
offences in pursuance thereof.

Bimbadhar Pradhan vs The State of Orissa6

 The appellant and four others were placed on their trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of
Sambalpur for offences under sections 120-B, 409,477-A and 109, Indian Penal Code with
having committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust in respect of
Government property, and falsification of accounts with a view to defraud the Government.
The appellant was the District Food Production Officer in Sambalpur and the other four
accused persons were agricultural sub-overseers in charge of their respective areas under the

6
AIR 1956 SC 469
15 | P a g e
 appellant. Another such agricultural sub-overseer was Pitabas Sahu at Bargarh centre. He was
examined at the trial as P.W. 25 and (1) (1955) 2 S.C.R. 881
 The prosecution case is that in furtherance of the Grow More Food Scheme initiated by
Government it was decided to subsidize the supply of oil cake to agriculturists with a view to
augmenting the production of food crops. Cultivators were to be supplied this variety of
manure at Rs. 440 per maund, though the Government had to spend per maund. The appellant
entered into a conspiracy with his subordinate staff including the agricultural sub- overseers
aforesaid to misappropriate the funds thus placed at their disposal for the procurement and
supply of oil cake to cultivators. To bolster up the quantity of oil cakes to be procured, they
showed false transactions of purchase and distribution thereof and falsified accounts,
vouchers, etc. Thus they were alleged to have misappropriated of Government money.
 A large volume of oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
The three assessors who assisted at the trial were of the opinion that none of the accused was
guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge in agreement with the assessors acquitted the four
agricultural sub-overseers aforesaid of all charges, giving them the benefit of the doubt. But in
disagreement with the assessors he convicted the appellant under all the charges and sentenced
him to rigorous imprisonment for four and a half years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under section
409,Indian Penal Code, and to rigorous imprisonment for two years each under sections 120-
B and477-A of the Code, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. The learned trial
Judge observed in the course of his judgment as follows:- "Hence on a consideration of all the
evidence as discussed above, I find that the prosecution have fully proved their case that the
accused Bimbadhar Pradhan, the D.F.P.O. has conspired to embezzle the Government money.
They have also proved that he has got an active hand and in assistance of Pitabas Sahu has
embezzled Government money amounting to Rs. 4,943-4-0 and in that act he has also actively
helped Pitabas Sahu in falsifying the Government records by making false entries
 The appellant went up in appeal to the High Court of Orissa. A Division Bench of that Court
allowed his appeal and set aside his convictions and sentences under sections 409 and 477-
A,Indian Penal Code, but upheld his conviction and sentence in respect of the charge of
conspiracy under section 120-B of the Code. We need not enter into the correctness of the
findings of the trial court in respect of the acquittal of the other four accused, or of the High
Court with regard to the acquittal of the appellant in respect of the charges under sections
409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. The High Court held that though the appellant had
withdrawn the sum of Rs. 27,000 from the Government treasury with a view to subsidizing the
16 | P a g e
 procurement of oil cake, it had not been proved that there was an entrustment to the appellant.
Hence the charge against him under section 409 failed.
 As regards the charge under section 477-A, the High Court acquitted him on the ground that
the documents said to have been falsified, which were large in number, had not been
mentioned in the charge and a vague statement that "accounts, cash books, stock books, petty
cash sale register, cash memos, applications from cultivators, receipts, bills, vouchers, papers,
documents, letters, correspondence, etc. had been falsified" was made. As regards the charge
of conspiracy under section 120-B, the High Court observed that the most important witness
to prove the charge was the approver aforesaid (P.W. 25) who had given a full description of
the conspiracy on the 23rd or 25th September 1947 between the appellant and other sub-
overseers including himself for the purpose of showing bogus purchases and bogus
distribution of large quantities of oil cake. It also observed that "Most of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of Pitabas are themselves
accomplices in the conspiracy". The High Court found that in respect of that conspiracy the
evidence given by the approver got adequate corroboration from other independent witnesses.
After setting out the evidence the High Court recorded the following finding: - "This would be
strongest corroboration of the evidence of the approver about the appellant being the prime
mover and the brain behind the entire fraud. It was he who wanted to misuse his official
position and persuade his subordinates to join with him in showing false procurement and
distribution figures of oilcakes".

120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy -

 (1) whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,
where no express provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
 (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention - When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

17 | P a g e
 Conclusion

The very heart of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement. To reach an agreement that constitutes
criminal behavior, the parties must intend to agree and intend to achieve the same object. This article
has explored the problems, both practical and theoretical, that result when applying this seemingly
simple truism of criminal law. Proving intent is not easy, particularly if: (1) the defendant denies he
had the intent; (2) the defendant is an otherwise honest business person; or (3) the courts require a
different sort of intent than that required for the substantive offense. The intent issue of conspiracy
law is so very crucial that even this brief treatment of the subject may aid those who study the crime,
and more importantly, assist those who prosecute or defend persons charged with criminal conspiracy
is applicable to this case as well.

18 | P a g e
Bibliography:
Website:
 www.indiakanoon.com
 www.manupatrafast.com
 http://lawbriefs.in
 http://law.du.ac.in
 http://www.icj-cij.org
 https://www.coursehero.com


Books/Journal:
 All India Reporter 1970 (Supreme Court)
 library.law.columbia.edu

19 | P a g e