Meaning and Legal Basis of Proof of Conspiracy
Proof of conspiracy is governed primarily by Section 120A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Direct evidence of conspiracy is rare because conspirators generally act secretly. Therefore, courts rely heavily on circumstantial evidence, conduct of the parties, and their interconnected acts. Under Section 10, anything said, done, or written by any one conspirator in reference to the common design is admissible against all other conspirators, provided it occurs during the continuance of the conspiracy. The essence of proving conspiracy lies in establishing the meeting of minds.
Scope of Section 10 and Evidentiary Principles
Section 10 expands the evidentiary net by allowing certain statements and acts of one conspirator to be used against others, even if they are absent. This is based on the doctrine of agency, where each conspirator acts as an agent for the rest until the common objective is achieved or abandoned. For the evidence to be admissible, the prosecution must first show that a prima facie conspiracy exists and that the act or statement relates to the common object. Independent corroboration is essential for conviction, as mere association or knowledge is insufficient. Courts analyze communication records, financial transactions, travel patterns, and coordinated movements to establish a chain of circumstances.
Judicial Approach in Evaluating Conspiracy
Courts emphasize that conspiracy can be proved through inferences drawn from cumulative circumstances, not isolated facts. The Supreme Court has held that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and can be inferred from acts showing unity of purpose. The prosecution must show the existence of a shared unlawful intention and participation in furtherance of the plan. Even passive participation or limited involvement can attract liability if the individual knew about the plan and contributed to its execution. However, suspicion alone cannot substitute proof. Every link in the chain of circumstances must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence.
Real-Time Example
A group of four individuals plans to rob a bank. They meet secretly, assign roles, arrange weapons, and conduct a reconnaissance visit. One conspirator purchases a getaway vehicle, another steals access cards, and the others coordinate timings. Even if only one person enters the bank to execute the robbery, all conspirators are liable. Messages exchanged in a group chat, CCTV footage of their meetings, and financial transactions used to purchase equipment can be admitted under Section 10 as acts in reference to the common design. These pieces together establish the conspiracy even without direct evidence of an explicit agreement.
Mnemonic to Remember – “CAIR”
C – Common design must be proved
A – Acts/statements of one are admissible against all (Section 10)
I – Inference from circumstances
R – Requires continuity of conspiracy
“CAIR helps you carefully remember Proof of Conspiracy.”
About lawgnan
Gain a clear understanding of Proof of Conspiracy under the IPC and Evidence Act with well-structured explanations on Lawgana.in. Explore how courts establish conspiracy through circumstantial evidence, coordinated acts, communication trails, and Section 10 statements. Our detailed notes explain the role of common design, agency doctrine, admissibility rules, and judicial principles used to infer the “meeting of minds.” Whether preparing for judiciary exams, law school tests, or case research, Lawgana.in provides accurate, exam-ready content with helpful mnemonics like CAIR to simplify complex legal concepts. Strengthen your Evidence Act preparation with expert-level clarity.
