Q When A B &C conspires , B and C having a separate communication, can A be held liable?
Ans:- Yes—A can be held liable, but only if the prosecution proves that A was a party to the same agreement or common design; the mere fact that B and C later had a separate communication does not by itself make A liable for everything said or done between them. Under Section 120A IPC, the essence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement of two or more persons to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means, and Section 120B IPC punishes anyone who is a party to that conspiracy.
Core principle
Section 120A IPC makes the agreement itself the gravamen of the offence. If A, B and C had already agreed to commit an unlawful act, then a later separate communication only between B and C may still be treated as a step in carrying forward the original conspiracy, and A may remain liable as a conspirator even if he was not present in that later conversation.
But if the separate communication between B and C amounts to a new plan, beyond what A had agreed to, then A cannot automatically be fastened with liability for that enlarged or independent conspiracy. A must be shown to have shared the “meeting of minds” regarding that particular unlawful design.
Relevant IPC provisions
Section 120A IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means; where the conspiracy is not itself to commit an offence, some overt act in pursuance of the agreement is additionally required.
Section 120B IPC provides the punishment. If the conspiracy is to commit a serious offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or more, the conspirator is punishable as if he had abetted that offence; in other cases, punishment may extend to six months, or fine, or both.
When A is liable
A may be held liable in these situations:
A was part of the original agreement with B and C.
The later communication between B and C was only in furtherance of that already existing conspiracy.
The acts done by B and C fell within the scope of the common unlawful object that A had joined.
In such a case, physical presence at every meeting is unnecessary, because conspiracy is usually proved by conduct, surrounding circumstances, and coordinated acts rather than by direct evidence of every conversation.
When A is not liable
A should not be held liable merely because B and C communicated separately. Mere association, knowledge, suspicion, or friendship is not enough; there must be evidence that A agreed to the unlawful design.
Likewise, if B and C formed a fresh or wider conspiracy in their separate communication, and A neither knew of it nor joined it, then A cannot be convicted for that distinct conspiracy simply on inference. Courts require evidence of a real meeting of minds and generally do not sustain conspiracy solely on uncorroborated statements of co-accused.
Practical illustration
If A, B and C agree to forge a document, and later B and C speak separately only about where to print it or how to deliver it, A can still be liable because that communication advances the original agreed plan.
But if, during that separate discussion, B and C additionally decide to commit murder to hide the forgery, A cannot be made liable for that new conspiracy unless it is proved that A also agreed to that further object.
40 second answer
Under Section 120A IPC, the gist of criminal conspiracy is the agreement or meeting of minds to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means; therefore, A need not participate in every conversation. If A, B and C were already part of the original conspiracy, then a later separate communication only between B and C, made in furtherance of that common design, can still make A liable under Section 120B IPC. However, if that later communication between B and C amounts to a fresh or enlarged conspiracy beyond the original agreement, and A was not party to it, then A cannot be held liable for that new part merely by association. So, the test is whether the prosecution proves A’s participation in the common unlawful agreement, not whether A was present in every discussion.
Short answer
Under Section 120A IPC, the essence of conspiracy is the agreement or meeting of minds to commit an illegal act. So, if A was part of the original conspiracy, he can still be liable under Section 120B IPC even though B and C later spoke separately, provided that talk was in furtherance of the same plan. But if B and C formed a fresh plan beyond A’s agreement, A cannot be held liable for that new conspiracy.
Under Section 120A IPC, the gist of criminal conspiracy is the agreement or meeting of minds to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means; therefore, A need not participate in every conversation. If A, B and C were already part of the original conspiracy, then a later separate communication only between B and C, made in furtherance of that common design, can still make A liable under Section 120B IPC. However, if that later communication between B and C amounts to a fresh or enlarged conspiracy beyond the original agreement, and A was not party to it, then A cannot be held liable for that new part merely by association. So, the test is whether the prosecution proves A’s participation in the common unlawful agreement, not whether A was present in every discussion.
Short answer
Under Section 120A IPC, the essence of conspiracy is the agreement or meeting of minds to commit an illegal act. So, if A was part of the original conspiracy, he can still be liable under Section 120B IPC even though B and C later spoke separately, provided that talk was in furtherance of the same plan. But if B and C formed a fresh plan beyond A’s agreement, A cannot be held liable for that new conspiracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment