Punishment of criminal conspiracy
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment of criminal conspiracy. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy 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 Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy 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 Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy 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.]
CHAPTER VI
OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE
CHAPTER VI
OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE
Section 120B, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 61 Criminal conspiracy Close, with changes 77%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 14
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 196
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 196
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 196 Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminalconspiracy to commit such offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 196
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Industrial Relations Code s. 17 Criminal conspiracy in furtherance of objects of Trade Union
- Karnataka Krishna Basin Development Authority Act s. 46 Amendment of Karnataka Act 34 of 1987
- Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act s. 28 Disqualification of membership etc. of committees
- Trade Unions Act s. 17 Criminal conspiracy in trade disputes
- Trade Unions Act s. 17 Criminal conspiracy in trade disputes
- Trade Unions Act s. 17 Criminal conspiracy in trade disputes
- Trade Unions Act s. 17 Criminal conspiracy in trade disputes
and 2 more
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2004-03-15 (not same-date order-5 ROP). Crl A 2003. Criminal conspiracy under IPC 120A/120B is an agreement to do an illegal act; the offence is complete with the agreement, and the prosecution may prove it by surrounding circumstances and the acts of the alleged conspirators. Map ipc 120B and successor bns 61 (mapping.csv close; 120A also maps to 61).
On this section: s.120B punishes criminal conspiracy: the offence is the agreement to do an illegal act (or a legal act by illegal means). It is complete with the agreement and may be proved by surrounding circumstances and the concerted acts of the alleged conspirators.
-
Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a witness is trustworthy and reliable and has opportunity to observe and recall the incident, the absence of a test identification parade does not render their in-court identification inadmissible or unsafe if it is supported by credible corroborating material evidence such as medical evidence, other eyewitness accounts, recoveries of items connected to the crime, and incriminating statements. Conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 307 read with Section 120B IPC can be sustained on the basis of such circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. However, conviction must not be based on mere suspicion or telephone communications alone without concrete corroborating evidence, as the standard of proof requires evidence to be sufficient and convincing.
On this section: Applied to convict appellants as conspirators who agreed to and actively participated in committing murder and kidnapping of Jassi. Established that Section 120B IPC requires proof of agreement and active participation or knowledge of conspiracy.
-
Shiv Nandan Dixit vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecution under section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy, cognizance can be taken without written consent under section 196(2) CrPC if the underlying conspiracy involves offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, regardless of whether the court exercises discretion to award lesser punishment. Further, under Prevention of Corruption Act sections 4 and 5(1)(d), the presumption of guilt applies even when bribe is received indirectly, and 'obtains for himself' includes both direct and indirect receipt. A public servant returning a government document held in official custody pursuant to an official order is performing an official act, hence demanding bribe for such return constitutes offense under section 161 IPC. An accomplice can be convicted for criminal conspiracy to demand and receive bribe if presence when demand was made and knowledge of bribe nature are established through circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy to commit offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment exceeding two years; Court held that section 196(2) CrPC consent not required as underlying offenses carried punishment exceeding two years
-
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail (that Public Prosecutor be given opportunity to oppose and that Court be satisfied of reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail), is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India because: (1) the classification based on sentencing of predicate offences has no rational nexus to the object of the PMLA Act which is to attach proceeds of crime and bring money laundering offenders to book; (2) the twin conditions relate to guilt of predicate offence, not money laundering offence, creating a disconnect; (3) the provision produces manifestly arbitrary results depending on whether predicate offence is in Part A or Part B of Schedule or whether person is charged with money laundering alone; (4) the provision inverts the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to criminal law; (5) the procedure is not fair, just and reasonable as required by Article 21; and (6) the provision lacks a compelling state interest justifying such drastic inroads into personal liberty.
On this section: Predicate offences in Nikesh Shah's case; cited as examples of scheduled offences
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy; applied where multiple persons conspired to illegally mine minerals
-
Subhash Krishnan vs State of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving identification evidence, when multiple independent eyewitnesses positively identify the accused in court with specific reference to identifying features (such as distinctive clothing) and distinctive acts performed during the crime, and when such in-court identification is corroborated by: (a) participation in prior test identification parade conducted within reasonable time of occurrence (24 days) where accused did not challenge procedures; (b) recovery of vehicle and weapons linked to appellant; (c) credible evidence of previous acquaintance supporting enduring impress of identity; (d) consistent medical/forensic evidence; and (e) circumstances of arrest at scene with weapons, the absence of formal cross-examination of key witness (due to unavoidable circumstances) or initial non-mention in complaint does not vitiate the trial or conviction. The purpose of investigation is to set law in motion and collect evidence; if investigative procedures are thereafter followed lawfully and evidence collected is sufficiently corroborated, conviction can be upheld despite technical defects in initiation of investigation.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy - applied to show common intention and pre-planned assault on deceased by multiple accused persons
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Punishment for criminal conspiracy; appellant was charged under this section; court held no agreement or conspiracy was established against appellant
-
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for conclusive proof in criminal convictions. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing best evidence. The non-examination of a key witness who is the best person to clarify disputed facts is fatal to the prosecution case. Mere departmental misconduct, even if gross, does not constitute criminal breach of trust, cheating, or falsification of accounts unless the essential ingredients of these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of financial loss to the bank and the absence of any complaint from the affected party are material factors in determining criminal liability. Once entrustment of property is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the property was dealt with in a legally and contractually acceptable manner, but this burden must be discharged in the context of the prosecution's failure to produce best evidence.
On this section: Defines criminal conspiracy; requires proof of prior meeting of minds; Court held that prosecution adduced no evidence of conspiracy between the three accused persons
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy; listed as offence involving moral turpitude in Annexure A of Standing Order 398/2010
-
Govt. of Nct vs Prem Singh Choudhary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for appointment in public service, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee, comprising senior officers, has the discretion to assess suitability by examining the nature of charges, circumstances of acquittal (including whether based on benefit of doubt or hostile witnesses), and overall conduct. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second-guess this suitability determination or conduct intensive factual scrutiny of evidence unless the decision is mala fide, illegal, or arbitrary. The autonomy of public employers in selecting suitable candidates is greatest in matters of suitability, as distinguished from eligibility, and judicial review is limited to ensuring the process is fair, non-discriminatory, and not lacking in bona fides.
On this section: These sections were cited to identify offences involving moral turpitude as listed in Annexure A of Standing Order 398/2010. The Court examined which offences the candidates were charged with and whether they fell within the moral turpitude category. Sections 323, 341, 325, 34 (simple hurt, wrongful restraint, grievous hurt, common intention) were analyzed as not necessarily involving moral turpitude, while Section 364 (kidnapping) was considered a serious offence
-
Avinash Chandra Vaish vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a special statute like the Legal Metrology Act 2009 contains a non obstante clause and exclusionary provision (Section 51), it excludes only those provisions of the general statute (IPC) which specifically relate to the subject matter covered by the special statute. Offences under the general statute which are not covered by the special statute remain prosecutable even when the facts also constitute an offence under the special statute. The exclusion applies only to Chapter XIII IPC (Sections 264-267) relating to weights and measures, not to offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy or common intention which are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act 2009. An accused can be prosecuted under either or both statutes but cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy; held to be prosecutable as not covered by Legal Metrology Act 2009
-
Pankaj Jain vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The word 'may' in Section 88 Cr.P.C. confers discretionary power on the court and does not create a mandatory obligation or a corresponding right in any person appearing before the court. The discretion is for the court to exercise judicially based on the nature of the case, seriousness of charges, and status of the person (whether a free agent or already under warrant/arrest). Section 88 applies only to persons who are free agents - meaning they have not been arrested, are not under custody, and a non-bailable warrant has not been issued against them. When a non-bailable warrant has been issued and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against an accused, that person ceases to be a free agent and cannot claim protection under Section 88. The discretion under Section 88 is not coupled with any duty toward the appearing person; rather, it is coupled with the duty to ensure appearance of the person in court. Therefore, an accused person's non-arrest during investigation does not automatically entitle them to release on bond merely by appearing in court; they must follow the prescribed bail procedures applicable to their specific category of offence.
On this section: Charges in original FIR - criminal misconduct, cheating, forgery offences
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy - The Court held that conspiracy charges against all 21 accused were already contained in the joint charge sheet filed by the CBI and could be added to the charges at Lucknow.
-
Naseeb Jain @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision petition is interconnected with another petition and an order has been passed in the connected petition on the same date, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all grounds before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, allowing the trial court to consider all arguments in the context of the interconnected cases.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy - added charge in connected FIR
-
State Of Rajasthan vs Dharam Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only when the judgment suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or when no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt beyond reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence on record. In the present case, the trial court's acquittal was a possible view based on the evidence, and therefore the appellate court cannot reverse it merely because another view was also possible.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy; initially charged but not pursued
-
Shilpa Sonu Singh vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused woman has undergone substantial incarceration (approximately two years) pending trial on serious charges, and considering her gender as a recognized factor in bail jurisprudence, bail may be granted on humanitarian grounds even when the High Court has previously rejected the bail application, without detailed examination of the charge's gravity or the evidence's strength.
On this section: Charge of criminal conspiracy
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The investigation changed hands several times, which also had political overtones, despite which the prosecution resulted in the conviction by the Trial Court of all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 427, 449 & 302 read with Sections 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[1]( page-1-0) . <span id="page-1-0"></span> 2. The sixth accused, the appellant herein, who was roped in on the charge of conspiracy, for the earlier incidents, his presence at the crime scene and the exhortation made to kill, was handed down the sentence of death, being the main …
-
… at Police Station-Special Cell, Delhi against the Respondent - Accused for the offence punishable under Section 3,4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") and the investigation was taken up by the Special Cell, Delhi Police. - ii. During the course of the investigation, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was also added. - iii. The Respondent Accused was arrested on 14.09.2020. - iv. A Bail Application was filed by the Respondent, along with the other accused and the same came to be dismissed by the Chief Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2021 Page 2 of 14 Metropolitan …
-
… Devdas Shetty), accused no. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni) whereas accused no. 4 (Mayur Desai @ Mukesh Shah @ M.P. Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused …
Questions about Section 120B
What have the courts held on Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code?
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (15 Mar 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.120B punishes criminal conspiracy: the offence is the agreement to do an illegal act (or a legal act by illegal means). It is complete with the agreement and may be proved by surrounding circumstances and the concerted acts of the alleged conspirators. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 120B, section 120B IPC, section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (15 Mar 2004).
What should I read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
14 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 61 (Criminal conspiracy), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called criminal conspiracy, and cited as IPC 120B, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.