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.

Answer 2

The question asks what offence P and Q are guilty of after merely agreeing to commit theft, without actually committing it. Let's test each option against Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code.

1. Abetment of conspiracy: This phrase does not correspond to any offence defined in the IPC; abetment (Section 107) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120A) are separate, independently defined offences, and there is no such combined category as abetment of conspiracy.
2. Abetment by instigation: Abetment by instigation, under Section 107, requires one person to instigate another to commit an act. Here, P and Q are two people jointly agreeing between themselves, not one person instigating the other to commit an independent act, so this does not fit the facts.
3. No offence: The proviso to Section 120A makes clear that when the agreement is to commit an offence (as opposed to a lawful act by illegal means), the agreement itself is punishable without any further act being necessary. Since theft is an offence, the mere agreement is enough to constitute a crime, so this option is incorrect.
4. Criminal conspiracy: Section 120A defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, and its proviso confirms that where the act agreed upon is itself an offence, like theft, no overt act beyond the agreement is required. This precisely matches P and Q's situation.

Because P and Q's agreement was to commit theft, an offence in itself, the bare agreement suffices to constitute the crime of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A.

Therefore, the correct answer is Criminal conspiracy.