Under Section 61 of the BNS, 2023, three business associates, A, B, and C, separately attend a seminar where a presentation discusses illegal methods to evade corporate taxes. After the seminar, they separately and independently decide to implement these methods for their own businesses without any prior discussion or coordination. Subsequently, through coincidence, their tax evasion schemes are discovered and they are prosecuted together. Additionally, during investigation, it is found that earlier, A had informally mentioned to B at a social gathering that "many companies manipulate financial statements," and B had nodded in agreement. Which of the following correctly determines their criminal liability under Section 61?

Explanation: Section 61 of the BNS, 2023 (Criminal Conspiracy) defines conspiracy as occurring when "two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is illegal by means which is illegal." The essential ingredient of conspiracy is an agreement or meeting of minds prior to or during the commission of the act, not merely parallel or coincidental independent actions leading to the same unlawful result. Under established jurisprudence, mere similarity of design or independent adoption of the same unlawful method does not constitute conspiracy. Additionally, A's casual observation about financial statement manipulation and B's affirmative nod, occurring in a social context without any clear agreement to commit illegal tax evasion, do not constitute a meeting of minds. There must be a conscious, deliberate agreement to do the illegal act. Since none of the three had any pre-arranged agreement or coordination, and their discovery of similar schemes was coincidental, they do not constitute a conspiracy. They may be individually liable for the substantive offence (tax evasion) under other provisions, but not for conspiracy under Section 61. Thus, option (D) is correct.