Skip to main content

Criminal Conspiracy

Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A and B):

Sec-120A defines the Criminal Conspiracy as,

When 2 or more persons agree to do or cause to be done:

a) An illegal act or

b) An act which is not illegal means by the illegal means, such an agreement is known as 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 of.


Explanation:

It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or is merely incidental to that object.

Ingredients:

To constitute a criminal conspiracy, the following must be satisfied:

1) There must be an agreement between 2 or more persons.

2) The agreement must be for:

  • a) Doing an illegal act or
  • b) Doing a lawful ac by illegal means
  • c) There must exist over act.

Elements:

1) An object to be accomplished.

2) A plan or a scheme embodying means to accomplish that object.

3) An agreement between 2 or more accused person to accomplish the object.

4) In the jurisdiction where the statue required an overt act.

In Topandas

 V

 State of Bombay

It was held that, there must be 2 or more persons for the criminal conspiracy and if one person, it cannot be held guilty of criminal conspiracy.

Punishment:

Sec-120B gives the punishments, they are:

1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence is punishable with death or rigorous imprisonment for 2 years or is punished as if he had abetted the offence.

2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence shall be punished with an imprisonment not exceeding more than 6 months or with fine or both.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, RIOT, AFFRAY

Unlawful Assembly (Section 141): Unlawful assembly is an assembly of 5 or more persons with the common object: 1)  to over-throw by criminal force the Government or the legislature or 2)  To resist the execution of any legal process 3)  To commit mischief (Sec-425), criminal trespass (441) 4)  To obtain property or right by criminal force or 5)  To criminally force a person to do an act which he is not bound to do, or to force him not to do an act which he is bound to do. If a person is a member of an unlawful assembly then that person is punishable. An assembly which is not unlawful in the beginning may become unlawful subsequently. The purpose or common object decides the nature of the assembly. Essentials: 1)  The essentials are that there should be five or more persons and there should be the common object as specified in Sec-141. 2)  This is different from common intention in Sec-34. For unlawful assembly prior meeting of minds is not essential. 3...
Post a Comment
Read more

THEFT (Section 378)

  THEFT (Section 378) Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft. A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft. Eg: 1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the 2) tree. He has committed theft. A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials: 1. Dishonest taking. 2. Moveable property 3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent 5. Moving with the property 1. Dishonest Taking: The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...
Post a Comment
Read more