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

Question

“There is no gainsaying that an able bodied youthful Jawan when physically assaulted by his superior may be in a state of provocation. The gravity of such a provocation may be heightened if the physical beating was meant to force him to submit to unnatural carnal intercourse to satisfy the superior’s lust. The store room incident involving the appellant and the deceased is alleged to have taken place when the deceased had bolted the door of the store room to keep out any intruder from seeing what was happening inside. By any standard the act of a superior to humiliate and force his subordinate in a closed room to succumb to the lustful design of the former was a potent recipe for anyone placed in the appellant’s position to revolt and retaliate against the treatment being given to him. What may have happened inside the store room if the appellant had indeed revolted and retaliated against the unbecoming conduct of the deceased is a matter of conjecture. The appellant or any one in his position may have retaliated violently to the grave peril of his tormentor. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow managed to escape from the room…All that the evidence proves is that after the said incident
the appellant was seen crying and depressed and when asked by his colleagues, he is said to have narrated his tale of humiliation at the hands of the deceased…. That appears to have happened in the present case also for the appellant’s version is that he and his colleagues had planned to avenge the humiliation by beating up the deceased in the evening when they all assemble near the water heating point. That apart, the appellant attended to his normal duty during the day time and after the evening dinner, went to perform his guard duty at 2100 hrs.”
[Extracted from B.D Khunte v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2014, para 12-13].

Answer 1

The proviso to Section 120A IPC draws a sharp line depending on what the agreement is for.

Agreement to do a lawful act by illegal means: Requires some further overt act beyond the agreement to become punishable, not relevant here since theft is itself an offence.
Agreement to commit an offence (as with theft here): The proviso makes clear that the bare agreement itself is enough, no further overt act is needed.
Abetment by instigation, abetment of conspiracy, no offence: None of these correctly capture a mutual agreement between two people to commit an offence, which the IPC specifically labels criminal conspiracy.

Since theft is an offence and P and Q agreed to commit it, the agreement alone suffices, so the correct answer is Criminal conspiracy.

Answer 2

It helps to contrast this scenario with an attempt to commit theft, to see why the absence of any actual theft does not mean no crime occurred at all.

If P and Q had gone further and taken some direct step toward entering R's house to steal, they might also be liable for an attempt to commit theft under Section 511 IPC. But the facts here stop at the agreement stage, with no further step taken.
Even without any such further step, the law does not treat the matter as though nothing happened. Section 120A specifically criminalises the agreement itself when the object of the agreement is an offence, precisely to catch conduct at this earlier, purely preparatory stage.
No offence is therefore incorrect, because the legislature has deliberately chosen to punish the conspiracy itself in cases like this, rather than waiting for an attempt or the completed offence.
Abetment by instigation and abetment of conspiracy mischaracterise a mutual agreement between equals as one person urging another, which is not what these facts describe.

Since the law punishes the conspiratorial agreement to commit an offence even before any attempt is made, P and Q are guilty at the agreement stage itself.

Therefore, the correct answer is Criminal conspiracy.

Answer 3

It helps to contrast this scenario with an attempt to commit theft, to see why the absence of any actual theft does not mean no crime occurred at all.

If P and Q had gone further and taken some direct step toward entering R's house to steal, they might also be liable for an attempt to commit theft under Section 511 IPC. But the facts here stop at the agreement stage, with no further step taken.
Even without any such further step, the law does not treat the matter as though nothing happened. Section 120A specifically criminalises the agreement itself when the object of the agreement is an offence, precisely to catch conduct at this earlier, purely preparatory stage.
No offence is therefore incorrect, because the legislature has deliberately chosen to punish the conspiracy itself in cases like this, rather than waiting for an attempt or the completed offence.
Abetment by instigation and abetment of conspiracy mischaracterise a mutual agreement between equals as one person urging another, which is not what these facts describe.

Since the law punishes the conspiratorial agreement to commit an offence even before any attempt is made, P and Q are guilty at the agreement stage itself.

Therefore, the correct answer is Criminal conspiracy.

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

Show Hint

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in AIBE exam