Topandas v. State of Bombay (1956)
Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Location: India • Publish Date: 05-Sep-2024
Tags: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Quick Summary
This case settles a simple rule: no conspiracy without company. Criminal conspiracy under the IPC needs an agreement between at least two persons. If the other alleged conspirators are acquitted, the lone accused cannot be convicted for conspiracy.
Issues
- Can the accused be convicted under IPC 120B when the others alleged to be conspirators stand acquitted?
Rules
- IPC 120A (Definition): Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
- IPC 120B (Punishment): Follows the above definition—without two or more, the offence is not made out.
- Supporting view: Gulab Singh v. Emperor (1916)—“there cannot be a conspiracy of one.”
- Other charges involved: IPC 471 r/w 465 & 34; IPC 420 r/w 34 (background to the appeal).
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant
- With others acquitted, there is no second person to form the necessary agreement.
- By the text of IPC 120A, one person alone cannot be guilty of conspiracy.
- Therefore, conviction under IPC 120B cannot stand.
Respondent (State)
- The record supports involvement of Accused 1 in a plan to commit illegal acts.
- The High Court rightly reversed the acquittal for Accused 1.
- Other charges provide context to the unlawful agreement.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for conspiracy. It held that the definition in IPC 120A demands an agreement of two or more persons. With the other alleged conspirators acquitted, there was no one left to agree with the remaining accused. Hence, IPC 120B could not apply.
Bench: Justice N.H. Bhagwati, Justice T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar, Justice B.P. Sinha.
Ratio Decidendi
- Conspiracy = agreement of at least two persons (IPC 120A).
- If co-accused are acquitted, a sole accused cannot be convicted for conspiracy.
- Courts should align conviction under 120B with the definition’s core element—plurality of actors.
Why It Matters
This decision is a go-to citation for conspiracy questions. It draws a clear boundary: suspicious conduct by one person may attract other offences, but not conspiracy unless another person’s agreement is proved.
Key Takeaways
- No solo conspiracy: at least two persons must agree.
- Acquittal of alleged partners can collapse a 120B charge.
- Check the definition first before applying the punishment section.
- Use this case to tackle trick MCQs and mains questions on IPC 120A/120B.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Conspiracy Needs Company.”
- Spot the agreement—are there 2+ persons?
- Strip away acquitted co-accused—does any partner remain?
- Stop at 120B if the answer is “no partner”.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Can a person be convicted for conspiracy when all others alleged to be part of the plan are acquitted?
Rule
IPC 120A requires an agreement of two or more persons; 120B punishes only what 120A defines.
Application
Other alleged conspirators stood acquitted; no second person remained to form the agreement.
Conclusion
Conviction under 120B cannot stand; appeal allowed for Accused 1.
Glossary
- Criminal Conspiracy
- Agreement by two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means (IPC 120A).
- Read With (r/w)
- A way to link sections to show how they operate together in a charge.
- Acquittal
- A finding that the accused is not guilty of the charge.
FAQs
Related Cases
- Gulab Singh v. Emperor (1916) — need for plurality in conspiracy.
- Later Supreme Court rulings reaffirming 120A’s “two or more persons” requirement.
- Cases distinguishing conspiracy from abetment and common intention (IPC 34).
Share
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now