LAW OF CRIMES-IPC

PROJECT
A STUDY OF THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Submitted by:
ABHISHEK.S
Reg. No. BC0190002
Submitted to:
M/S. Mirnmoyee Mukherjee
Assistant Professor of Law

“TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY”

(A State University established by Act No. 9 of 2012)
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 027
November 6TH, 2020

1|Page
M/S. Mirnmoyee Mukherjee
Assistant Professor of Law
Tamil Nadu National Law University
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 027

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project work entitled “A Study of the Offence of Criminal
Conspiracy” is a bonafide record of the research work done by ABHISHEK.S, Reg. No.
BC0190002, under my supervision and guidance. It has not been s0ubmitted by any other
University for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or for any other
similar recognition.

Place: Tiruchirappalli

Date:

Signature of the Guide

ABHISHEK.S
Reg. No. BC0190002

2|Page
 DECLARATION

I, ABHISHEK S, do hereby declare that the project entitled “A STUDY OF THE

OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY”submitted to Tamil Nadu National Law
School in partial fulfillment of requirement for award of degree in Under Graduate in Law to
Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli, is my original research work. It and has
not been formed basis for award of any degree or diploma or fellowship or any other title to
any other candidate of any university.

Counter Signed Signature of the Candidate

Project Guide

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, I take this opportunity to thank my Professor M/S. MIRNMOYEE MUKHERJEE from the
bottom of my heart who have been of immense help during moments of anxiety and torpidity while the
project was taking its crucial shape.
Secondly, I convey my deepest regards to the Vice Chancellor Dr.V.Z. ELIZABETH and the

administrative staff of TNNLS who held the project in high esteem by providing reliable information in the

form of library infrastructure and database connections in times of need.

Thirdly, the contribution made by my parents and friends by foregoing their precious time is

unforgettable and highly solicited. Their valuable advice and timely supervision paved the way for the

successful completion of this project.

Finally, I thank the Almighty who gave me the courage and stamina to confront all hurdles during

the making of this project. Words aren’t sufficient to acknowledge the tremendous contributions of various

people involved in this project, as I know ‘Words are Poor Comforters’. I once again wholeheartedly and

earnestly thank all the people who were involved directly or indirectly during this project making which

helped me to come out with flying colours.

4|Page
 CONTENT
Title Page
INTRODUCTION 6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7
EVOLUTION AND RATIONALE OF THE OFFENCE OF 9
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN THE INDIAN LAW
INTENT FACTOR IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 10
INGRIDENTS AND SCOPE OF THE PROOF OF CONSPIRACY 12

ACT OF ONE CONSPIRATOR 13

CONSPIRACY AS TORT AND AS CRIME AND THE 13
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
CONCLUSION 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

5|Page
INTRODUCTION:
The term Conspiracy in criminal law is considered to be a criminal offence were the two or more persons
enter into an agreement or merely agree to do an unlawful or illegal act that amounts to the offence
constitutes criminal conspiracy. The context of conspiracy in the Indian law will be depicted as a criminal
offence defined in the substantive law portion and is established in the Indian penal code,1860 in section
120A: “defines criminal conspiracy as; When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, —1) an
illegal act, or 2) 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. Explanation-It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.” 1 Were the concept of the criminal conspiracy is
established under Indian law context. The act amounting to the conspiracy always remains in the ambit of
the limited scope and the nature of the act that amounts to the conspiracy factor tends to remain ambiguous.
The act that is committed by the group of people that amounts to commission of an offence leading to the
criminal conspiracy and the acts that amounts to mainly illegal acts that are prohibited by law and the
omission of lawful acts to be done is being neglected by the persons, and the agreement between the persons
is invalid contract per se in law. The main issue found in this offence constituting criminal conspiracy is that
the element that is the aspect of actus reus and mens rea elements to fulfil the completion of a criminal
offence. The further aspect of punishments relating to acts of criminal conspiracy in the context of Indian
law is defined under the Indian penal code 1860, under sec. 120B defines the “Punishment of criminal
conspiracy-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this 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.]” 2. The further briefing in
the rational and the intent elements to fulfil the constituents for an act between the group of persons to get
into conspiracy. The main thing to constitute into an act of conspiracy the agreement to do an act should take
into the attempt factor and the completion of the unlawful act should take place in the instance, and the
essential factors for the determination of the acts that gives rise to the criminal offence of conspiracy, and
the event held in conspiracy and the evolution of the doctrine of conspiracy and the scope of the study in
area of criminal conspiracy was quite in wider and highly interpretable, and the conspiracy theory in the
initial period of the existence of law and concept explaining it was subjected to legal rational in judgments.
1
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Ins. By amendment Act 8 of 1913, s. 3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897847/

2
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Ins. By amendment Act 8 of 1913, s. 3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897847/

6|Page
The main objective of this research is to analyse the history and rationale behind the concept of conspiracy
and study the degree of intent in the offence of conspiracy and matters of public matter will be briefed and
examine how the punishments are established and to check how the conspiracy is determined when its
ingredients and proof of the act are established. The main problem in the area of research will deal with the
conspiracy done by one conspirator and the joint liability will be analysed and the matter of question arose
will be compare the offence of criminal conspiracy and tort of conspiracy in India, what is the proof or
evidence that are required to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy? Will be reviewed in the research, and
this will have critical study over the mainframe of the topic with asserting interpretations with the help of
secondary methodology of research will be implied which involves collecting information from the writings
related to this topic of various other distinguished authors. This methodology allows us to collect, analyse
and compare the available existing literature.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

 Sayre, Francis B, “Criminal Conspiracy.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 35, no. 4, 1922, pp. 393–
427.

In this article the author discusses about the criminal conspiracy was so vague in nature and has no big
impact in law and the evolution of the criminal conspiracy goes back to the very early pages of the history of
our common law. During the thirteenth century, there were two modes of commencing prosecution for
felonies will be discussed and Nevertheless, abuses sprang up children under twelve, who could not be
outlawed and against whom no damages could be recovered, were sometimes incited to bring the appeal.
"Conspirators be they that do confider or bind themselves by Oath, Covenant, or other Alliance, that every
of them shall aid and support the enterprise.” There will be a study of case laws decided in the court was
called upon to decide whether the offense of conspiracy could be so broadened as to include combinations to
commit acts of a generally illegal and oppressive nature mere conspiracy alone was held to constitute the
gist of the offense and to be therefore indictable. And this paper will vary from this as this focuses on the
Indian law aspect of the offence and the scope of study will vary in this paper.

 Harno Albert J, “Intent in Criminal Conspiracy.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and
American Law Register, vol. 89, no. 5, 1941, pp. 624–647.

In this article the author will have a critical study and area of study will mainly focus on the element of
intent in the ambit of confirming the conspiracy aspect and main focus will stick to the rational judgement
analysis and to check the criminal intent and the agreement to agree for the intent factor in conspiracy to
further checking the common intent among the conspirators as it varies to check the main factor causing the
intent and giving opinion about the factors with case law judgements and this paper here is used in the
research to study and refer about the intent factor in conspiracy.

7|Page
  Snyman, CR. “The History and Rationale of Criminal Conspiracy.” The Comparative and
International Law Journal of Southern Africa, vol. 17, no. 1, 1984, pp. 65–77.

In this article, the author will have a deep analytical study in adapting the history or the evolution of the
concept of the doctrine of conspiracy and the course of the analysis of judgement of the case laws and check
the concept of establishment of concept of morality and the concept to check the act of criminal conspiracy
and main area of the view is to focus on the outcome of the English laws and the its scope of study and is
limited to early historic developments in the house of lords in the English court of laws and the offence had
the initial civil wrong and the change from the concept to the criminal offence, and in this research, the
article is used to understand the history and concept of rational in the conspiracy and the paper here will
include the analysis of the offence in the context of Indian law.

 Zellick, Graham. “Public Mischief in Criminal Conspiracy.” The Modern Law Review, vol. 34,
no. 1, 1971, pp. 81–86.

The author in this article tends to check the public mischief aspect in the context relating to the matter to
object of public mischief acts of offence that will constitute in the context of English law for checking
the matter of mischief in public leading to the offence of criminal conspiracy.

 “Developments in the Law: Criminal Conspiracy.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 72, no. 5, 1959,
pp. 920–1008.

in this article, there is no specific author but the whole article gives a broad outline on the elaborated
course of work that give a detailed study of the area of study of criminal conspiracy which gives a
detailed review about area and scope of study for the work will give a guideline in the research work to
give the broad outline to understand the crux of the study of the project.

 “Criminal Conspiracy: Specific Intent as an Element of the Crime.” Harvard Law Review, vol.
38, no. 1, 1924, pp. 96–99. :The author in this article tends to analyse the specific intent aspect as
the primary element for constituent of the offence in the context of conspiracy to check the aspect in
determining the will constitute in the context of English law for checking the matter of crime element
in mental aspect for the check of common intention and the specific intention between the
conspirators with several study area regarding to the offence of criminal conspiracy.
 Rollin M. Perki, “The Act of One Conspirator”, Hastings Law Journal, vol.26, no. 2,1974,
pp.337 :In this article the author will have doctrinal study over the act of one conspirator were
“liability for a substantive crime as an accomplice cannot be predicated on -the sole fact of having
been party to a conspiracy to commit that crime also with the reason that if you are satisfied from the
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the two defendants were in an unlawful conspiracy then you
would have a right .to convict each of these defendants on all these substantive counts, provided the

8|Page
 acts referred to in the substantive counts were acts in furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy or
object of the unlawful conspiracy, which you have found from the evidence existed” will be
discussed and detailed with other scope of the case study.

EVOLUTION AND RATIONALE OF THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IN THE

INDIAN LAW:

The concept in determining the offence of criminal conspiracy in the aspect of law in the system was quite
ambiguous in the context of English law and the further and in a period of time the event of conspiracy
wasn’t even recognised as a criminal offence, but was considered as a civil wrong in the context of the
Indian law but latter the aspect of conspiracy in English law was widened by the case of “Mulcahy V. R
were it was explained as ‘A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more to do an unlawful
act or do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as 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… punishable if for a criminal object or
for the use of criminal means.’ ”3 thus, giving it the expansion of the rational that mere agreement between
two persons to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means will be the key element in the act of conspiracy
and to confirm liability under conspiracy. In main context of English law, the act of conspiracy was confined
to the civil law aspect and followed the procedural law code for its establishment in the early period in the
evolution of law. “Conspiracy has always been a controversial crime in English and American law,
especially as its wide scope has led to certain abuses. In England the Criminal Law Act of 1977” 4 the in the
partial law aspect the procedure in the English law and was given into the criminal procedure code in the
ambit of English law, and “conspiracy was only considered as an immoral act was consider in an ambiguous
statement made in the legal review of Hawkins in the 18th century was heavily criticised”.

In the initial period of early establishments of laws in the English laws have influenced the pattern in the
Indian law as the Indian penal code was mainly written by the British officials based on the English law
modified under the Indian sociological circumstances. The initial way there was two methods for
prosecuting the act under conspiracy, “The first was by an ‘appeal of felony’: this was an accusation in
which the accuser offered to prove his charge by waging battle with the accused. The latter was compelled
to accept the challenge, and if he lost was convicted of felony and hanged. However, if he was not defeated,
the accuser was in turn heavily fined as a perjurer. The second, and somewhat more humane way of
instituting prosecution, was introduced by Henry II and is known as an "indictment by a jury of
presentment." This resembled a public inquest by a grand jury upon a complaint lodged by an aggrieved
party.’5”6. The main aspect in the Indian penal code defining the law relating to conspiracy was in the early
3
1868) L.R. 3.H.L 306 at 317
4
Criminal Law Act 1977 (c 45), Halsbury's Statutes of England (3 ed) 47 142.
5
'Wright op cit 18; Sayre op cit

6
Snyman, CR, “The History and Rationale of Criminal Conspiracy.” The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern
Africa, vol. 17, no. 1, 1984, pp. 65–77. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23246922. Accessed 29th oct. 2020. – the main frame
9|Page
period the had only two provisions in it for the punishment in terms of liability for conspiracy, the criminal
conspiracy has some partial intervention with abetment in the criminal law aspect as the earlier the provision
with respect to conspiracy was in the sec.107 of IPC,1860 were the offence of conspiracy by the way of
abetment was held punishable and there were other more provision that which had the conspiracy like
sec.300, sec.310, sec.400, sec.401 has an impact on the offence of conspiracy implied in it, but in the later
amendment of the statue in the year 1870, the law relating to conspiracy was made broader in the provision
as the sec.121A in IPC but the clause also had certain limitations in it in explaining the actual elements and
the acts that only falls under the context of the sec will be consider as an offence but the other offences not
specified in the clause will have no effect in the making the conspiracy to not be an offence per se.

The amendment was quite contrary in the course of explaining the context making an ambiguous part in the
legal interpretation as the main part as the acts that constitute to lead to an committing an offence of
conspiracy was restricted and limited and the rational scope of the law explaining was criticised as the
rational aspect of the law was being under the test of subjectivity and the rational aspect as considered as the
main objective of law to be provided was made to appear contrary as the scope of defining an act was
questioned as the concept was being that the unlawful act can be considered as criminal act was also being
made to arise a controversial question was held and the issue was sorted when the later amendment was
made in the year of 1913 , “when the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 (8 of 1913), It added
chapter V-A (ss 120A and 120B) to the Penal Code to assimilate the law of criminal conspiracy in India
with that of England”7 so the law now made by the amendment was reasonable solution as the aspect of
rationality was valid under the new way of the amendment which made clear statements in the context of
criminal conspiracy. This part was here giving more scope to the sec.120A in the context in the briefing the
criminal conspiracy and out laying the ingredients and main elements that give the mainframe view of the
offence of criminal conspiracy

INTENT FACTOR IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:

The main factor that will have major impact in the element that describes the criminal conspiracy is the
matter of intent or can be called the ingredient of intention of the conspirators to commit an offence to
criminal conspiracy. The main issue faced in the concept of intent it has many types in it for determining the
intention to cause an unlawful act with more person on agreement I mere acceptance of intent for getting
into conspiracy but the intention of each conspirators will vary as the intent is not the only consideration for
the act to take place but it only give the mens rea aspect for a crime, and the intent at the time of commission
of offence is more important for the determination of the mens rea aspect of crime but the intent before the
commission of offence and after commission of offence if tends to varies and if the intention of each

review of this article was only made under the act of conspiracy specified in the context of early English law and its analysis and
evolution and limited only to pre historic English law and the interpretation of Indian law will be missing.

7
Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, sixth edition, Law Publishers, Allahabad, p 508.
10 | P a g e
conspirator varies for committing an offence it is really tough for the framing the common intent of the
conspirators taking place to get into conspiracy and the mere criminal intent is mainly required for proving
the act of conspiracy as an criminal offence. The types of intent in the mode of determining conspiracy

It starts with Specific intent; it mainly focuses on the intent that is focuses on the intent that has the main
consideration that in indulging into an act have the idea would cause the consequence in favour of the intent
that is wrongful that tends to cause harm. That is “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.” The act
also seeks to check the other type of intent of checking the wrongful intent in the point of getting into
conspiracy and the main focus on the wrongful intent is that it the crime of conspiracy with an intent that is
specific needs to be wrongful intent to satisfy the criminal element of means rea for the mental form
required intent is to be proved and it was detailed in the case of ‘People v. Powell’ 8 and was later well
expressed by Justice Qua in ‘Commonwealth v. Benesch’ 9: "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." The wrongful act and intent give rise to the criminal intent that is enough for the act
that constitutes conspiracy If the act that is conspired to is malum in se, this intent acquires understanding of
the situation and rational of the act giving the parties the intent to know what they are going to perform; 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. The other types of intents that
give a proper rise to the common intent factor will also have the discussion of the anti-federal intent and the
plurality of requisite intent and these two are the main intent in the in the case of anti-federal intent the law
were some cases ‘which indicate that even more than wrongful intent is necessary for conviction under the
general federal conspiracy statute’, and the check of the intervention factor of the course of intent in the
common law varies with the context to check the criminal act to take place for checking the criminal intent
factor in it. The plurality of requisite intent also follows “determined that criminal intent is required for
conspiracy to commit a particular offense, a further question presented is whether more than one person
must possess such intent in order that there be a conviction. Suppose, for example, that two parties agree to
commit a certain act which is malum prohiibitum in a jurisdiction which accepts the Powell rule, and
suppose further that only one of them knows the act is unlawful. It has been held that in such a situation
even the party who possesses the requisite criminal intent may not be convicted of conspiracy” 10 in which

8
87 63 N.Y. 88 (1875).

9
290 Mass. 125, I35, 194 N.E. 905-910, (1935)
10
Morrison v. California, 29 I U.S. 82 (I934); Commonwealth v. Benesch, 290 Mass. I25, I94 N.E. 905 (I935); Rex v. Segal, [I925] 4
D.L.R. 762 (K.B. Quebec). This view must be supported by all the courts which follow the rule that when all the defendant's
alleged co-conspirators are acquitted, he too must go free. See pp. 972-74 infra.
11 | P a g e
will explain that the wrongful intent will matter even if one conspirator will be aware of the consequences of
the act.

The intent of the cause of the that has a difference in the public matter and private matter of can simply be
briefed as the agreement between to two or more conspirators with a common intent in ruining a single
person or the matter of public is still being under intervention as the conspiracy of killing a person and a
murder took place and the state will be put forth as a public representing authority takes responsibility and
the criminal offence of conspiracy against public matter cannot be clearly distinguished in the law and the
private matter can be assumed to take place in the ambit of a civil conspiracy and also the intent is essential
to justify the criminal conspiracy in private matters like the conspiracy of trespass in a person’s land and the
cause of the act tends to infringe only that person’s right and the area of the work is limited and the
ambiguity of the fact with assertion will remain in pure uncodified manner.

INGRIDENTS AND SCOPE OF THE PROOF OF CONSPIRACY:

The main part of the study will have to concentrate on the main ingredient elements that to establish the
way to which the initially requires the first ingredient of an ‘unlawful agreement and knowledge’ were in the
agreement with an illegal consideration there should be a with sufficient knowledge between both
conspirators getting into the agreement and will determine whether single or multiple conspiracies exist
between the parties accordingly single conspiratorial agreement will constitute a single criminal conspiracy
and multiple agreements to commit separate crimes will constitute multiple conspiracies. And in the cases of
“Mohd Khalid v State of West Bengal11 and Devender Pal Singh v State (NCT of Delhi) 12: the Supreme
Court, after referring to the law relating to conspiracy in the USA and the UK, summarised the broad
essentials of criminal conspiracy in India thus: (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 co-operate for the accomplishment of a non-
offence act.” The elements to provide the proof of conspiracy will stick to the evidence and the other factors
of the will have to stick to matter of evidence, circumstantial evidence was required to check the acts and the
burden of proof is essential as the evidence must be an important factor in the proving of an act of
conspiracy and other main factors of it also includes 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 and there is an
exception rule to it.”

11
(2002) 7 SCC 334

12
AIR 2002 SC 1661
12 | P a g e
ACT OF ONE CONSPIRATOR:

The main problem of the project will be based on the act of one conspirator as the problem put forth in the
analysis will be, what if one among the group of conspirators was not willing to take part in the unlawful act
but the person if being wrongfully forced to take part in the unlawful act by the other but being held liable
for criminal conspiracy. Under what element of law will this act be validated as the concept will come under
the act of one conspirator, in the aspect will be mainly focused in the work and the concept in the ‘act of
one conspirator commits the crime which was -the very objective of the wrongful combination, is the co-
conspirator guilty of that target offense, without having done more than join in the conspiracy?’

This can be explained with the example of case law of ‘Pinkerton v. United States’ 13 were the court of the
united states held that the liability of one conspirator was quite enough for making other also liable in mere
participation in conspiracy and held also with charge of conspiracy as the court and jury in the case stated
that “"liability for a substantive crime as an accomplice cannot be predicated on -the sole fact of having been
party to a conspiracy to commit that crime also with the reason that if you are satisfied from the evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt that the two defendants were in an unlawful conspiracy . . then you would have a
right . . . to convict each of these defendants on all these substantive counts, provided the acts referred to in
the substantive counts were acts in furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy or object of the unlawful
conspiracy, which you have found from the evidence existed.” 14. this case law here by give a point that the
even though the act of one conspirator is merely sufficient for confirming liability towards the other
conspirator who had no intent in doing the unlawful act as the element in it to get into the act of conspiracy.
The main problem of the fact of the act will be a voluntary act and the mere joining in the event of criminal
conspiracy is taken into consideration for the checking the intent factor in determining the common intention
in checking the criminal intent and to ensure it is there and the missing element of crime has no effect on the
conspiracy as the mere agreement of 2 persons to commit a criminal offence is enough for the charge of
conspiracy even though one person had no intent and done no act with respect to the offence.

