Not Just Agreement, But Intent: The Law on Criminal Conspiracy
Shivaji Rathore 21 March 2026
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, has elaborately examined the law relating to criminal conspiracy under Sections 120A and 120B of the IPC, reiterating that conspiracy is an independent and substantive offence which can be established even in the absence of direct evidence.
The Court clarified that the essence of criminal conspiracy lies in an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, or to carry out a legal act by illegal means. The agreement itself constitutes the offence, and it is not necessary that the illegal act agreed upon must actually be carried out. What is punishable is the meeting of minds to pursue an unlawful objective.
Recognizing the inherent difficulty in proving conspiracy through direct evidence, the Court emphasized that such an agreement is rarely explicit and is generally inferred from surrounding circumstances, conduct of the accused, and the chain of events. The existence of prior meetings, continuous communication, coordinated actions, and conduct indicating a shared objective are all relevant factors that can establish the existence of a conspiracy.
The judgment further highlights that for constituting the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that every conspirator must have complete knowledge of all aspects of the plan or the specific role played by other participants. It is sufficient if the material on record shows that the accused persons were aware of the unlawful design and had agreed to participate in it, even if the details of execution differed among them.
Importantly, the Court observed that conspiracy is a continuing offence, and its scope can extend beyond the initial agreement. In the facts of the case, the Court noted that a long-standing property dispute, sustained threats, and a series of coordinated overt acts aimed at dispossessing the complainant constituted strong circumstantial evidence pointing towards a pre-existing conspiracy. Even if the ultimate act of murder was not explicitly part of the original agreement, the chain of events and the conduct of the accused could justify an inference that the conspiracy extended to the resulting offence.
The ruling thus makes it clear that criminal conspiracy cannot be viewed in isolation or confined to a rigid framework of direct proof. Courts are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the cumulative effect of circumstances, provided they indicate a concerted design and unity of purpose among the accused.
By reaffirming these principles, the High Court has strengthened the jurisprudence that conspiracy is often proved through inference rather than direct testimony, and that the law does not require proof of every minute detail of the agreement. What is essential is the existence of a shared unlawful objective, supported by conduct and surrounding circumstances, which reasonably points towards a meeting of minds among the accused.
Case Details :- Crl R No. 61/2024, CrlM No. 1908/2024 c/w Crl R No. 65/2024, Bail App. No. 292/2024, CrlM No.
1907/2024, CrlM No. 1960/2024, CrlM No. 2046/2024, CrlM No. 99/2025, Bail App. No. 319/2024, Crl
R No. 1/2025, CrlM No. 2/2025, Bail App. No. 1/2025, Bail App. No. 4/2025, Crl R No. 5/2025, CrlM
No. 34/2025, Crl R. No. 18/2025, CRM(M) No. 418/2025, CrlM No. 831/2025, Crl R No. 2/2025 and
CrlM No. 3/2025
Decided on : 04-11-2025
