LL.B. (3Yrs.

) I Semester
Paper - V- LAW OF CRIME

Unit – III

Q.1. Discuss the essential elements of Common intention.With the help of decided cases distinguish between
commom intention and same intention. (2023,2014,2017,2021)

Ans. Section 3(5)- 3(9) of B.N.S provides for the 'Principle of Joint Liability. According to section 3(5), when any
criminal act is jointly done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, then each of such person is
liable for that act in the same manners as if it were done by him alone. This kind of liability is called joint
liability and all the persons participating in the crime are called 'joint offenders'.
 Elements of the Liability of Joint Offenders Under Section 3(5) of B.N.S(or the Factors Constituting Joint
Liablity):-
1. Criminal Act: For constituting the liability under section 3(5), any criminal act should be done, which is
punishable by law. The term 'act' includes - 'act' and 'omission' both. In the criminal act, there must be a 'series
of acts', not a single act.
2. Acts done by Several Persons: Section 3(5) provides for the joint liability, so it is necessary that the number of
accused should be more than one.
3. Common Intention: When any act in done in furtherance of "pre-arranged plan", then it is said that it was done
with common intention. So for common intention , 2 elements are necessary -
(a) Pre - arranged plan
(b) Prior - meeting of minds, which means the offenders had prior - knowledge of the plan and they had given
their prior - consent.
4. In Furtherance of Common Intention: For the application of section 3(5), it is necessary that the criminal act
should be done in furtherance of common intention. For it, pre-arranged plan of the offenders, with their prior-
meeting of minds is necessary.
Leading cases:
 In Barendra Kumar Ghosh V. Emperor (1925) the accused was charged with the robbery and murder of
postmaster. He argued that, at the time of commission of offence, he was outside the post office and he did not
shoot him. But court, rejecting his arguments, held that - "......they also serve, who only stand and wait. Separate
acts by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable. Since the act
was done in furtherance of common intention, so the accused was liable on the basis of constructive liability."
 In Mehboob Shah V. Emperor (1945), the court distinguishing between the 'common intention 'and' 'similar
intention', said that sec 34 of IPC (Now Section 3(5) of BNS) determines the liability on the basis of common
intention. In common intention, pre-arranged plan is necessary, but in similar or same intention, there is no pre-
arranged plan.

Difference between common intention and same intention

 In order to invoke Section 3(5) of the BNS, there must be a single intention shared by everyone.
 The phrases ‘common intention’ and ‘same intention’ may seem similar, but they are not the same. A
common intention is a pre-arranged plan or previous meeting of minds before the act’s commitment.
 The term ‘common’ refers to anything that everyone has in the same proportion. It is typical for them to have
a shared object, purpose, or objective.
 Same intention, on the other hand, is not common intention because it does not entail a pre-planned meeting,
sharing, or thinking.
 For example, A is B’s office co-worker. Even though A is higher in seniority, B gets promoted. A and B are
enemies. A intends to exact revenge on B. B, on the other hand, has responsibilities as the house’s oldest son.
C, who is younger than B, was upset because his older brother B was promoted. A decides to murder B on his
way home from work one day. C, the younger brother, also intends to murder B on his way home. A and C
both catch and kill B at the same location. They’ve both killed B here. However, they do not have the same
goal. They both wanted to assassinate B, but their methods were different, and their intentions were not the
same. A and C are accountable for whatever conduct they perform but are not liable for the act of another.
 Q.2 Write a short note on common Object.Point out the differences between common intention and
common object(2016)
Ans.
Section. 190 (Common Object).
 The principle of group liability is provided under section 149 of IPC. According to Sec. 149 - "If an offence is
committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or
such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every
person who, at the time of committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that
offence."
 According to this section if any offence is done in prosecution of the common object by the member of
unlawful assembly or any offence which the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of the common object, then they shall be guilty of that offence. Thus this section is divided into
two parts: (1) an offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common
object of that assembly; and (2) an offence which the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of the common object. The basis of constructive liability under this section is the
membership of unlawful assembly.
Essential Elements of Sec. 190:
1. Five or More Persons:
For the application of sec. 190, it is necessary that the persons on whom liability is made under this section,
must be the member of unlawful assembly. For unlawful assembly 5 or more persons are required. The
assembly made by less then 5 persons would not constitute an unlawful assembly. If 5 or more persons are
charged under this section and some are acquitted and then the number of remained persons are less than 5,
then they can not be held guilty under section 149.
2. Common Object:
The members of unlawful assembly must have gathered with any common object. For common object it is not
necessary that they have already consulted together or made any plan. There common object, for the purpose
of sec. 190, shall be presumed when common object is known by all the members of unlawful assembly and
they would have consented for that.
3. Unlawful Object:
For the application of sec. 190, the unlawful assembly must be existent. Unlawful assembly is defined under
Sec. 141. Only that assembly shall be considered as unlawful which is gathered with the object enumerated
under sec. 141.
4. Offence is Committed:
Sec. 190 applies when any offence is committed by the members of unlawful assembly.
5. In Prosecution of the Common Object:
Sec. 190 makes every person equally liable who commit any offence in prosecution of the common object. It
is not necessary that each and every member of the assembly commit the offence. Only it is sufficient that the
member of unlawful assembly has taken part in the prosecution of common object.
6. Knowledge of Probability of Commission of offence:
Sec. 190 makes person liable under 2 conditions.
First: - If offence is committed in prosecution of the common object of all members.
Second:- If the common object of all the persons were to perform different act, but the members of the
assembly had the knowledge of the probability of commission of offence, then they shall be held equally
liable
Distinction Between Common Intention and Common Object:-
Common Intention (Sec. 3(5)) Common Object (Sec. 190)
1. The basis of liability under sec. 3(5) is common 1. Liability under sec. 190 is based on common
intention, which animated the accused persons, i.e. pre- object.
established plan and prior- meeting of mind is required.
2. Common intention under section 3(5) is undefined and 2. Common object is defined and limited to 5
unlimited. unlawful objects stated under sec. 189.
3. For the application of sec. 3(5), the active participation 3. Mere membership of unlawful assembly at the
in the common intention and commission of offence is time of commission of offence would be sufficient
necessary. for application of sec. 190.
4. At least 2 or more persons are necessary. 4. At least 5 or more persons are necessary.
5. Sec. 3(5) enunciates the principle of joint liability but 5. Sec. 190 declare the principle of group liability
creates no specific offence. It is of interpretative and creates specific offence.
character.
Q.3 Discuss the offence of Unlawful assembly under BNS.
Ans. Introduction
Unlawful Assembly means an assembly of five or more persons with the intent to commit an illegal act or to execute a
lawful act through unlawful means. Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with unlawful assembly.
Whereas Section 189 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with unlawful assembly.

Section 189 of BNS

 Section 189 of BNS, 2023 defines the term ‘unlawful assembly’ as an assembly of five or more person having
a common object to perform an unlawful act or a lawful act through unlawful means.
 As per 189 of BNS, 2023, an assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become
an unlawful assembly.
 The object of Section 189 is to preserve the public peace and order.
Essential Elements

 Five or more person

o The assembly must consist of five or more persons.
 Common object
The members must have a common object which falls under any of the following categories:
 To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of
such public servant.
 To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process.
 To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offense.
 By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any
property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other
incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right.
 By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
 Being member of unlawful assembly:
o As per Section 189(2) of IPC, whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful
assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful
assembly.
 Punishment and Penalties
o Section 189(2): Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine, or with both.
o Section 189(3): Whoever joins or continue in an unlawful assembly knowing that such assembly has
been commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which extend to two years or with fine or with both.
o Section 189(4): Whoever joins an unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon which is likely to
cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with a fine, or with both.
o Section 190: Where an offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly and the members
of that assembly knew about such offence is likely to be committed, every person who, at the time of
committing of that offence is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence.
Case laws
 Moti Das v. State of Bihar (1954), the Supreme Court held that an assembly which was lawful in its
inception may become unlawful by its members subsequent acts.
 Masalti v. State of U. P (1964), the Supreme Court elaborated on the distinction between "common
intention" and "common object," clarifying that the latter involves a shared objective among the assembly
members, which does not necessitate prior concert or consensus.
 Allauddin Mian & Ors. Sharif Mian & Anr v. State of Bihar (1989):
o The Supreme Court held that to invoke Section 149, it must be shown that the incriminating act was
done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly.
o Even if an act incidental to the common object is committed to accomplish the common object of the
unlawful assembly, it must be within the knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed
in prosecution of the common object.
 Raj Nath v. State of U.P (2009), the Supreme Court held that where common object of an unlawful assembly
is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149 of IPC.
  State Of U.P v. Niyamat & Ors (1987), the Supreme Court held that assembling of persons with the common
object of rescuing an innocent person from unlawful police detention could not be held to be constituting an
unlawful assembly under Section 141 of IPC(Now sec189 of Bns) .
Conclusion
Unlawful assembly under the BNS is a comprehensive provision aimed at curbing collective actions that
threaten public peace and order. By outlining the conditions and consequences of such assemblies, the BNS
ensures that the law addresses both the preventive and punitive aspects of maintaining societal harmony.
Understanding the nuances of these provisions is crucial for law enforcement, the judiciary, and the public to
uphold the principles of justice and order.

Q.4 Write a short note on Rioting and Affray.

Ans.
1. RELEVANT SECTION IN BNS
 Rioting is given under Section 190 of BNS
 Affray is given under Section 194 of BNS.
2. ESSENTIALS OF RIOTING
 There must be an unlawful assembly.
 The accused must be a member of such an unlawful assembly.
 Force or violence must be used by such unlawful assembly or by any member of such assembly.
ESSENTIALS OF AFFRAY
 A fight between two or more persons.
 It must be in a public place.
 The fight must disturb public peace.
3. PLACE
 Rioting may be committed at any place, whether public or private.
 Affray is committed only in a public place.
4. NUMBER OF PARTIES
 In rioting, there must be a minimum of five persons.
 In affray, a minimum of two persons are required.
5. PUNISHMENT
 In rioting, every member is punishable irrespective of whether he has actively participated or not.
 In affray, only those persons are punished who are participating.
6. NATURE
 Rioting is more serious in nature.
 Affray is less serious in nature.

Q. 5What are the acts which endanger sovereignty and integrity of India? Explain them in reference to the
provisions of BNS.
Ans. Section 152 of BNS deals with acts endangering sovereignty and integrity of India.
Section 152 states :
‘Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by
electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed
rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and
integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with
imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.’
Explanation.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the
Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite the
activities referred to in this section do not constitute an offence under this section.
Simplified Explanation
Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 criminalizes actions aimed
at exciting or encouraging activities that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. It targets
activities related to secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or separatist movements that
undermine the territorial integrity and stability of the country.
Key Provisions of Section 152
1. Actions or Words That Endanger Sovereignty:
 This section applies to individuals who, either purposefully or knowingly, use words (spoken or
written), signs, visible representations, electronic communication, or financial means to:
 Excite or attempt to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities against
India.
 Encourage separatist activities that challenge the territorial integrity of India.
 Endanger the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India in any manner.
2. Punishment for Offenders:
 Imprisonment for life: An individual found guilty under this section may face life imprisonment.
 Imprisonment for a term up to seven years: Alternatively, the person could be sentenced to
imprisonment for a period that may extend up to seven years.
 Fine: In addition to imprisonment, the offender may also be liable to a fine.
3. Explanation:
 Lawful expression of disapprobation: The section specifies that
expressing disapprobation (disapproval) of governmental actions, measures, or administrative
decisions is not an offense, as long as the expression is intended to bring about lawful alterations of
such actions without encouraging secession or rebellion. This means that simply criticizing the
government or seeking change through lawful means does not fall under this section unless it incites
activities harmful to India’s sovereignty or unity.
Examples of Offenses Under Section 152
 Example 1:
 A publicly speaks in favor of a separatist movement aiming to create a new state, advocating
the division of India. This act endangers India’s sovereignty and can lead to a charge under Section
152.
 Example 2:
 B publishes a book or article that incites armed rebellion or encourages people to take up
arms against the Indian government, aiming to overthrow the government. This could result in the
charge of attempting to endanger the integrity of India.
 Example 3:
 C uses electronic communication (social media or other digital platforms) to
promote secessionist ideology or to call for an armed struggle against the state, encouraging people
to engage in activities that could undermine the country’s unity. This action would fall under this
section.
Purpose of the Law
1. Protecting National Unity and Integrity:
 The law aims to prevent individuals or groups from undermining the unity of the country or
promoting any form of rebellion or secession. By penalizing attempts to excite
secession or subversion, the government seeks to safeguard India’s political and territorial integrity.
2. National Security:
 The section reflects India’s commitment to national security, particularly in the face of challenges
such as extremist activities or separatist movements. It acts as a deterrent against those attempting
to destabilize the state through subversive propaganda or incitement.
3. Freedom of Expression vs. National Interest:
 While the section prohibits actions that endanger sovereignty, it also balances freedom of
expression by clarifying that mere criticism or disapprobation of government actions, as long as it
does not encourage illegal activities, is not punishable. This ensures that the law targets harmful
activities while respecting democratic freedoms.
Summary
Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 criminalizes actions that intentionally or knowingly
attempt to excite or encourage activities like secession, armed rebellion, or separatism, which could
endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The penalties include life imprisonment, or a term of up
to seven years, and a fine. However, lawful criticism of government actions, aiming for change through legal
means, is not punishable under this section. This provision serves to protect India
from subversive or separatist elements that threaten national stability.
 Unit – IV

