Criminal Conspiracy

Criminal Conspiracy can be defined as an act when two or more persons agree to do cause to do:
Any illegal act.
Any act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is defined as a Criminal Conspiracy.

This offence is contained in under Section 120A od the IPC. It came into existence by the criminal law (Amendment) Act, 1913. This offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is the intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. Offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. 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 by unlawful means. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action in as much as so long a crime is generated in the mind of an accused, it does not become punishable.

Criminal Conspiracy have some essential ingredients. They are:
That there must be an agreement between the persons who alleged to conspire.
That the agreement should be for doing an illegal act, or
That the agreement should be for doing illegal means an act which may not be illegal itself.
In Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, the court laid down several aspects of Criminal Conspiracy –
An object to be accomplished.
A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object.

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 In the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act.

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 two ways. Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence. It was held that in the case of Quinn V. Leathern, 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.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.