Criminal conspiracy

The issue is whether Othai, the old professional thief, can be charged for his offense of criminal conspiracy.

Firstly, the definition of criminal conspiracy is prescribed under Section 120A. When two or more
persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or Penal Code 73 and (b) 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. This means that criminal conspiracy can be done to do an illegal
act or to do an illegal act through legal means. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether the illegal
act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. Additionally,
liability for any offence may be incurred without knowledge on the part of the person committing
it of any particular fact or circumstance necessary for the commission of the offence, a person
shall nevertheless not be guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence unless he and at least one
other party to the agreement intend or know that that fact or circumstance shall or will exist at
the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place.

In the case of PP v Khoo Ban Hock, the essence of a conspiracy is that a number of persons have
joined together to carry out their illegal purpose. Here, the term ‘Illegal’ for the purpose of
criminal conspiracy is everything which is an offence, or what is prohibited by law, or which
furnishes ground for civil action. In NMM Momin v State of Maharashtra, the agreement to
commit crime, regardless of whether it was carried out or not, causes criminal conspiracy to be
attached to it, making it an offence. The provision permits the imposition of criminal liability and
punishment even though the ultimate planned harm has not been committed.
Also, it was seen in Yash Pal Mittal v State of Punjab that the agreement itself is the ingredient of
the offence. This means that agreement alone is sufficient to constitute to a criminal conspiracy.

Under Sec. 120A(a), in a conspiracy to commit an illegal act, the actus reus is the agreement. What is
necessary is for there to be an agreement to commit a crime. There must be a meeting of minds by the
conspirators, where there is an agreement to break the law. The offence is complete when two or more
conspirators have agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act, even though the act has not been done.
Seen in EG Barsay v State of Bombay, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all persons should agree to
do a single act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Besides that, in Yash Pal Mittal v State
of Punjab, it is not necessary for all the conspirators to know each and every detail of the conspiracy. It is
sufficient for them to be the co-conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy.

- Abdul Rahman & Ors v Emperor: Criminal conspiracy may come into existence and persist so long as the
persons constituting the conspiracy remain in agreement and are acting in furtherance of the object for
which they had entered the agreement.
- A general conspiracy must be distinguished from a number of separate conspiracies having a similar
general purpose.
- Saleem-Ud-Din v State of Delhi: A conspiracy is like a running stream, where some persons join it in the
beginning while others join it later. But they are all parties to the same general conspiracy.
- Mohd Hussain v KS Dalipsinghji: Where different groups co-operate towards their separate ends without
any privity to each other, each combination constitutes a separate conspiracy.
- Lennart Schussler v Director of Enforcement: If, in the furtherance of the conspiracy, certain persons
are induced to do an unlawful act without the knowledge of the conspiracy or the plot, they cannot
then be held to be conspirators, even though they may be held guilty of a specific offence.

Punishment of criminal conspiracy 120B. (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, 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) Subject to subsection (3), 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 for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or with both. (3) If the offence, the
commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a minor offence under the Minor Offences Act 1955
[Act 336] the punishment for such conspiracy shall not