Q.1. Define abetment and discuss various modes of it in detail with decided cases.
(2014,2016,2017,2021,2023)
Or
Define abetment and discuss various modes of it in detail.

Ans. Introduction
 Abetment is "penalized as it leads to crime and many crimes would be impossible without the support and
encouragement received from others who though not actively co-operating still prepare the ground to facilitate
the commission of the offence. It is seldom that a criminal act is done without some accomplice.
 Generally in any offence several persons are involved. When an offence is committed and several persons take
part, each person may contribute in a manner and degree different from the other, some will actually do the
act, some will remain there to help.
 There may be other persons who contributes less directly, by advice, presumption, incitement or aid. In order
to establish criminal liability, it is necessary to mark the nature and degree of participation.
 Sec. 45of BNS provides the definition of abetment.
 According to section 45 person abets the doing of a thing who -
1. Instigates any person to do that thing, or
2. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or
3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
 Modes of Abetment:
According to sec. 45, abetment may be done by these three modes:-
1. Abetment by Instigation:
 Instigation means the act of inciting another to do a wrongful act.
 One may abet the commission of an offence by counselling, suggesting, encouraging, procuring or commanding
another to do an act.
 In order to constitute abetment by instigation some active proceeding towards preparation of the crime is
necessary. It involves active suggestion or stimulation by any means or language, direct or indirect.
 In Queen V. Mohit Pandey (1871), a woman prepared herself to become Sati in the presence of the accused
persons.
 They followed her up to the pyre and stood by her step sons crying 'Ram - Ram'. It was held that all those that
followed her to the pyre and stood by her crying 'Ram - Ram' would be guilty of abetment as they actively
connived and countenanced the act of becoming Sati.
 Instigation may also be constituted of wilful misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material fact by one
who is bound to disclose it.
 The attempt of any act may also constitute the abetment by instigation, such as - attempting to bribe public
servant is the abetment. Sometimes any indirect suggestion or gesture may also constitute instigation. Thus
abetment by instigation might be done by various methods.
 According to explanation 2 of section 46 - To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act
abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. For
example- A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
2. Abetment by Conspiracy:
 Abetment may also be done by conspiracy, but mere conspiracy does not constitute abetment until any act or
illegal omission is done in pursuance of that conspiracy.
 In abetment by conspiracy, it is not necessary that the abettor keep in touch with the main offender. It is
sufficient that he participates in the conspiracy, in pursuance of which the offence was committed. Thus for
constituting the offence of abetment by conspiracy, these elements are necessary -

(a) a conspiracy between two or more persons,

(b) an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and
(c) such an act or illegal omission must also take place in order to the doing of the things conspired.
3. Abetment by Intentional Aid:
The third mode of abetment is the international aid. It may be done by these methods -
(a) Aid by any act
(b) Aid by illegal omission
(c) By affording facility.
 Mere intention to facilitate, even coupled with an act calculated to facilitate, is not sufficient to
constitute abetment, unless the act actually takes place.
  A mere giving of an aid does not make the act an abetment of an offence, if the person who gives the
aid does not know that an offence was being committed or contemplated. For example: A, a servant,
remains the door of his master's home open with the intention that thieves may come and commit theft.
 But no thief comes. Here servant would not be liable for the abetment by intentional aid because the
offence was not actually committed. Moreover only aiding is not abetment untill the person aiding
knows that any offence is being done or likely to be done.
Thus abetment may be done by these three modes described above.

Distinction Between Criminal Conspiracy and Abetment:

Criminal Conspiracy (Sec 61) Abetment (Sec. 45)

1. Conspiracy is done by one mode only. 1. Abetment may be done by three modes, i.e. - by
instigation, by conspiracy, by intentional aid.
2. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more 2. Abetment might be done even by a one person.
persons.
3. Conspiracy is a part of abetment. 3. It is not so in abetment.
4. In conspiracy, mere agreement to do any offence 4. In abetment, any overt act is necessary in pursuance of
constitute the offence. the agreement.

Q.2 Who is an abettor? Discuss the liability when act is abetted and a different act is
committed.(2013,2015,2021)
Or
Who is Abettor? What is the liability of abettor
(i) When one act is abetted and different act done.
(ii) Presence of Abettor when offence is committed
Ans. Sec. 46 of BNS defines abettor. It says that - a person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an
offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of
committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Five explaination are
provided under sec. 46 to clerify the term 'abettor'. Accordint to it-
(A) The abetment of the illegal ommission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not
himself be bound to do that act.
(B) To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that
the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. For example- A instigates B to murder C. B
refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder. Another example - A instigates B to murder D. B
in pursuance of the instigation stabs D.D. recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit
murder.
(C) It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he
should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or
knowledge. For example- A instigates B to set fire to dwelling house. B in consequence of the
unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is
wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed no offence,
but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling house, and is liable to the punishment
provided for that offence.
(D) The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence.
(E) It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should
concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiraccy in
pursuance of which the offence is committed.
(i) Liability of abettor when one act is abetted and different act done.
According to Sec. 51- when an act is abetted and a diferent act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the
same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abeted it, provided the act done was a probable consequence
of the abetment and was committed under the influence of the instigation. For example- A instigates a child to put
poison into the food of Z, and gives him poison for that purpose. The child in consequence of the instigation, by
mistake puts the poison into the food of Y, which is by the side of that of Z. Here, if the child was acting under the
influence of A's instigation, and the act done was under the circumstances a probable consequence of the abetment, A
is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of
Y. Similarly for example - A instigates B to burn Z's house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft
of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft, for the theft
was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.
According to Sec. 52- If the act for which the abettor is liable, is committed in addition to the act abetted, and
costitutes a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences. For example- A instigates B to
resists by force a distress made by a public servant. B, in consequence, resists that distress. In offering the resistance B
voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer excecuting the distress. As B has committed both the offence of
resisting the distress and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these
offence, and if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress. A will also be
liable to punishment for each of the offences.
(ii) - Presence of Abettor when the offence was committed
Section 54 applies when abettor is found present at the scene when the offence was committed. In such case the
abettor shall be punished in the same manner as if he himself had committed the offence according to sector-
Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor is present when the act or
offence is committed he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
This section will not apply if there is no evidence that the accused abetted the offence before its commitment in
this section abettor simply present and does not commit the offence with his own hands.

Q.3 Define criminal conspiracy. Whether a single individual can be held guilty of this offence? Explain with the
help of decided cases.(2013,2015,2017,2021,2023)

