Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy under Section 61(2) of BNS Below are the components of this offence (1) There is common intention of the parties to an offence. (2) Such Common intention should be • to achieve an unlawful objective or • by unlawful assistance achieve an object which is not illegal per se. The meeting of minds of two or more persons for the purpose of committing an unlawful act or for an act which is not lawful is an essential ingredient of any the conspiracy. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Sanhita with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Sanhita for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both. Illustrations: 1. A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under this section. 2. A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section. opandas v. State of Bombay - 1955 This case serves as an early precedent, interpreting 'criminal conspiracy under IPC'. Here, the court held that a criminal conspiracy is an independent offence by itself, and the mere agreement between two or more individuals with the intent to commit a crime is punishable, even if no illegal act follows the agreement. Ram Narain Popli v. C.B.I. - 2003 In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India elaborated on Section 120A IPC, emphasizing that the essence of a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an offence. In a case where a conspiracy is alleged, the court must look for evidence proving that the conspirators had met and decided upon a plan to commit the crime. Kehar Singh and others v. State - 1988 This case involved the assassination of a Prime Minister, and the Supreme Court elucidated the role of circumstantial evidence in proving criminal conspiracy. It noted that the existence of an agreement, the cornerstone of a conspiracy, could be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Conclusion The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 61(2), is an exhaustive legal provision on criminal conspiracy in India. It explains the jurisprudence on criminal agreements and the requirement of an overt act in furtherance of the agreement to establish conspiracy. Such advances in articulation of punishment and its procedural requirements are contained in the new law, but the provisions are still similar to the old Section 120-B of the IPC. These complexity must be appreciated by anyone who is a party to a legal action involving any form of conspiracy as their understanding goes beyond the general layman’s knowledge of the law of conspiracy.