Criminal Conspiracy
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future .criminal laws in some countries may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. Chapter V-a of the IPC as inserted in 1931 deals with the offense of criminal conspiracy.
Before the insertion of the chapter, conspiracy under IPC was punishable under section 107 and by the way of involvement in a certain offense.
In 1870, section121A was added and was punished under this section, one can say that it wasn't seen as an offense.
Criminal conspiracy is usually clubbed with some other offense as well. Section 120 A defines what is a criminal conspiracy, it means that when two people come to an agreement of two or more people to do or cause to be done –
An illegal act
An act that is not illegal by illegal means.
Case; Mulcahy v. R, states, “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. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable….” This means that two or more people must agree to conspire.
There are two ingredients in the criminal conspiracy,
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 i.e. there must be at least 2 persons who conspire. However, a person may be indicted alone for the offense of criminal conspiracy if the other co-conspirators are unknown, missing, or dead.
Joint evil intent to do an illegal act or an act that is not illegal by illegal means is necessary.
In Rajaram Gupta v. Dharam Chand, it was held that the overact constituting a conspiracy are acts either;
Signifying the agreement
Preparatory to the offense
The act constitutes the offense
Case; Hirala Harilal Bhagwati v. CBI, it was believed that to set up the charges of conspiracy first you have to establish that there is an agreement between the parties.
Case; Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi
Held; The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that an offense for which there is a sentence of more than 7 years of imprisonment but does not have any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence of fewer than 7 years, cannot be considered as a heinous offense within the ambit of Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Case; Laxmibai Chandaragi B. v. State of Karnataka
Held; The Apex court, in this case, came heavily on the conduct of the IO and other police authorities, which were not only responsible for insisting a woman record her statements in the police station but also for threatening her about the false case her parents may register to the police, which will result in the arrest of her husband.
The court further held that there is no need for consent of the clan, family, or community in the cases where two adults have voluntarily decided to enter into a wedlock.
Comments
Post a Comment