You are on page 1of 4

Criminal conspiracy

Sec. 120A: A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done:
- (a) An illegal act or
- (b) An act, which is not illegal, by illegal means.

- 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.
- 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.
- NMMY 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.
- Yash Pal Mittal v State of Punjab: The agreement itself is the ingredient of the
offence.
Sec. 120A(a): Conspiracy to commit an illegal act
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Sec. 120A(b): Conspiracy to commit a non-illegal act through illegal means
- In a conspiracy to commit an act which is not illegal through illegal means, the actus
reus is the agreement coupled with an act by one or more of the parties pursuant to
the agreement.
- Marjia Balayya v State of Orissa: Naxalite leaders came to Orissa and arranged
meetings exhorting people to join their party. The substance of their speech was that
a government of poor people should be established after overthrowing the present
government, rich Sukahars should be robbed and killed, and their wealth and lands
distributed amongst the poor. Should the police intervene, they would be destroyed
with bombs. The police were alerted and arrests made and the Naxalite literature
recovered.
Held: The requirements under Sec. 120A(b) were not satisfied in that there was an
agreement, but there had been no act done by the members of the party in pursuance
of the conspiracy. Merely exhorting people to join their party and making speeches
did not constitute as some act done.
Abetment
Definition: Relates to the involvement of an abettor towards the commission of an offence,
but it may not necessarily involve the actual commission of the crime abetted.
- Although the crime is not carried out, the act of abetting by instigation, conspiracy or
aiding itself is a crime.
Sec. 107: A person abets the doing of a thing who
- (a) Instigates any person
- (b) Engages in conspiracy
- (c) Aids the commission of an act
Abetment by instigation:
- Explanation 1 to Sec. 107: A person who, by wilful concealment of a material fact
which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes a thing to be done is said to instigate
the doing of that thing.
- Abdul Ghani v PP: Instigate does not merely mean placing temptation to do a
forbidden thing but actively stimulating a person to do it.
- Parimal Chatterji v Emperor: To urge, provoke, incite, or encourage a person.
- It is not necessary for the abettor to physically assist the principal offender in
the commission of the crime.
- PP v Datuk Haji Harun: Advice can also become instigation if that advice was
meant to actively suggest or stimulate the commission of the offence.
- Passivity through mere acquiescence or silence does not constitute instigation.
- Etim Ali Majumdar: Influential persons who were aware of the objective of an
unlawful assembly, and deliberately kept away from the avenue in order to
sympathise with the object of the assembly were held not to be abettors.

- Tha La Aung v Emperor: The offence of abetment by instigation depends on the


intention of the abettor and not on the act to be done by the person whom he abets.

- Baby John v State of Travancore-Cochin: Where the accused had exhorted to members
of an unlawful assembly to use violence to overcome any resistance offered by the
Army or the Police, the court held that he could not be found guilty for every act of
violence done by the unlawful assembly.
- Instigation must have reference to the thing done and not to the thing likely to
have been done by the person who is instigated.
Abetment by conspiracy:
- PP v Datuk Haji Harun: An agreement between persons to do some illegal act with a
further act in pursuance of the conspiracy.
- Requires knowledge of the abettor that he is engaged in a conspiracy to do a thing by
an act or illegal omission.
- Elements:
- The person abetting must engage with one or more person in a conspiracy
- The conspiracy must be for the doing of the thing abetted
- An act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy
- Unlike abetment by instigation, an act must take place for a person to be held liable
for abetment by conspiracy.

- Difference between abetment by conspiracy and criminal conspiracy


- Criminal conspiracy is directed against the agreements and is thus wider in
amplitude.
- Sec. 120A(b) requires only the performance of some act in pursuance
of the conspiracy which may not be of direct relevance to the object of
the conspiracy.
- Abetment by conspiracy is more limited in its scope as it only arises when the
act in pursuance to the conspiracy has already been done.
- Sec. 107(b) is more restrictive in that the act done must be for the
performance of the object of the conspiracy.
Abetment by aiding:
- Explanation 2 to Sec. 107: An act done in order to facilitate the commission of the
crime is considered to aid the doing of that crime.
- PP v Datuk Haji Harun: When a person intends to facilitate and does, in fact, facilitate
the commission of the crime.
- PP v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee: There must be shown a positive act of assistance
voluntarily done by a person with knowledge of the circumstances constituting the
offence.
- National Coal Board v Gamble: The intention of the abettor to aid must be proven.
- Ram Nath v Emperor: A mere giving of aid will not make the act of abetment an
offence if the person who gave the aid did not know that an offence was being
committed or contemplated.

- Abdul Rahim Hassan v PP: The second appellant was held to have abetted by
intentionally aiding the first appellant to commit the offences by delivering three
letters to the Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan which led to their deception and the
commission of the offences.
Liability of an abettor:

- Instigation: Not necessary for the offence to have been committed in order for the
abettor to be acquitted.
- Conspiracy: Immaterial whether the abettor committed the offence or not, but if the
co-conspirators are all acquitted, the abettor must then also be acquitted.
- Aiding: If the principal offender is acquitted, the abettor must also be acquitted.
In abetment, the abettor is liable even when:
- Sec. 111: The act is abetted and a different act is done, provided that the act was a
probable consequence of the abetment.
- Illustration c to Sec. 111
- Sec. 113: The offence caused by the act is different from that intended by the abettor.
- Illustration to Sec. 113

You might also like