Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment that laid down that one person cannot be held liable for criminal conspiracy. 
• The judgment was delivered by 3 judges- Justice Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, Justice T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar and Justice Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha   

Facts 

• It was alleged that the Accused No.1, 2, 3 and 4 were charged with committing criminal conspiracy to do certain illegal acts. 
• There were also charges of Section 471 read with Section 465 and Section 34 and also under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The Learned Presidency Magistrate, Bombay tried all the accused for offences and acquitted all of them. 
• The State of Bombay took appeal to the High Court of Bombay and the High Court reversed the acquittal of Accused no. 1 however, the acquittal of Accused no. 2, 3 and 4 was confirmed. 
• Thus, special leave to appeal was applied against the decision of the High Court.   

Issue Involved 

• Whether the accused could be convicted under Section 120B of IPC in view of the fact that the other alleged conspirators had been acquitted? 

Observations 

• Section 120A of IPC defines criminal Conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do: (i) an illegal act; (ii) to do an act which is not illegal by illegal means. 
• The Court held that by the terms of the definition itself it is true to say that one person alone cannot be held liable for the offence of criminal conspiracy. 
• The gist of the crime of conspiracy is that two or more persons did combine, confederate and agree together to carry out the object of conspiracy. 
• In Gulab Singh v. Emperor (1916), Justice Knox held that “it is necessary in a prosecution for conspiracy to prove that there were two or more persons agreeing for the purpose of conspiracy" and that "there could not be a conspiracy of one". 
• Where three persons are charged with having entered into a conspiracy and two of them are acquitted, third person could not be convicted of conspiracy whether the conviction be based upon the verdict of a jury or upon his own confession. 
• Therefore, the Court set aside the conviction of Accused no. 1. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court in this case held that for the purpose of offence of criminal conspiracy there must be two or more persons. 
• Thus, one person cannot be convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A of IPC.