Question

P and Q agree to commit theft in R's house, but no theft is actually committed. Here P and Q are guilty of

• A. Abetment of conspiracy
• B. Abetment by instigation
• C. No offence
• D. Criminal conspiracy

Hint:

Remember the golden rule for criminal conspiracy under Section 120A: If the conspiracy is to commit an \textbf{offence}, the mere agreement is enough. If the conspiracy is to do a non-illegal act by illegal means, then an overt act in furtherance of the agreement is required.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question describes a situation where two people agree to commit an offence, but do not proceed to commit it. The issue is whether the mere agreement itself constitutes a crime.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
This scenario is governed by the provisions on criminal conspiracy in the Indian Penal Code.
- Section 120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.— "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 a criminal conspiracy:"
- Proviso to Section 120A: "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."
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
In this case, P and Q agree to commit theft. Theft is an "offence" under the IPC. According to the proviso to Section 120A, when the agreement is to commit an offence, the mere agreement itself is sufficient to constitute the crime of criminal conspiracy. It is not necessary for any further act (an "overt act") to be done in furtherance of that agreement. Since P and Q agreed to commit the offence of theft, they are guilty of criminal conspiracy the moment they make the agreement, regardless of whether the theft is actually committed or not.
Step 4: Final Answer:
P and Q are guilty of Criminal conspiracy.