Criminal conspiracy: agreement as the offence, its proof and its limits (s. 61)

LUG-106 Substantial Law of Crimes-I (The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - I), Unit III: Criminal conspiracy (s. 61). · LLB · 60 min

Criminal conspiracy is the only offence in the Sanhita that is complete on an agreement. Section 61 BNS carries ss. 120A and 120B IPC, inserted in 1913, into one section: the definition with its proviso and explanation, and the two-tier punishment. This lecture covers the history, the ingredients (two or more persons, agreement, illegal object or illegal means, overt act where the object is not an offence), the proof of a secret agreement by circumstantial evidence and s. 8 BSA (s. 10 Evidence Act), the contrast with abetment by conspiracy and common intention, and the leading cases: Kehar Singh (the Indira Gandhi assassination), State v. Navjot Sandhu (the Parliament attack) and Yash Pal Mittal (the scope of a conspiracy).

Objectives

Explain the definition of criminal conspiracy in s. 61(1) BNS, its proviso and its explanation, and the punishment in s. 61(2).
Distinguish criminal conspiracy from abetment by conspiracy (s. 45(b)) and from common intention (s. 3(5)).
Explain how a conspiracy is proved, including the role of s. 8 BSA (s. 10 Evidence Act) and the difference between agreement and mere knowledge.
Apply Kehar Singh, Navjot Sandhu and Yash Pal Mittal to a problem on the scope and proof of a conspiracy.

Slides

A crime of agreement: history and place in the Sanhita
What s. 61(1) says: the definition, the proviso and the explanation
Ingredients and the mental element
Punishment: s. 61(2) and the overlap with abetment
Proving a secret agreement: circumstantial evidence and s. 8 BSA
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 1988: the assassination of Indira Gandhi
Navjot Sandhu (2005) and Yash Pal Mittal (1977): knowledge, agreement and scope
Criminal conspiracy, abetment by conspiracy and common intention side by side
How the examiner asks criminal conspiracy

Loading the lecture…