It has been written by Aditya Kumar, a third-year law student of ICFAI University, Dehradun.

INTRODUCTION:

Criminal conspiracy, as an inchoate offense, occupies a distinctive place within the realm of criminal law, embodying the conceptualization of unlawful collaboration before the commission of a substantive crime. This analysis seeks to delve into the intricate dimensions of conspiracy, unraveling its historical evolution, essential elements, and overarching significance in the legal landscape..

Tracing the roots of conspiracy is essential for contextualizing its contemporary manifestation. Originating in common law, the evolution of conspiracy laws has been shaped by landmark cases and statutory interventions. By examining historical perspectives, this analysis aims to discern the influences that have shaped the development of conspiracy as a distinct legal concept.

As we embark on this journey through the intricacies of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to delineate the objectives and scope of this analysis. Beyond a mere exploration of legal doctrines, this study seeks to unravel the implications of conspiracy on the broader criminal justice landscape. The multifaceted nature of conspiracy warrants a nuanced examination, encompassing its inchoate characteristics, legal ramifications, and societal implications.

In the subsequent sections, I will navigate through the historical evolution of conspiracy, dissect its essential elements, analyze its inchoate nature, and explore the legal perspectives that govern this complex facet of criminal law. Through an interdisciplinary lens, I will unravel the intricacies of conspiracy, shedding light on its past, present, and potential future trajectories within the ever-evolving legal landscape.

What are Inchoate offences:-

Inchoate offences refer to “incomplete offences”. In a literal sense, "inchoate" means 'incomplete' or 'not fully developed.' These acts are considered incomplete offenses because they occur as part of the process leading to the commission of the final crime. It helps or aids in the final crime. For offences, there are 2 most essential elements: Mens rea, which means a guilty intention to commit a crime and Actus Reus, which means the actual commission of the act. In this context, inchoate offenses are considered incomplete because they only satisfy the mental state (mens rea) required for a crime, but not the physical act (actus reus) of the crime.

In such offences, it is not the main crime for which the person is punished. It is the steps taken in order to commit the crime which is held illegal and hence, punished. Here, the act is not considered as serious as the final crime which was intended to be committed by the person and that is why the punishment for such offences is not as strict as the real offence. For example, the penalty for murder under IPC Section 302 is harsher compared to the punishment for an attempt to murder under IPC Section 307. Inchoate offenses are associated with serious crimes, such as Attempt to Murder, Abetment to Suicide, and Criminal Conspiracy. Therefore, these offenses are not considered in isolation but are primarily related to three main types of offenses:

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

1. Attempt,

2. Abetment, and

3. Conspiracy.

Historical development:-

In earlier times, inchoate offenses were not as prevalent. However, as time progressed, English jurists began advocating for their inclusion in the legal system. This shift arose from the need for a precautionary approach to prevent serious crimes from occurring in society.

In a simple sense, they believed in the prevention of the actual crime by making the step taken for the furtherance of a crime as an offence. This started from 16th Century and then the development of the inchoate offence started taking place. Emerging as a concept rooted in collective wrongdoing, conspiracy found early expression in the English legal system. Common law jurisdictions, drawing from precedent-setting cases, developed a framework to address the unique challenges posed by agreements to commit crimes. The evolution of conspiracy laws reflects a societal response to the dangers inherent in collaborative criminal enterprises.

Initially, inchoate offenses were limited to attempts to commit a crime. However, over time, other concepts such as abetment and conspiracy also emerged. Since 1860, the Indian Penal Code has included all these inchoate offenses. But, the new concept of criminal conspiracy was added in the year 1913 by the inclusion of chapter VA in the IPC of 1860. The main motive to include these offences was to prevent the crime from the initial stage itself.

Criminal Conspiracy:-

Black's Law Dictionary defines criminal conspiracy as a scheme between two or more individuals to commit an unlawful act through their combined efforts. This can involve either a criminal act directly or an innocent act that becomes illegal when done collectively, or using illegal means to achieve a lawful goal.

Criminal conspiracy is a notable inchoate crime and can be described as a covert agreement between two or more people to perform an illegal act or to achieve a lawful objective through unlawful methods. In criminal law, individuals can be convicted of conspiracy even if the intended crime was never executed.

For instance, if A, who is hostile towards businessman B, plans to kill B, purchases a weapon, and follows B to find the right moment to act, A can be charged with conspiracy to murder B. This charge applies regardless of whether the actual murder attempt or completion ever takes place.

In order to punish a person for criminal conspiracy, there should be sufficient evidence to show that two or more than two people were in agreement to commit a crime.

Provisions related to Criminal Conspiracy in the IPC, 1860

Definition of Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A)

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.

For an agreement to qualify as a criminal conspiracy, it must involve the intention to commit a crime. Additionally, beyond merely making the agreement, at least one of the parties must take some action in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B)

(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 this code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence [Section 120B]

(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. [Section 120B]

Provisions related to Criminal Conspiracy in the New criminal law i.e. BNS 2023, the provision of criminal conspiracy is dealt u/s 61(1) and its punishment is u/s 61(2).

Essential Elements of Conspiracy:-

1. Two or more person :- One of the main requirements for constituting the offence of criminal conspiracy is involvement of two or more person. The offense of criminal conspiracy cannot be committed by just one person; it requires the involvement of at least two or more individuals who will subsequently agree for the commission of any offence.

2. Agree to do or cause to be done :-The second requirement for constitution the offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement between the parties. There must be a consensus ad idem, or a meeting of the minds, between the parties for an agreement to be valid. This means that all parties must have a shared understanding and agreement on the same matter. Since the term "agreement" implies that all parties must consent to the same terms, an agreement cannot exist if the parties do not mutually agree.

3. An illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means :- The last but not the least requirement for constituting the offence of criminal conspiracy is commission of an 'illegal act'. A crucial element for establishing an offense under criminal law is the presence of mens rea, or the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing. An act is not deemed illegal unless it includes this mental state of intent.

Important case laws on criminal conspiracy :-

Indian case law has played a pivotal role in shaping the understanding and application of conspiracy laws. The landmark case of Kehar Singh v. State [1] exemplifies the significance attached to proving an agreement. The Supreme Court held that mere knowledge, discussion, or even acquiescence in the commission of a crime does not constitute conspiracy; there must be a meeting of minds for a common criminal purpose. This case underscores the necessity of establishing a conspiratorial agreement for prosecution.

Additionally, the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [2] provides insight into the broader interpretation of conspiracy. The court emphasized that the essence of a conspiracy is the agreement, and the agreement need not be formal; it can be implied by necessary implication from the circumstances. This decision reflects the Indian judiciary's recognition of the diverse forms conspiracy can take and the flexibility required in its legal interpretation.

Furthermore, the Indian legal system acknowledges the principle of individual liability within a conspiracy, as evidenced in the case of Nalini v. State [3]. In this case related to the assassination of a former Prime Minister, the court held that each conspirator is liable for the acts committed by others in furtherance of the conspiracy. This principle aligns with the global understanding of conspiracy, emphasizing collective responsibility for the actions of the group.

The defense of withdrawal or renunciation, as recognized in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI [4], allows for an accused to escape liability if they can demonstrate a genuine and voluntary abandonment of the criminal conspiracy. This adds a layer of nuance to the legal perspective, acknowledging that individuals may distance themselves from the conspiracy before its fruition.

Legal defenses available to individuals charged with conspiracy:-

One notable defense is that of renunciation, as underscored in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996). The court acknowledged that if a conspirator genuinely withdraws from the criminal enterprise and takes affirmative steps to prevent the commission of the intended crime, they may be absolved from liability. This defense aligns with the principle that conspirators should have an opportunity to disassociate themselves from the conspiracy before it comes to fruition, reflecting a nuanced approach to individual culpability. Additionally, impossibility serves as another defense, exemplified in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI (2003). The court recognized that if the completion of the intended crime becomes impossible due to unforeseen circumstances or the conspirator's actions, it may impact the prosecution's ability to establish criminal conspiracy. These legal defenses provide avenues for accused individuals to assert their innocence or mitigate the severity of charges, contributing to a more nuanced and just legal approach to conspiracy cases in India .

In addition to renunciation and impossibility, Indian jurisprudence recognizes the defense of lack of meeting of minds, emphasizing the necessity of a genuine agreement among conspirators. This defense was exemplified in the case of Kehar Singh v. State (1988), where the Supreme Court held that there must be a meeting of minds for a common criminal purpose, and mere knowledge or acquiescence in the commission of a crime does not constitute conspiracy. This underscores the importance of proving a genuine agreement and shared intent for a successful prosecution of conspiracy.

Furthermore, the defense of coercion or duress can be invoked by individuals charged with conspiracy in situations where they were compelled to participate against their will. The Indian legal system, through various judgments, recognizes that if a person is forced or threatened into joining a conspiracy and has no real choice but to participate, it may constitute a valid defense. While no specific case law may be cited here, the defense of coercion aligns with general principles of criminal law and can be raised in appropriate circumstances.

Moreover, the defense of lack of criminal intent, if established convincingly, can provide a legal shield to conspirators. In cases where individuals can demonstrate that they did not share the requisite criminal intent or knowledge of the illegal objectives of the conspiracy, it may serve as a valid defense. While not explicitly highlighted in a specific case, this defense draws upon fundamental principles of criminal law that require a culpable mental state for conviction.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the analysis of criminal conspiracy as an inchoate offense reveals its multifaceted nature and crucial role in the realm of criminal law. The examination of historical evolution, essential elements, and inchoate offense characteristics underscores the unique status of conspiracy, embodying the proactive nature of criminal planning. The distinction between common law and statutory approaches, coupled with an exploration of legal defenses, highlights the complexity and jurisdictional variations inherent in conspiracy cases. Case studies involving drug and robbery conspiracies offer real-world insights into the challenges faced by legal systems in prosecuting and adjudicating such offenses. The discussion on individual liability and the principle of dual liability emphasizes the collective responsibility of conspirators, providing a deterrent effect against collaborative criminal enterprises. Despite challenges in prosecution, the defenses of renunciation and impossibility contribute to a nuanced understanding of the legal landscape. Looking forward, the analysis of future trends and international perspectives suggests an evolving legal landscape with increasing complexity. In essence, the study affirms that criminal conspiracy, as an inchoate offense, continues to be a vital instrument in addressing and deterring criminal enterprises, reflecting the dynamic interplay between law, society, and the ever-changing nature of criminal conduct.

REFERENCES

[1] AIR 1988 SC 1883,

[2] AIR 1996 SC 1744,

[3] State Of Tamil Nadu Through SP ... vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999

[4] J U D G M E N T WITH Criminal Appeal No.677/2003 @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1363/2002 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 1356/2002)