The statement accurately encapsulates a core tenet of criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Criminal conspiracy, as defined in Section 120A of the IPC, is an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The essence of the offence lies in the agreement itself, not necessarily in the execution of the illegal act. Section 120B prescribes the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Essential Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy:

1. Agreement: There must be an agreement between two or more persons. This agreement can be express or implied, and it is the meeting of minds for a common design that constitutes the conspiracy.
2. Object: The object of the agreement must be either an illegal act or a legal act to be done by illegal means.
3. Overt Act (for certain conspiracies): While English law often requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, Indian law, for conspiracies to commit an offence, considers the agreement itself sufficient. However, for conspiracies to commit an act that is not an offence but is to be done by illegal means, an overt act in furtherance of the agreement is required.

The Principle of Joint/Vicarious Liability in Conspiracy: The statement highlights the expansive nature of liability in criminal conspiracy. Once an agreement to commit an illegal act is formed, and individuals become parties to that conspiracy, each conspirator becomes vicariously liable for the acts of every other conspirator done in furtherance of the common design. This liability extends even to those acts that a particular conspirator may not have actively participated in or even been aware of, provided those acts are committed towards achieving the goals of the conspiracy and are a probable consequence of the common design.

This principle is based on the idea that by joining the conspiracy, each member implicitly authorizes the acts of their co-conspirators that are reasonably foreseeable and necessary to achieve the common objective. The moment a person enters into a conspiracy, they become a party to every act done by their co-conspirators in pursuance of the common design. The liability is not limited to the specific acts they personally commit but extends to all acts committed by any member of the conspiracy in furtherance of its object.

Scope of Liability:

• The acts must be 'towards attaining the goals of the conspiracy.' This means there must be a nexus between the act committed by one conspirator and the overall objective of the conspiracy.
• The liability is not dependent on active participation in every single offence. A conspirator who merely plans or provides resources, but does not physically execute the final offence, is still liable for the offence committed by others in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• The liability can extend to offences that were not originally contemplated but arose as a probable consequence of the execution of the conspiracy.

Judicial Pronouncements:

1. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996): The Supreme Court emphasized that the agreement is the heart of the conspiracy. It held that for a charge of conspiracy, there must be an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. The Court clarified that direct proof of agreement is often difficult, and it can be inferred from circumstances.

2. Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI (2009): The Supreme Court reiterated that the offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general rule that a person is responsible for his own acts. It highlighted that once a conspiracy is proved, the acts of one conspirator in furtherance of the common design are deemed to be the acts of all.

3. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988): In the context of the Indira Gandhi assassination case, the Supreme Court extensively discussed the nature of criminal conspiracy, stating that the agreement can be inferred from the conduct of the parties and other attendant circumstances. It affirmed that once a person joins a conspiracy, they are liable for all acts done by co-conspirators in furtherance of the common object.

In essence, criminal conspiracy under the IPC casts a wide net of liability, holding each member accountable for the collective actions aimed at achieving the unlawful objective, even if their individual involvement in every specific act is minimal or non-existent. This broad liability reflects the law's intent to deter and punish concerted criminal activity.