Judicial Dictionary

Criminal conspiracy

Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012)
9 SCC 512, in which Supreme Court opined thus:

“24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are
that there should be an agreement between the persons who
are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for
doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act
which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence
of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and
such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or
by  circumstantial  evidence   or  by both  and   in  a  matter  of
common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is
rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before
and   after   the   occurrence   have   to   be   considered   to   decide
about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are
proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they
were   so   committed   in   pursuance   of   an   agreement   made
between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged
conspiracy.   Inferences   from   such   proved   circumstances
regarding   the   guilt   may   be   drawn   only   when   such
circumstances   are   incapable   of   any   other   reasonable
explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot
be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and
surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and
acceptable evidence.”


Categories: Judicial Dictionary

Tagged as: