In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Thapa. 1996 Cri LJ 2448 : AIR 1996 SC 1744. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to explain the ingredients of conspiracy. The law laid down in this case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court appears to be little wide off the mark. In the present article an effort has been made to further clarify the concept of conspiracy. Before the enactment of Ss. 120A and 120B. I.P.C. conspiracy was defined and punished as an abetment. Now it has been defined separately but major conspiracies shall still continue to be punished as abetments. Clause two of S. 107, IPC has become partly redundant but its language even today is very much relevant for the purpose of judging the role of an individual who joins a conspiracy or one who leaves a conspiracy. Clause 2 of S. 107, I.P.C. lays down that a person abets the doing of a thing who engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act o ....