Laws on Criminal Conspiracy
These are the two sections under Chapter V-A which deal with “criminal conspiracy” –
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy — When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,—
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) 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.
Explanation — It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy —
(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.
(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.
From these bare sections, it is understood that when two or more people come in agreement with each other, to conceive the thought of committing a criminal activity or any illegal activity, they can be considered as co-conspirators of the future crime, and then called criminal in themselves. The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the necessary elements to be proven are (1) an effective agreement between two people, where there is actual meeting of minds, and (2) criminal object, which may be intentional or incidental, which may be an illegal end or any illegal means to reach any end.
Here is why, on the very face of it, the inherent principles of criminal is being breached, the moment someone is punished at the intention stage itself. Law on criminal conspiracy makes for the sole reason for the creation of such a breach, as it is the only such section, which allows for punishment at such a nascent stage of a crime, where any manifestation of a criminal intent in the form of an agreement is sufficient for a cause of action to arise. It is like an exception to the law, which is complete contravention to the aspect of criminality which only ensues once the crime has passed the attempt stage.
Paradox of the singular v/s plural
Keeping in mind the general principles of criminal law, the mere intention or the preparation towards the criminal activity is not punishable. However, with the inclusion of section 120A and 120B, such principle has only remained applicable to individuals, because when there is more than one person, collectively showing their intention towards a criminal activity, then it is punishable under criminal conspiracy. Therefore, there is an inconsistency in the law when applied to individuals, and to a group of people. Such double standard in the legal system is not a positive reflection where we aim to attain equality in the application of the law.
Inclusion of crimes beyond a crime
There is no concrete definition provided for the ambit of what falls within ‘criminal conspiracy’. Section 120A only talks of any “illegal act”. Such illegality of action does not need to fall within the paradigm of criminal activity, as the section does not call for one. The provision and the explanation are only furthering the idea of this uncertain definition. Therefore, any civil wrong, tortuous act, or even a common breach in contract can be criminalized under this section, as they are all illegal acts. Interestingly, if a couple (husband and wife) agree upon not following a standing contract, their agreement to breach could send them to jail.
Such ambiguous definition has created a void in the law for criminal conspiracy, where criminal law is being applicable beyond its ambit. Things which are not even criminal in nature can be dragged to make it look criminal. This is a huge inconsistency created with regard to the applicability of criminal law. This is the only section in the entire IPC which has opened up the doors of criminal law to other aspects of the justice system, which should not be the case.
Joint Liability and Abetment
The IPC already has section 34, which is the section for joint criminal liability. When people act in common intention, they can be held liable jointly. This section does not breach any fundamentals of criminal law. It punishes people when they act towards the commission of the crime, when they are in groups (small or big).
Also, before the inclusion of chapter V-A in the IPC, criminal conspiracy was charged under section 107, which is the section for the abetment of crime. A conspirator was punished for his involvement in the crime, when there was some actual substantial criminal act committed or attempted.
Therefore, there was no real need for the inclusion of chapter V-A, because joint liability as well as conspirators were taken care of by the IPC. However, all such above stated inconsistencies and all such problems of breach shall be clear, once we look at the origin of this law.
Colonial Jurisprudence
The law on criminal conspiracy was introduced in 1913, as an amendment to the IPC by the British Government. The ‘Statement and Objects’ of the amendment clearly indicate the intention of the law makers to make the law stricter against the Indian revolutionaries. This was the decade when India’s fight for freedom was accelerating in magnitude and the British needed some arbitrary powers to curb down the uprisings. To specifically cater to the revolts against the Government in Bengal, this law on criminal conspiracy was enacted. It was a power conferring law, which gave almost absolute powers to the executive authorities then, to convict and imprison anyone they felt was a threat. The laws on criminal conspiracy was a result of the insecurities of the British, where they bestowed powers upon themselves to put themselves at a higher pedestrian, in a position fit to suppress anything that comes against them. The British could now imprison people who just had a collective anti-British thought. This law served their purpose, because the standard for the application of sedition charges were too high. The colonial government readily utilized criminal law as an instrument of repression in order to tackle the voice of political rebellion. This shows why, despite the existing laws on abetment and joint liability, the British felt the need for a law on criminal conspiracy, one which is highly self-serving, and biased.
In our generic history books, we read that most freedom fighters were jailed even before their mass-movements hit the road. Criminal conspiracy is one among the few reasons for the same.
Conclusion – Move On!
It is established that the law on criminal conspiracy is not a necessity. Moreover, it is also in contravention to the fundamentals of criminal law. Yet, the law remains intact to provide scope for immense misuse, where the police and the judiciary have this almost-arbitrary power to criminalize non-criminal acts. Implicitly, the law is upholding an inconsistency. Ironic, isn’t it?
There are many more such laws of colonial origin, which are self-serving and power conferring, and are prevalent in our system. This is just one major example. With a modern approach to constantly evolve the law with the present needs of the society, we need to inculcate modernized deliberation towards such laws and look to repeal or amend them. This is like a hidden truth, which has been hidden behind some veil of ignorance.
Have we not moved beyond the colonial spectrum, to shun away their power conferring laws? Are we just so ignorant to not realize the nature of this law? Is this a colonial hangover, which still haunts us?