CONSPIRACY AS TORT AND AS CRIME AND THE PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL

CONSPIRACY:

The main aspect of the paper is to examine the offence of criminal conspiracy in the context has some
intervention when the act of conspiracy has tortious aspect in it in a civil law context as the main area of the
work in the tort of conspiracy in the Indian law aspect is undefined as no code or statute defines as the area
of law of torts in India remains uncodified but the “three major points of difference between criminal
conspiracy and tort conspiracy. The first is based on the presence of an overt act, the second is based on
conspiracy between husband and wife, and the third is about restrictions. As the According to civil
conspiracy, presence of an overt act that also causes damage to the claimant is very important. There must
13
328 U.S. 640 (1946).
14
Id. at 645-46 n.6.
13 | P a g e
be some harm inflicting action taken by at least one of the conspirators, to be liable under the tort of
conspiracy. Whereas, in criminal conspiracy, no overt act is required.” 15 And the issue of husband and wife
also remain ambiguous as it cannot be considered as criminal offence and the mainframe work is restricted
as the law here is remained undefined.

The punishment for the act of criminal conspiracy in Indian law is defined under the under sec. 120B defines
the “Punishment of criminal conspiracy” were all considered and governed by the scope of the section in the
Indian penal code “When the conspiracy alleged is with regard to committing a serious crime of the nature
contemplated in sec 120B read with the proviso to sec 120A, IPC, then, in that event, mere proof of
agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about conviction
under sec 120B and the proof of an overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary.
There is no requirement that each and every one of the conspirators must commit some overt act towards the
fulfilment of the object of the conspiracy. Since, in most cases, a conspiracy is conceived and hatched in
complete secrecy, and only in rare cases is direct evidence available, circumstantial evidences which leads to
an inference that an agreement between two or more people to commit an offence may be drawn.” 16 And
with certain other factors the punishment for the act of conspiracy is confined to the code of the statute and
making the act of conspiracy punishable.

CONCLUSION:

The term conspiracy has two ways of it can be interpreted and it can either be both civil and criminal wrong,
but in the Indian law context the offence of conspiracy is looked into the point of criminal offence as only
the statute regarding the Indian law codifies it as to be a crime but the essentials of the criminal elements in
the offence at certain cases is not specified , but even it is considered as crime but the civil way of wrong of
conspiracy is not codified in the ambit of Indian law but it only checks the objective of the offence only
subjected to the provisions of IPC and it only concludes that 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. The criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of
the suspected or the accused group of persons for the offence. But the nature of scope of the offence here is
tend to interpretation and the way of understanding it will vary in various case laws at different law contexts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

15
K. Hasim v. State of T.N., AIR 2005 SC 128.
16
Suresh Chandra Bahri v State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420
14 | P a g e
Secondary Sources:
1. Sayre, Francis B, “Criminal Conspiracy.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 35, no. 4, 1922, pp. 393–427.
2. Harno Albert J, “Intent in Criminal Conspiracy.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and
American Law Register, vol. 89, no. 5, 1941, pp. 624–647.
3. Snyman, CR. “The History and Rationale of Criminal Conspiracy.” The Comparative and
International Law Journal of Southern Africa, vol. 17, no. 1, 1984, pp. 65–77.
4. Zellick, Graham. “Public Mischief in Criminal Conspiracy.” The Modern Law Review, vol. 34, no.
1, 1971, pp. 81–86.
5. “Developments in the Law: Criminal Conspiracy.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 72, no. 5, 1959, pp.
920–1008.
6. Rollin M. Perki, “The Act of One Conspirator”, Hastings Law Journal, vol.26, no. 2,1974, pp.337
7. “Criminal Conspiracy: Specific Intent as an Element of the Crime.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 38,
no. 1, 1924, pp. 96–99.

Books:
1. Atchuthen, Pillai P. S, and K I. Vibhute.” P.s.a. Pillai's Criminal Law”. , 2014.

2. Ashworth, Andrew, and Jeremy Horder. Principles of Criminal Law. , 2013. Internet resource.

Web Sources:

1.   Disha Tulsyan from Symbiosis Law School, Pune and Salonee Nayak from School of Law,

University of Petroleum and Energy studies, Dehradun. https://lexlife.in/2020/06/04/criminal-

law-concept-of-criminal-conspiracy/

15 | P a g e