Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 61
Criminal conspiracy
(1) When two or more persons agree with the common object to do, or cause to be done—
(a) an illegal act; or
(b) 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 a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy,—
(a) 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 Sanhita for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence;
(b) 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.
Why this exists
Criminal conspiracy law exists because planning and agreeing to commit crimes together is dangerous even before any harm actually happens — group planning can make crimes more organized, harder to stop, and more damaging. Indian law inherited this concept from British common law, originally codified in Section 120A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the IPC, has now restated the same principle in Section 61, keeping the core idea that agreement plus intent (and sometimes an overt act) can itself be punished, so law enforcement doesn't have to wait for the crime to be completed.
How courts read it
Under the equivalent IPC provision, courts have held that the essence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement itself, not its success — the crime lies in the meeting of minds. Courts have also clarified that direct evidence of an explicit agreement is rarely available, so conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as coordinated conduct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that mere knowledge or discussion isn't enough; there must be an actual agreement to commit an illegal act or use illegal means, and for non-offence agreements, some overt act must follow.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: You can only be punished for conspiracy if the planned crime actually happens.
Fact: The law punishes the agreement itself, especially for actual offences — the crime doesn't need to be completed. - Myth: Just talking about doing something illegal with a friend, even casually, means it's a criminal conspiracy.
Fact: There must be an actual agreement with a common object, and for agreements not directly about committing an offence, some real action beyond the agreement must be taken. - Myth: All conspiracies are punished the same way.
Fact: Punishment depends on the seriousness of the intended offence — serious offences get punished like abetment, while others get a lighter punishment of up to six months or a fine.