Section 120B

Section 120B was added to the Indian Penal Code in 1913, when the concept of 'criminal conspiracy' as a standalone offence was introduced through Chapter VA. Before this, Indian law mostly punished completed acts or direct abetment, making it hard to prosecute people who merely planned a crime together without personally committing it. Colonial-era authorities, worried about organized crime, secret societies, and political conspiracies, wanted a tool to punish the agreement itself — the meeting of minds to commit a crime — even if the crime was never carried out. This mirrored English common law's treatment of conspiracy as an independent wrong.

The Supreme Court, in cases like Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admin.) (1988) — arising from the Indira Gandhi assassination conspiracy — clarified that conspiracy is essentially an agreement to do an illegal act, and direct evidence of the agreement is rarely available; courts often infer it from conduct and circumstances. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999), relating to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Court discussed the scope of criminal conspiracy and cautioned that mere knowledge or association isn't enough — there must be an actual agreement to commit the offence. Courts have consistently held that once a person joins a conspiracy for a serious offence, they can be held liable for the acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of that agreement, even without personally committing the final act.

• Myth: You can only be punished under Section 120B if the planned crime actually happens.
  Fact: Courts have held that the offence of criminal conspiracy is complete the moment there's an agreement to commit the crime — it doesn't matter whether the crime is ever carried out.
• Myth: Everyone who knew about a conspiracy is equally guilty under Section 120B.
  Fact: Courts have clarified that mere knowledge or passive awareness of a conspiracy isn't enough; there must be an actual agreement to participate in committing the offence.