BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1988 SC 1883(2005) 11 SCC 600
Non-BailableCognizable: CognizableSame as offence
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 120A/120B to BNS 61.
2
Repositioned from Chapter VA (end of IPC) to Chapter IV (BNS) — reflecting structural priority.
3
Substantive law identical — the agreement is the criminal act.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
When two or more persons agree 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.
Legal Commentary
Section 61 codifies criminal conspiracy — the agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to achieve a legal act through illegal means. It is one of the most strategically important provisions in criminal law because it allows prosecutors to break open criminal networks at the planning stage, before the actual crime occurs, and to hold every member accountable for the actions of any other member in furtherance of the common plan. The agreement itself is the crime. Once two people agree to rob a bank, both are guilty of criminal conspiracy — even if one backs out before the robbery. The prosecution does not need to prove an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; the agreement is enough (exception: conspiracies to commit offences punishable by two years or less require an overt act). The second limb — achieving a legal goal by illegal means — is particularly important: if two businessmen agree to win a government contract (legal goal) through bribery (illegal means), they have committed criminal conspiracy. In the BNS, criminal conspiracy is moved from the end of the code (IPC Chapter VA) to Chapter IV, alongside abetment and attempt, reflecting the legislature's recognition that these 'inchoate offences' are structurally foundational.
Landmark Precedents
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988)
RELEVANCE
Indira Gandhi assassination case — Supreme Court held that a conspiracy agreement need not be formal or explicit; it can be inferred from conduct.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005)
RELEVANCE
Parliament Attack case — conspiracy charges examined; court held conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence where direct evidence of agreement is unavailable.
Case Simulations
"Four businessmen agreeing over encrypted messages to bribe an official for a contract — all four guilty of criminal conspiracy from the moment of agreement."
"A terrorist cell planning a bomb blast — members who only attended the planning meeting but did nothing else are conspirators."
"Two employees agreeing to siphon office funds monthly — criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust."
"A group privately agreeing to run coordinated mass-reporting campaigns to silence a journalist — criminal conspiracy to cause harm by illegal means."
Expert Insights
Yes, for serious offences. The agreement itself is the crime. Two people who agree to commit murder and are arrested before the act can both be charged with criminal conspiracy to commit murder under BNS 61, independently of any murder charge.
Indian law has no clear statutory provision for withdrawal. Courts have held that mere withdrawal does not extinguish liability for the original agreement — though active steps to prevent the crime may be considered in sentencing.