Criminal Conspiracy Section- 120b, Indian Penal Code

Bare Reading of the section 120b:

120A. Definition of Criminal Conspiracy: When two or more people agree to:

Do something illegal, or
Do something legal but using illegal methods,
It's called a criminal conspiracy. However, it's only considered a criminal conspiracy if some action is taken by one or more parties involved, in line with the agreement, except for an agreement to commit an offense.

Explanation: It doesn't matter if the illegal act is the main goal of the agreement or just happens along the way.

120B. Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy:

What is Criminal Conspiracy?

Originally, 'conspiracy' referred to people falsely accusing or improperly pursuing legal cases. In 1611's Poulterer’s case, the criminal side of conspiracy emerged, recognized as a substantive offense. According to Section 120A of the I.P.C., criminal conspiracy involves an agreement by two or more people to:

Commit an illegal act, or
Achieve a legal act through illegal means.
Section 43 defines 'illegal' as anything prohibited by law. The proviso states that an agreement to commit an offense is criminal conspiracy, needing no proof of overt acts. Overt acts matter only when the collaboration aims for an unlawful act not amounting to an offense. Whether the illegal act is the main goal or incidental doesn't matter

Main Ingredients for Criminal Conspiracy (Section-120B):

1. There must be a minimum of two conspirators for two or more people to agree to carry out or cause to be carried out an illegal act or an act that is not criminal through illicit methods.  Nonetheless, if the other conspirators are unidentified, absent, or deceased, an individual may face a solitary indictment for criminal conspiracy.
2. To commit a criminal act or an act that is not illegal by illegal methods, one must have joint lousy intent.

Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy (Section-120B):

Section 120B of I.P.C. provides for the punishment of criminal conspiracy:

Where the criminal conspiracy is to commit a serious offence: In cases where the conspiracy is to commit a crime:

1. Punishable with death, 
2. Imprisonment for life or
3. Rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards 
4. and where no express punishment is provided under the Code for such conspiracy,

Every person who is a party to such a criminal conspiracy shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

Criminal conspiracy to commit offences other than those covered in the first category: Whoever is a party to such a criminal conspiracy shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with a fine or both.

Proof of Conspiracy:

Criminal conspiracy is a legal concept that refers to an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime. The essence of a conspiracy is the unlawful agreement itself, rather than the actual commission of the intended crime. To prove the offense of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution can rely on either direct or circumstantial evidence.

1. Direct Evidence: Direct evidence refers to evidence that directly proves the existence of a conspiracy. This could include things like written or recorded agreements, witness statements or confessions, or communications between the co-conspirators explicitly discussing the criminal plan. However, it's important to note that conspirators often take precautions to keep their plans secret and may not leave behind such direct evidence. As a result, direct evidence of a conspiracy can be quite rare.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: In most conspiracy cases, the evidence is primarily circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence relies on drawing inferences from a set of facts or circumstances that, when considered together, suggest the existence of a conspiracy. Since conspiracies are usually hatched in secret, it is often difficult to produce affirmative evidence about the date of formation, the participants, the objectives, or the methods of carrying out the conspiracy. Instead, the prosecution must rely on indirect evidence, such as:
3. Pattern of Behavior: Evidence may include a pattern of conduct or behavior among the alleged conspirators that implies coordination. For example, repeated meetings, phone calls, or financial transactions among the suspects may suggest a conspiracy.
4. Admissions and Declarations: Statements made by the co-conspirators or their associates that indirectly acknowledge the existence of a conspiracy can be used as evidence.
5. Common Purpose: If several individuals are involved in separate but interconnected criminal activities, it may suggest a common purpose or agreement. For example, if one person robs a bank while another person waits in a getaway car, their coordinated actions imply a conspiracy.
6. Other Circumstances: Other circumstantial evidence may include the timing of events, the behaviour of the alleged conspirators before and after the crime, and any physical evidence linking them to the conspiracy.

It's important to remember that circumstantial evidence can be compelling and is often used successfully in conspiracy cases. However, to secure a conviction, the prosecution typically needs to establish the existence of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the totality of the circumstantial evidence must strongly point to the fact that the defendants knowingly entered into an unlawful agreement to commit a crime. Defence attorneys, on the other hand, will often challenge the sufficiency and reliability of this evidence to create reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds.

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act contains the principle that once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, an act of one conspirator becomes the act of another. Section 10 deals with the admissibility of evidence in a conspiracy case. It provides that anything said, done or written by any of the conspirators regarding their common intention is admissible against all the conspirators for proving the existence of the conspiracy or that any such person was a party to it. However, the following conditions are to be satisfied before such fact can be admitted:

1. There should be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong.
2. Anything said, done, or written by any of them about their common intention will be evidence against the others, provided it is said, done, or written after they first formed such purpose.

Difference between section 34 and 120b IPC