Ans.- Introduction
 The word conspiracy originates from the word conspire, which means to plot or scheme together which means
the "joint participation" of several persons in a scheme or plot.
 The literal meaning persists in the legal definition of the offence or conspiracy whereby one person alone can
never be guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself.
 Section 61 of the BNS,2023 states: “when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal
act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
 Generally, the accused is charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy along with the charge of some
other substantive offence under the BNA, 2023 or any other law.
 The offence of criminal conspiracy was inserted in 1913 in the Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Section 120-A of IPC(now sec 61of BNS) define the criminal conspiracy. According to Section 120-A,(now
sec 61of BNS) When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, -
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means,
Such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy
unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
 Essential Element of Criminal Conspiracy:
The essential ingredients of this section are:-
(A) There must be an agreement between the persons.
(B) The agreement should be:-
(i) For committing an illegal act; or
(ii) For doing by illegal means an act which may not itself be illegal.
(C) In the agreement, other than the agreement to commit any offence, any act must have been done in
pursuance thereof.
1. Two or More Persons:
 For constituting criminal conspiracy, two or more persons are required because only person cannot conspire with
oneself. As in Topandas V. State of Bombay (1956). it was enunciated that two or more persons must be parties
to such an agreement and one persons alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the single reason
that one cannot conspire with oneself.
 In this case, the appellant along with three others was charged with the offence under Section 120B read with
Sections 471 and 420 B.N.Sfor conspiracy to use forged documents.
 The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, but the High Court, in appeal reversed the acquittal of the appellant and
convicted him for the substantive offence as well as for criminal conspiracy.
 In appeal, the Supreme Court held that it is a matter of common sense that one person alone can never be held
guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that he cannot conspire.
 It was held that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 120B when his alleged co-conspirators were
acquitted of that offence.
 When all the alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted, the accused alone cannot be held guilty for conspiracy
unless it can be proved that he conspired to commit an offence not only with the co-accused but with some third
person(s) who has not been tried, because he is minor or is absconding.

2. Agreement to Do An Illegal Act or Any Act Not Illegal, but by Illegal Means:
There must be an agreement between two or more person to do or cause to be done any illegal act or any act
which is not illegal, by illegal means.
Kehar Singh And Others Vs State (Delhi Administration) (1988) Sc
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this case, has held that the most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is an
agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. Such an illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance
of the agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable.
State Of Tamil Nadu Vs Nalini
This is commonly known as the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. In this case, it was held that knowledge about
conspiracy would not make an accused a conspirator. It was held that also to provide the harbour to the main accused
didn't show the sufficient evidence that person is in the conspiracy you have to prove that there is a meeting of minds
between the parties.
3. Overt Act in Pursuance of the Agreement:
Generally mere agreement between two or more persons to do any offence constitutes criminal conspiracy. But the
second part of sec. 120-A(now sec 61of BNS) provides that, when conspiracy consists in doing an act which is not
illegal by illegal means some overt act on the part of the person or persons, who are party to the agreement, is
necessary to constitute conspiracy. The doing of an overt act independent of the agreement, is a step further in
prosecution of the object of conspiracy and stamps it as criminal within the meaning of Section 120-A. This overt act
must be something distinct from that which tends to prove merely the agreement.
Major E.G. Barsay v. The State of Bombay (1962) SC
In this case, it was decided that the essence of the criminal conspiracy offense under Section 120A IPC(now sec 61of
BNS) is an agreement to break the law. Even if the parties to such an agreement have not carried out the illegal
conduct they committed to do, they are nevertheless guilty of criminal conspiracy. The Court further concluded that
many illegal acts might be committed as part of a conspiracy, and that agreement among all parties to commit a single
illegal act is not a need for the criminal conspiracy offence.
Proof of conspiracy
The offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. A conspiracy is usually
hatched in a secret and private setting which is why it is almost impossible to produce any affirmative evidence about
the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, the persons involved in it or the object of such conspiracy or how
such object is to be carried out. All of this is more or less a matter of inference.
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act contains the principle that once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved,
an act of one conspirator becomes the act of another. Section 10 deals with the admissibility of evidence in a
conspiracy case. It provides that anything said, done or written by any one of the conspirators in respect of their
common intention is admissible against all the conspirators for proving the existence of the conspiracy or that any
such person was a party to the conspiracy. However, the following conditions are to be satisfied before such fact can
be admitted-
1. There should be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence
or an actionable wrong.
2. Anything said, done or written by any one of them about their common intention will be evidence against the
others provided it is said, done or written after the time when such intention was first formed by any one of
them.
Conclusion
Since criminal conspiracy does not necessitate the commission of an illegal act, it falls within the category of
inchoate crimes. A criminal conspiracy is a cooperation in crime, and each conspiracy has a joint or mutual
agency for carrying out a common plan. These days, it is seen that the criminal conspiracy statute is applied
very leniently, which is inconsistent with the guidelines established by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is
imperative that the higher courts maintain the rule of law while monitoring any abuses of the provision.
Q. 4 Write short notes on the following.
(A) Public nuisance
(B) Rash driving

Ans.
(A) Public nuisance
Public nuisance under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (Indian Penal Code, BNS) is a legal concept that addresses acts or
omissions affecting the public's safety, convenience, health, or rights. The law aims to protect the public from
activities that disturb the general order or pose a threat to the community's well-being.
Public Nuisance:
1. Definition (Section 270, BNS):
Public nuisance occurs when:
- An act or omission causes harm, obstruction, danger, or annoyance to the public or a significant portion of
the public.
- The public, in this context, refers to any community or neighborhood that uses a public resource or enjoys a
collective right.
Examples include:
- Obstructing a public road or path.
- Polluting a river or water source used by the public.
- Discharging industrial waste into public spaces.
- Engaging in activities that create excessive noise, foul smells, or air pollution.
2. Characteristics of Public Nuisance:
- Wide Impact: The act affects a section of the community, not just a specific individual.
- Common Harm: It disrupts public rights, health, safety, or convenience.
- Public Rights: Violates rights such as access to clean air, water, or safe public spaces.
3. Provisions Related to Public Nuisance:
The BNS outlines various sections to address different forms of public nuisance:
- Section 270: General definition of public nuisance.
- Punishable under Section 292, which prescribes a fine for causing a public nuisance not covered by any
specific provision.
- Section 279: Pollution of water sources.
- Penalizes contaminating water used for public consumption or agricultural purposes.
- Section 280: Pollution of the atmosphere.
- Penalizes acts causing unhealthy or harmful air pollution.
- Section 285: Obstruction in public ways.
- Penalizes creating hazards or obstructions on public roads or paths, causing inconvenience or danger.
- Section 286: Handling poisonous substances negligently.
- Penalizes acts that endanger public health or safety due to carelessness with hazardous substances.

- Sections 287-288: Negligent handling of fire or explosive materials.

- Penalizes activities posing risks to public safety.
4. Punishment for Public Nuisance:
- Fine (Section 292): A general provision for minor public nuisances not specifically covered, prescribing a
fine of up to ₹200.
- Imprisonment: For serious nuisances, imprisonment can range from a few months to years, depending on the
gravity of the offense and associated harm.
- Preventive Measures: Authorities can issue injunctions or orders to stop ongoing nuisance activities.
5. Role of Judiciary and Authorities:
- The judiciary plays a vital role in interpreting and addressing public nuisances. Courts may:
- Grant injunctions to prevent or stop nuisances.
- Award damages for harm caused by public nuisances.
- Local authorities (municipalities, pollution boards) also act to regulate and prevent such nuisances through
administrative actions.
6. Public Nuisance vs. Private Nuisance:
- Public Nuisance: Affects the public or a large group of people.
- Example: Blocking a public road.
- Private Nuisance: Affects specific individuals or private property.
- Example: Noise from a neighbor’s party disturbing a household.
Conclusion:
 Public nuisance provisions under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita serve as a crucial mechanism to maintain public
order, safety, and health. These laws ensure that individuals or entities causing harm to the public are held
accountable, thereby preserving the community's collective rights.

Ans.
(B) Rash driving
In the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 281 deals with the offense of rash driving or riding on a public way:
Rash driving is defined as driving a vehicle in a manner that is negligent or rash, and endangers human life or is likely
to cause injury to others. It is often caused by the driver's careless behavior.
 Punishment: The punishment for rash driving is imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to one
thousand rupees, or both.
 Cognizance and bail: The offense is cognizable and bailable.
 Tribunal: Any Magistrate can try the case
Another section of the BNS, Section 106, deals with causing death by negligent driving.
Section 106 of BNS states-
 Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical
procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
 For the purposes of this sub-section, “registered medical practitioner” means a medical practitioner who
possesses any medical qualification recognised under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and whose
name has been entered in the National Medical Register or a State Medical Register under that Act.
 Whoever causes death of any person by rash and negligent driving of vehicle not amounting to culpable
homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine