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.”