However, this rule has been changed in subsequent cases. Where the prosecution proves that two or more persons were connected in a conspiracy and they could not be caught, one alone can still be convicted.Įarlier, one person alone could be held liable for the offence of criminal conspiracy. It is sufficient that the court proves that two or more than two persons were actually involved in the criminal conspiracy. In Bimbdhar Pradhan vs the State of Orissa (1956), the Supreme Court held that one person could also be convicted for the offence of conspiracy. In other words, joint evil intent is mandatory. ![]() Passive cognizance of conspiracy is not enough. And for that, no proof of direct meeting or communication is needed. To establish criminal conspiracy charges under section 120A, there must be an agreement, either expressed or implied. It means that only agreement or intention is not enough to make a person liable for criminal conspiracy unless they have done something unlawful or illegal by unlawful or illegal means. When two or more people consent to do or have done any illegal act or an act that is legal by illegal means, they are said to have committed an offence of a criminal conspiracy.Ī criminal conspiracy not only consists of the agreement or meeting of intention or minds between two or more than two persons but an actual commission of an unlawful act by unlawful means.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |