The offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. However, conspiracy is usually hatched in a secret and private setting which makes it almost impossible to produce any affirmative evidence about the date of formation of the criminal conspiracy, the persons involved, or the object of such conspiracy. Due to this secretive nature, criminal conspiracy is primarily based on circumstantial evidence as direct evidence is rarely available.
Essential Elements to Establish Conspiracy
To prove criminal conspiracy under Indian law, the prosecution must establish certain fundamental elements:
Meeting of Minds/Agreement: The most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. The Supreme Court in Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) held that such an illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of the agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable.
Knowledge and Intent: For a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the co-conspirators were wanting to achieve and thereafter having the intent to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment.
Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act - Key Provision
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is crucial for proving conspiracy cases. This section operates on the principle of implied agency - every conspirator is an agent of the parties to the agreement to carry out the object of conspiracy.
Conditions for Admissibility: Before evidence can be admitted under Section 10, two conditions must be satisfied:
-
There should be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong
-
Anything said, done or written by any one of them about their common intention will be evidence against the others, provided it is said, done or written after the time when such intention was first formed
Timing Requirements: The evidence is relevant only if it relates to acts, statements, or writings made:
-
After the conspiracy was first entertained by any conspirator
-
In reference to their common intention
-
Acts before the conspiracy began or after it ended are not relevant
Standard of Proof Required
The standard of proof for criminal conspiracy is the same as any other criminal offence - beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has established several important principles:
Adequacy of Evidence: In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Court held that "a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy".
Suspicion vs. Legal Proof: In Subramaniam Swamy v. A Raja, it was held that "suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof and existence of a meeting between the accused persons is not by itself sufficient to infer the existence of criminal conspiracy".
Prima Facie Case Requirement
A prima facie case of conspiracy must be established before Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act can be applied. Only when reasonable grounds exist to believe that persons entered into a conspiracy can the court admit evidence of acts and statements made by co-conspirators against each other.
Judicial Precedents and Applications
Recent Supreme Court decisions have reinforced these principles:
Joint Responsibility: In Mohd. Naushad v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023), the Court clarified that criminal conspiracy creates joint responsibility, making all conspirators liable for acts committed as a result of the conspiracy.
Circumstantial Evidence: In Sajeev v. State of Kerala (2023), the Supreme Court demonstrated how circumstantial evidence, including destruction of evidence and fabrication of records, can establish conspiracy when viewed collectively.
Challenges in Proving Conspiracy
Inference-Based Proof: Since conspiracies are formed in secrecy, proving them is largely a matter of inference from circumstances. Courts must examine the totality of evidence to determine whether it establishes the requisite agreement between parties.
Avoiding Deemed Presumption: Contemporary practice sometimes improperly applies 'deemed presumption' concepts, which are not available under the IPC, leading to dilution of the standard of proof. Courts must maintain the rigorous "beyond reasonable doubt" standard even when dealing with circumstantial evidence.
The law requires that while conspiracy may be difficult to prove directly, the prosecution must still meet the established legal standards through careful presentation of circumstantial evidence that collectively establishes the agreement and common intention among the accused parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment