INDIAN PENAL CODE PROJECT WORK

Criminal conspiracy

ABHISHEK KUMAR
B.A.LL.B SEC-B ENROLL. NO- CUSB1813125006
 Central University of South Bihar
[Established by an act of Parliament]
(Accredited with Grade “A” by NAAC)

PROJECT ON
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
INDIAN PENAL CODE

Submitted by: - Submitted to: -

Abhishek Kumar Dr. Pawan Kumar Mishra
Enrollment No: – CUSB1813125006 Professor law and Governance
Course: - B.A.LL. B Central University of South Bihar
Section: - B

1|Page
 Acknowledgement
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr.
Pawan Kumar Mishra who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful project on the topic Criminal Conspiracy which also helped
me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new
things I am really thankful to them.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents who provide me laptop
for study.
Abhishek Kumar
B.A. LL. B

2|Page
 DECELERATION
I hereby declare that the project work entitled Criminal Conspiracy
submitted to the Dr. Pawan Kumar Mishra sir of Department of law and
governance, Central university of south Bihar, Panchanpur, Gaya is
prepared by me. All the research is result of my personal efforts

Abhishek Kumar
B.A.LL. B
3RD SEMESTER

3|Page
Table of Contents
1.ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Nature of Study .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATION ................................................................................................................ 5
1.4 OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION ......................................................................................................................... 6
2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMIAL CONSPIRCY ............................................................................. 7
3. MEANING OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY .................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki VS State of Gujarat 2012 SC ......................................................... 9
4. PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY .......................................................................................... 11
5.DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABETMENT AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY ........................................................ 13
5.Case laws ................................................................................................................................................ 16
CBI/SIT VS NALINI AND OTHERS ............................................................................................. 16
State vs Mohd. Afsal and other ........................................................................................................ 16
6.Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 19

Case law
1.R vs Parnell (1881) 14 cox 508……………………………………7
2.Mulcahy vs R (1868) LR 3HL306…………………………………7
3. R. Venkata Krishan VS Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2009, SC
44 ……………………………………………………………9
4. 3.1 Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki VS State of Gujarat 2012 ….9
5. NCT of Delhi vs Navjot Sandhu SC CITED BY 130…………….11
6. Coleman vs Johnson (566) U.S. 650 2012…………………………14
7. Rosemond vs United states U.S.65,134 S 1240 (2014)……………14
8. CBI/SIT VS NALINI AND OTHERS AIR 1999 SC 154………...16
9. State vs Mohd. Afsal and other DLT 385,2003…………………..17

4|Page
 1.ABSTRACT

This paper explores the What is meaning of criminal conspiracy, historical development of law of
conspiracy, cases related to it, definition, punishment of criminal conspiracy, Scope and limitation
of conspiracy, objective and conclusion. An agreement between two or more than two to commit
an act which is an illegal or act which is not illegal but it is done by illegal means to are amount to
criminal conspiracy. There should be agreement between two persons make a proper plan for act,
participate in the agreement, contribute fund if it needed and give their assent to commit an offence.
Before 1913 Criminal conspiracy is civil wrong but in 1913 it was instead and new chapter V- A
that deal with the criminal conspiracy. This paper is deal with many case laws like. Mulcahy vs R,
R Venkatkrisna, State of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini and 25 Others, Rajiv Gandhi murder
cases and also some recent case. And also, what are the punishment of the criminal conspiracy, if
any person found guilty in the conspiracy then he liable for three different different kind of
punishment rate in first type punishable with the death, imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for term of two year or more than two year. It going to be quite interesting for
readers. Conspiracy is an inchoate or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both
crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act.1

1.2 Nature of Study

The nature of my study is a Doctrinal type of research study. Researcher here tries to formulate his
research conclusion and merits of his study by applying the Doctrinal type of research
methodology for which the researcher has referred the various books, articles, various legal
website on internet. which is the general and main aspect of the doctrinal type research
methodology and is most important method for this research. It is non experiment study in which
researcher no experiment is needed and without filed work. This paper is written without any doing
filed work and experiment and without data.

1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The researcher has covered the scope of this research to provision of Section 120 (a) and 120 (b)
and judgement, cases, and punishment of criminal conspiracy. And also, what is the provision of
conspiracy before 1913 and after. And the judgment of the various causes related to the criminal

1
www.scribd.com /doc/30507

5|Page
conspiracy. What is different between Indian law and English laws in terms of the criminal
conspiracy.

1.4 OBJECTIVE
1. The objective of the study is to deal with criminal conspiracy and study provision related
to the criminal conspiracy.
2. To analyze the judgement given by various court on matter of the criminal conspiracy
3. To analyze the provision related to criminal conspiracy.
4. To know the recent land mark cases and fire topic related cases.
5. Be able to distinguish between conspiracy, abetment

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION

How offender is punishable without doing any physical act if he makes plan only?

6|Page
 2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMIAL CONSPIRCY

According to Edward Coke, conspiracy was originally a statutory remedy against false accusation
and prosecution by "a consultation and agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an
innocent man falsely and maliciously of felony, whom they cause to be indicted and appealed; and
afterward the party is lawfully acquitted".2. According to most legal scholars, conspiracy was first
proscribed as criminal in a fourteenth century English statute. In poulter’s case (1611) the criminal
aspect of conspiracy was developed by the star chamber. This case forms the sources of modern
law on conspiracy.3 According to the English law , if two or more than two person agree together
to do something contrary to la, or wrongful and harmful towards another person, or to use unlawful
means in the carrying out of an object not otherwise unlawful, the persons who so agree commit
the crime of conspiracy. In the R vs Parnell (1881) 14 cox 508 J. Fitzgerald stated that ‘conspiracy
has been aptly described as the divisible under three heads where the end attained itself a crime ,
where the object is lawful but the means to be resorted to are unlawful and where the object is to
do injury to a third party or to class, through if the wrong were effected by a single individual it
would be wrong but not a crime’. In India V(A) was inserted in penal code in 1913. Before this
conspiracy is civil wrong not a criminal wrong.

The House of lords in the case of Mulcahy vs R (1868) LR 3HL306 held that conspiracy not merely
in the intention of two or more but in the agreement of two or more person for due to an unlawful
act by harmful means. Punishable for a criminal object or the use of criminal means. The
defendants were sentences of 7.5 and 3 years for conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration. 4

2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)
3
Indian Penal Code (With the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,2018 by S.N. Mishra
4
Text book on IPC KD GAUR SIXTH EDITION REPRINT 2018

7|Page
 3. MEANING OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

An agreement to commit an offence shall be a criminal conspiracy – No agreement shall amount

to a criminal conspiracy unless it is done by two or more parties and that act must be forbidden by
laws or unlawful, without action there is no criminal conspiracy. A, B, C, D and E are friend A, B,
C make a plan for to rob a bank they did not give their accent but D, E are appeared in plan without
saying anything. F is friend of the D, E he knows the whole plan about robbery but he did not take
part in act but he has knowledge but robbery plan. They make a proper plan they contribute equal
amount in buying of weapons used for the robbery. Collectively hey fix the date for act and have
all the knowledge about bank timing. After all these two possibilities to be happened.
CASE 1: - A, B, C, D, E went for the robbery with full preparation, but due the high security in
bank they all are failed. They not success in their plan, now it is called as the robbery attempted.
CASE 2: - A, B, C, D and E went for the robbery and they robbed the bank, their plan success.
Their plan success.
In both cases A, B, C, D and E are liable. In first case they are penalize for the robbery attempted
even they failed in their plan while doing an act mens rea and actus rea both are present so, they
convicted for robbery attempt. Section 390 defined the robbery and section 392 give punishment
for robbery. By this section, any person who commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
If the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, then the period of
imprisonment may be extended up to 14 years.
If attempted to robbery then punishment will half, but in the case 2 full punishment will be awarded
to the wrongdoer.
Section 120 A. Definition of criminal conspiracy: - When two or more person agree to do, or cause
to be done: - SH
(a) an illegal act, or
(b) an act which is not illegal but means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy:
Not all agreement is amount to be criminal conspiracy unless that act is forbidden by law and
statutory provision.
EXPLANATION: - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement,
or merely incidental to that object.5
When the any act is started offender has no motive is to do illegal work but way his doing is
prohibited by the law then his work is become illegal. To understand this concept, take an example,
Mr. Mohan das open a cloth shop in Patna, after sometime his business doing very well. Unless

5
K D GAUR TEXTBOOK ON IPC 6TH EDITION

8|Page
the Income Tax on raid his shop because of not paying proper tax to government he has earn 10
cores in one year but in the balance sheet he shows that my income is 1 core in year, and also
charge against him that he makes duplicate cloth of branded cloth and use their tag. Open of shop
is not an offence but way he is doing the business is offence he makes the duplicate cloth; conceal
his income all these are came under the act done in illegal means. When your legal work is
connected with illegal act then your whole work become illegal.
We have the case of R. Venkata Krishan VS Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2009, SC 44
The apex court elaborately discussed the law relating to conspiracy and its application in particular
case. In this case there are six accused. The basic allegation against the appellants and late Harshad
Mehta was that some transaction was carried out in connivance with the officials of the financial
institution. Bank illegally as a result whereof Late Harshad Mehta was allowed to obtain a sum of
RS. 40 Crores which was actually call money given as a loan by the National Housing Bank to the
UCO bank.6. In this case Supreme court held that
(1) There should be an agreement between two or more person for the cheat with law by the
agreement
(2) An act which is not illegal in itself but is done by the illegal means- it is important
(3) That agreement may be express or implied.
(4) That conspiracy continues till to be committed.
We make the agreement of criminal conspiracy until the conspirator is agree on the agreement. In
order to prove a criminal conspiracy, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence. Why
conspiracy is punishable? Justification for law, whatever done in secrecy and whatever done by
two or more person it gives momentum to the act. No direct proof of agreement is required it can
be express or implied.

3.1 Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki VS State of Gujarat 2012

Fact of the case: - The appealing party was arraigned as a denounced in crime/F.I.R. No. 163/2010
for the previously mentioned offenses and the examination was conducted by the CID
(Wrongdoing), Ahmedabad. The arraignment case, in brief, is that a FIR was enrolled against two
people on 20th of July, 2010 about 8.40 pm. They came on a Bajaj bike having registration No.
GJ-1-DQ-2482. At the corner of “Satyamev Complex-I”, Inverse Gujarat Tall Court at S.G.
Thruway, they let go at one Amitbhai Bhikhabhai Jethwa from their country made gun on the
cleared-out portion of his back and caused wounds to which he capitulated and they immediately
vanished from the scene of event. After the criminal law was set in movement, the exploring
agency commenced examination and after completion, placed the charge-sheet some time recently
the competent court.
During pendency of examination, an application was recorded some time recently the learned
Session Judge forgive of safeguard fighting, connect alia, that the title of the appealing party was
not found within the FIR; that he had no nexus with the commission of wrongdoing; that the case

6
www.lawyerervices.in

9|Page
of the arraignment that he had contrived for kill of the perished who was an RTI dissident was
completely distrustful because as the affirmations against the appealing party were completely
unclear and, in reality, had been purposely made to crush his unblemished open picture, for he had
been in open life for so numerous a long time; that the fabric brought on record in no way
implicated the appealing party within the wrongdoing in address and, so, he was entitled to
safeguard. The learned trial Judge, dissecting the fabric on record, declined to broaden the
appealing party on safeguard. Be it famous, after the charge-sheet was recorded the entryways of
the learned trial Judge were once more thumped at but the same did not meet with success.
As the real portrayal would exposit, the denounced appealing party recorded Criminal Various
Application No. 2847on 30th Walk, 2011 sometime recently the High Court forgive of safeguard,
but the same was pulled back. From that point, the appealing party recorded Criminal Misc.
Application No. 7505 of 2011 looking for transitory safeguard on the ground that his spouse had
endured from intense gynaec issue and she required to experience surgery for Fibroid within the
Uterus and respect being had to the said statement the High Court allowed transitory safeguard for
a period of 21 days.
From there on, as the real network is un curtained, the appealing party favored safeguard
application beneath Segment 439 of the Code of Criminal Method, 1973 shaping the subject matter
of Crl. Application No. 9576 of 2011. It was encouraged some time recently the Tall Court that
the appealing party, for no legitimate reasons, had remained in guardianship since 7.9.2010 and
the charge-sheet had been recorded beneath section 302, 201 and120-B of the IPC exclusively on
the premise of the explanation of Abhesinh Kesarsinh Zala, a Peon serving within the office of the
appealing party. It was moreover canvassed that there was no particle of material to rope him
within the wrongdoing and a cumbersome exertion had been made to annihilate his political career
and annihilate his social picture.

In this case court held that

(1) Agreement can be proved either by the direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by
the both. Agreement before the commencement of the act not after the act is completed.

If in the act two person is alleged but later court found that one person is innocent then another
person is acquittal from liability of criminal conspiracy, but not discharge from the act he does,
Discharge from section 120(a) and 120(b).

10 | P a g e
 4. PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

Section 120(B) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy.
If two or more than two persons are agree to commit an offence which forbidden in penal code of
India, then offender punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
description for term of two years or upwards or to cause such an offence to e committed, the
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.7.
What does 120 (B) say:-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, *{imprisonment for life } or rigorous imprisonment for term of two
year or upward , 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. 8
Section 120(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.
Section 120(b) describe the punishment into types of punishment is given this section. In this first
case, if the person commits an offence which is in serious nature like murder, bomb blast at public
place and war against state etc. then liable for punishment with death, imprisonment for life, or
rigorous imprisonment for the term of two years or upwards.
In the second case of this provision offences punishable with fine only a provision has also made
for punishment when the conspiracy is unsuccessful. Conspiracy to commit a mere illegal act not
came under the criminal conspiracy chapter V. To avoid suit for alleged petty conspiracy provision
has been made under section 196(1) (f) of the criminal procedure code, 1973. According to 120B
(1), when there’s no communicated arrangement with respect to the provision of previously
mentioned offenses within the code at that point this segment is pertinent. Assist, it says that the
parties who commit any of the aforesaid offenses are culpable within the same way as the abetment
of such offenses. This section deals with the criminal conspiracy of remaining offenses. Generally,
it covers minor criminal offenses. In other words, we can say it covers the conspiracy of those
offenses which is punishable with less than 2-years of imprisonment. Thus, the section imposes
nominal punishment i.e. imprisonment for the term not exceeding 6 months.9.The punishment for
conspiracy is the same as if the conspirators had abetted the offence. One person demanding money
and point a gun on him ,and other person who stand alongside with him and do nothing then in
this case both are for charged under Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 294 (B)
(punishment for using abusive words), and 506 (2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal
Code. The punishment for criminal conspiracy is given to those people who is involve at the time
of agreement not after the commencement of act or during the act. In case of NCT of Delhi vs Navjot
Sandhu SC CITED BY 130 case also known as parliament attack case, the accused had never

7
K D GAUR TEXTBOOK ON IPC 6TH EDITION
8
PROFFESSIONAL’S BARE ACT
9
https://legodesk.com/legopedia/section-120b-ipc-criminal-conspiracy/

11 | P a g e
contacted with deceased terrorist but he help the one terrorist to reach at the safer place after the
incident is over. Can he have held liable for criminal conspiracy? Answer is no because accused
did not take part in the agreement of attack and not present at the time when other conspirators are
making plan for attack. He helps the terrorist because of the under the threat of terrorist he does
the act, that terrorist is point a gun on him and ask for safer place that’s why he do the act, all
things is done by the accused was under the threat. Accused No.4 namely Navjot Sandhu, Afsan
Guru was acquitted of all the charges except the one under Section 123 IPC for which she was
convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine. Death sentences were
imposed on the other three accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC
(it would be more appropriate to saySection 120-B read with Section 302 IPC) and Section 3(2)
of POTA. They were also sentenced to life imprisonment on as many as eight counts under the
provisions of IPC, POTA and Explosive Substances Act in addition to varying amounts of fine.
The amount of Rs.10 lakhs, which was recovered from the possession of two of the accused,
namely, Mohd. Afzal and Shaukat Hussain, was forfeited to the State under Section 6 of the
POTA.10.
It may be said that the charged Mohd. Afzal and Shaukat Hussain Master are related, being cousins.
The 4th blamed Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Master is the spouse of Shaukat Hussain. The third
charged S.A.R. Gilani may be a educator in Arabic in Delhi College. It is he who directed the
marriage ceremony of Shaukat Hussain Master and Navjot Sandhu who at the time of marriage
changed over herself to Islam. 3.(i) Presently, let us make a brief study of the occurrence and the
examination that taken after, which driven to the recording of the charge-sheet, as clear from the
fabric on record.
This judgment of the High Court has given rise to these seven appeals two requests favored by
Shaukat Hussain Master and one offer favored by Mohd. Afzal and four offers favored by the
State/Government of National Capital Region of Delhi against the quittance of S.A.R. Gilani and
Navjot Sandhu

10
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=navjot%20sandhu

12 | P a g e
 5.DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABETMENT AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: - It is defined in section 120 (A). When two or more person agree
to do something against law, or wrongful and harmful towards another person, or to use unlawful
means in the carrying out an object not otherwise unlawful, the person who so agree commit of
conspiracy.
Integrands of criminal conspiracy
(1) An act must be contrary to law or against the state law
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy
EXAMPLE: - A and B a plan to murder C; Here both A and B are liable for to a charge of criminal
conspiracy under this section since there was an agreement between A and B to do an illegal act,
i.e., to commit the murder of C.
Criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence by itself, and is punishable, it is an Act or a Planning
to do an illegal act by all the persons or any of them or by some of them, each accused is prime
offender of the act all are equally liable. Conspiracy is cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or
non bailable.
PUNISHMENT: -
Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code prescribes Punishment: 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 and for petty nature conspiracy offender is liable
for pay compensations only.
ABETMENT: -
It is defined in section 107 of the Indian penal code, 1860. A person abets the doing of a thing,
who
First – The person who are Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to
the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
According to Hindu law, when a crime, is committed, the one who with his own hand give the
fatal blow, several other might also be liable to punishment as accessories (helpers). In Hindu laws
following person could be liable for the half of punishment
(1) The armbhakrta: - The person who commences or sets the ball rolling
(2) Doshbhaka:- who participate in the act

13 | P a g e
 (3) Asraya:- He who harbours gives shelter to the assassin
(4) Sahaya :-He who aids
(5) Marganudesaka:- He who point the way
(6) Anumodaka:- He who supports
On the other hand who hires the assassin and pays him commission of a crime is to be awarded
four time the punishment.11
EXAMPLE: -A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend
Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby
intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
PUNISHMENT: -
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment,
and no express provision is made by this code for the punishment of such abetment be punished
with the punishment provided for the offence. (Section 109)
NOTE: - it is cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non bailable

ABETMENT BY CONAPIRACY: -
A person is said to be abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy, if he enters into an agreement with
one or more persons to do an illegal act, and some act is done in pursuance thereof. A, a servant, enter an
agreement with the thieves to keep the door of his master house open in night so that they might commit
theft. A, according to agreement he open the door at night so that thieve stolen some property in this case
servant is prosecute under the abetment by conspiracy. There is case Coleman vs Johnson (566) U.S.
650 2012 in this case it was held that co-conspirator in murder is not entitled to acquittal as there was
sufficient evidence to support conclusion that inmate assisted murderer in leading victim into alley to
facilitate murder. Respondent Lorenzo Johnson was convicted as an accomplice and co- conspirator in the
murder of Taraja Williams, who killed by gun blast in the chest in the morning time of December 15, 1995,
in Harrishburg, Pennsylvania.

We have another case related to the abetment by conspiracy Rosemond vs United states U.S.65,134
S 1240 (2014) in this case it was held that aiding and abetting a gun-carrying crime required proof
that defendant knew that one of his cohorts would be armed.
Rule: - The Government makes its case of appearing that a respondent helped and abetted an
infringement of 18 U.S.C.S. section 924(c) by demonstrating that the respondent effectively taken
part in a fundamental medicate trafficking or savage wrongdoing with development information
that an accomplice would utilize or carry a weapon amid the crime’s commission
Fact of the case:- Defendant was charged with using a gun in connection with a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. 924(c), or, in the alternative, aiding and abetting that offense
under 18 U.S.C.S. section 2, after he participated in an attempted sale of marijuana to two buyers

11
K D GAUR TEXTBOOK ON IPC 6TH EDITION

14 | P a g e
and shots were fired at the buyers after the buyers took the marijuana and ran. The district court
instructed the jury that they could find defendant guilty of violating section 924(c), as an aider and
abettor, if the evidence showed that he knowingly and actively participated in a drug trafficking
crime and knew that an accomplice used a firearm in the commission of a drug trafficking crime,
and the jury found defendant guilty of violating section 924(c).12

Issue :- Did the district court err in instructing the jury because it failed to require proof that
defendant knew in advance that one of his cohorts would be armed? Answer is yes
Conclusion:- The Supreme Court held that the district court's instructions were erroneous because
they failed to require proof that defendant knew in advance that one of his cohorts would be armed.

12
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-rosemond-v-united-states

15 | P a g e
 5.Case laws

CBI/SIT VS NALINI AND OTHERS AIR 1999 SC 154

Fact of the case: - Rajiv Gandhi, a former Prime Minister of India was assassinated on 21-5-1991
at a place called Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu. The assassin was an adolescent girl named Dhanu
who was made into a human bomb and she got herself exploded at 10.19 p.m at a very close
proximity to the visiting former Prime Minister. In a trice the life of Rajiv Gandhi was snuffed out
and his body was smashed into smithereens. As for the assassin, nothing except a few pieces of
charred limbs and her sundered head were left behind. In the explosion lives of 18 others also got
extinguished. Investigation pointed to a minutely orchestrated cabal, masterminded by some
conspirators to extirpate the former Prime Minister from this terrestrial terrain. In the final charge-
sheet made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) all the 26 appellants now before us were
arraigned as members of the conspiracy which targeted, inter alia, Rajiv Gandhi. The Special Judge
who tried the case found all the 26 appellants guilty of various offences charged.
Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
All of them were hence convicted of those offences and all of them were sentenced to death.13
All this things is happen on the direction of LTTE chief Prabhakaran, LTTE I terrorist organization
that working demands in Sri Lanka for Tamil speaking people Rajiv Gandhi is negotiate with Sri
Lankan prime minister to end the LTTE in Sri Lanka with the help of Indian army that is why
LTTE chief is very upset with this decision he make proper plan to kill Rajiv Gandhi from Sri
Lanks and he success in the mission.
Judgement: - The judgement was pronouncing by the SC of India four of them to death sentence
and others to various jail terms, states that absolutely no evidence existed that any one of the
conspirators ever desired the death of any Indian other than Rajiv Gandhi, though several people
were killed. Judge Wadhwa further states there is nothing on record to show that the intention to
kill Rajiv Gandhi was to overawe the Government. Hence it was held that it was not a terrorist act
under TADA (Act).[17][18] Judge Thomas further states that conspiracy was hatched in stages
commencing from 1987 and that it spanned several years. The Special Investigation team of India's
premier special investigation agency CBI was not able to pinpoint when the decision to kill Rajiv
Gandhi was taken.
State vs Mohd. Afsal and other DLT 385,2003
FACTS OF CASE: - In the present case, has been explored by the Designated Judge of the Special
Court comprised under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter
alluded to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the associated interests emerging out of the
judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to choose the lawfulness and legitimacy of the
preliminary as additionally the manageability of the judgment articulated by the Designated Judge
of the Special Court, POTA. By the denounced judgment, the scholarly Designated Judge has held

13
Indian Penal Code [With The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018] (Prof. S.N. Misra)

16 | P a g e
that the arraignment has effectively brought home the charge of trick against blamed Nos. 1 to 3,
for having gone into a scheme with the 5 killed psychological militants who had assaulted
Parliament House on 13.12.2001 alongside Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @
Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, every single Pakistani national (announced as broadcasted
wrongdoers), to secure arms and ammo and assault the Indian Parliament when in session,
proposing to take as prisoner or execute the Prime Minister, Central Ministers, Vice-President of
India and Members of Parliament and for that reason the said blamed people obtained safehouses
in Delhi, helped in getting arms and ammo, an engine vehicle which encouraged the passage of
the fear mongers into Parliament House Complex; acquired Chemicals for production of
explosives utilized by the killed psychological militants who connected Parliament House. The
charge of scheme was held not demonstrated against denounced No. 4, who was anyway seen as
blameworthy of knowing about the connivance yet neglected to report the equivalent to the police
and thus was seen as liable of having submitted the offense under Section 123 IPC. Following
sentence has been forced on the blamed:

In the expressions recently Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru :-

"To summarize, full scale establishments, including the parliamentary organizations, are at last the
projections of a people's character, thinking and points. They are solid and enduring in the measure
that they are as per the individuals' character and thinking. Else, they will in general separate."

9. The structure of the parliament, "The Parliament House" is the seat of the national sway. The
assault on the Parliament, hence, is an assault on the power of the individuals of India. It is an
assault on the respectability of the Indian State. It is an assault on the common and pluralistic
texture and character of India. The individuals who made an ineffective endeavor to assault the
Parliament House on thirteenth December, 2001 knew about the centrality of the assault. The
composition on the phony Home Ministry sticker stuck on the vehicle in which these people made
a section in the compound of Parliament House tells the strategic the possess expressions of these
people. The composition on the sticker peruses:

It is put together by the direction that piece of the proof to be specific, the after death reports of he
perished fear based oppressors just as expired people who were executed in the assault at
Parliament, MLCs of the people harmed in the assault, the recuperations of automatic weapons,
unstable substances, and so forth from the area of event in the Parliament with the exception of the
recuperations of I-Cards, Mobile telephones, slips on which some phone numbers were given and
different papers be considered as undisputed proof and every one of the records concerning the
previously mentioned proof will not be questioned by the accd. people. Accordingly, with the

17 | P a g e
assent of the safeguard guides, the archives which are MLCs of the harmed people, after death
reports of the expired people and the records in regards to recuperation of touchy substances, AK
47 riffles and other ammo from the spot of assault in Parliament or from the individual of perished
fear based oppressors will be viewed as demonstrated without formal confirmation and unopposed.
The rest of the observers will be inspected by the arraignment from 8-7-2002 onwards on everyday
premise. The arraignment will present a diagram of assessment of observers giving which witness
will be analyzed on which date.

42. Denounced S.A.R. Gilani and Afsan Guru were brought to the Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony.
Exposure explanation was made by S.A.R. Gilani being Ex.PW-66/13 and divulgence articulation
was made by charged Afzan Guru being Ex.PW-66/14. In his exposure proclamation, S.A.R.
Gilani unveiled that he hailed from Baramulla and that Shaukat who was additionally from
Baramulla met him when he was reading for M.A. They moved toward becoming companions. He
got Shaukat wedded to a sikh young lady, Navjot. Around one and a half year back Shaukat
acquainted him with his cousin Afzal. They used to plate opportunity of Kashmir and sentiment
of jehad for Islam created. Perished fear monger Mohd. was acquainted with him by Shaukat as
being related with Jaish-e-Mohd. furthermore, right hand man of Maulana Ajhar Masood and Gazi
Baba. Shaukat had dealt with a space for Mohd. on occupancy in Christian Colony. Arms had been
organized. Five fidayeen individuals from Jaish-e-Mohd. being Raja, Rana, Hamja, Hayder and
Mohd. had met at the place of Shaukat alongside Afzal and Navjot whose name was changed to
Afzan Guru. Plan to assault Parliament was examined. Afzal had a guide of Parliament. Plans to
buy vehicle, explosives and police uniform was talked about. From that point, overview was led
and plan was settled. He consented to give data relating to Parliament House. Upon the arrival of
the assault, Shaukat requested that he watch T and educate which M.P. had arrived at Parliament.
He could bring up home of his partners, place from where Chemicals were acquired as additionally
puts from where cell phones and garbs were obtained.

18 | P a g e
 6.Conclusion

At last I conclude my topic by write the whole project topic in few lines becomes clear that the
prosecution must adduce evidence to prove that: -
1. the accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act;
2. such an act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means within the meaning of IPC;
3. Irrespective of whether some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the
agreement.
Under the section 120A IPC offense of criminal scheme is committed when two or more people
concur to do or cause to be done an unlawful act or lawful act by illicit implies. When it is
legitimate act by illicit implies plain act is essential. Offense of criminal trick is special case to the
common law where expectation alone does not constitute wrongdoing. It is purposeful to commit
wrongdoing and joining hands with people having the same deliberate. Not as it were having the
deliberate but there had to be understanding to carry out the question of the deliberate, which is an
offense. The address for thought in a case is did all the charged had the purposeful and did they
concur that the wrongdoing be committed. It would not be sufficient for the offense of scheme
when a few of the denounced only engaged a wish, howsoever, appalling it may be, that offense
be committed.
A person who is found to be the guilty of committing criminal conspiracy shall be punished as per
section 120B which prescribes punishment for the same to a person 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. And 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.
At last I am going to end my topic my write the line that conspirators at any time before the
consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible, no matter person involve
in active role or passive role if he or she agree to involve in act are equally responsible.

19 | P a g e