The distinction between the offence of abetment under the second clause of Section 107 and that of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is this. In the former offence a mere combination of persons or. Agreement between them is not enough.
Image Source: metrouk2.files.wordpress.com
An act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for; in the latter offence, the mere agreement is enough, if the agreement is to commit an offence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Proof:
It is very difficult to obtain direct evidence of conspiracy which is generally inferred from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy there must be a combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Haradhan Chakraborty v.
Union of India, that where a person is charged with the offence of abetment of conspiracy of commission of the offence of theft by his officer and the substantive offence against the principal offender is not established the alleged abettor has also to be acquitted.