Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal but is done by illegal means. Under Indian law, criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and punished under Section 120B IPC (Section 62 BNS).
Legal definition
Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides the statutory definition:
Section 120A: When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, —
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides such agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
The punishment is prescribed by Section 120B:
Section 120B: (1) 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.
(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.
The proviso to Section 120A is crucial: where the agreement is to commit an offence (as opposed to an act that is merely illegal), the conspiracy is complete upon the agreement itself. No overt act is required. However, where the agreement is to do an act that is illegal but not an offence, some overt act must follow the agreement.
New law equivalent: Under the BNS, 2023, Section 61 defines criminal conspiracy in identical terms, and Section 62 prescribes the same punishment structure. The proviso requiring an overt act for non-offence conspiracies is retained.
How courts have interpreted this term
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1988) 3 SCC 609]
In the case arising from the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the Supreme Court delivered the definitive interpretation of criminal conspiracy. The Court held that the essence of conspiracy is the agreement, and that agreement need not be formal, express, or written. It can be inferred from circumstantial evidence — the conduct of the parties, their acts, their communications, and the totality of the circumstances. The Court observed: "The agreement is the gist of the offence of conspiracy. A few persons agree to do something. One of them does an overt act. That is enough."
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu [(2005) 11 SCC 600]
In the Parliament attack case, the Supreme Court examined the evidentiary requirements for proving conspiracy. The Court held that direct evidence of an agreement is rarely available, and conspiracy is almost always proved through circumstantial evidence — acts done, meetings held, communications exchanged, and the subsequent conduct of the alleged conspirators. However, the circumstances must be such that they unequivocally point to the existence of an agreement.
Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 540]
The Court clarified that a person who joins a conspiracy after its formation is as much a party to the conspiracy as the original members, provided they share the common design. However, each conspirator is responsible only for those acts done in pursuance of the conspiracy — a conspirator who withdraws before the commission of the offence may not be liable for subsequent acts.
Why this matters
Criminal conspiracy occupies a unique position in Indian criminal law as a substantive offence that is complete upon the mere agreement, without requiring any further act (when the object is an offence punishable with two or more years). This makes it a powerful prosecutorial tool, as the prosecution does not need to prove that the planned offence was actually committed. The charge of conspiracy effectively criminalises the planning stage itself.
For this reason, conspiracy charges are almost universally added to chargesheets in multi-accused cases involving serious offences such as murder, terrorism, financial fraud, drug trafficking, and corruption. The prosecution's ability to prove conspiracy through circumstantial evidence — intercepted communications, financial trails, meetings, and the coordinated conduct of the accused — makes it a versatile charge that binds together co-accused who may have played different roles.
For defence practitioners, conspiracy cases present unique challenges. The most significant is the rule of co-conspirator's statements: under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 6 BSA), anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in reference to the common intention is admissible against all co-conspirators. This creates a situation where the statements of one accused can be used as evidence against another, a significant departure from the general rule against hearsay.
A common criticism of conspiracy charges is that they are sometimes used to implicate persons whose connection to the main offence is tenuous. The Supreme Court has cautioned that mere association with conspirators, or mere knowledge of a conspiracy, does not make a person a party to it. There must be evidence of an agreement — a meeting of minds — with the common object of doing an illegal act.
Related terms
Related offences:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between criminal conspiracy and abetment by conspiracy?
Criminal conspiracy under Section 120A IPC (Section 61 BNS) is a substantive offence that is complete upon the agreement itself (for offences punishable with 2+ years). Abetment by conspiracy under Section 107 Second IPC (Section 45 BNS) requires an overt act to be done in pursuance of the conspiracy. A person can be charged with both criminal conspiracy and abetment for the same set of facts.
Can a single person commit criminal conspiracy?
No. Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between "two or more persons." A single individual cannot conspire alone. However, if one of two alleged conspirators is acquitted, the other can still be convicted if there is evidence that the conspiracy existed and may have involved other unidentified persons.
Is criminal conspiracy a cognizable offence?
Yes. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC (Section 62 BNS) is a cognizable and non-bailable offence when the object of the conspiracy is an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of two years or more. For lesser conspiracies, it is non-cognizable and bailable.
How is conspiracy proved in court?
Conspiracy is almost always proved through circumstantial evidence, as direct proof of an agreement is rarely available. Courts rely on: intercepted communications, financial transactions, meeting records, coordinated conduct of the accused, recovery of documents, and the testimony of co-conspirators who turn approver. The circumstances must form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.