INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT 1872
Conspiracy
Conspiracy : Sec10 of Indian Evidence Act ,1872 .
Sec.10 : Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design :
Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.-Where there is
reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any
one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when
such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against
each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the
existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was
a party to it.
Illustration :
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war
against the Government of India.
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected
money in Calcutta for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay,
E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G
at Kabul the money which C had collected at Calcutta, and the contents of a letter written
by H giving an account of the conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of
the conspiracy, and to prove A's complicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all
of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and
although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.
Meaning of Conspiracy :
In Mulcahy v. R. Willes, J., laid down a conspiracy consists not merely in the
intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act,
or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.' So long as such a design rests in intention
only it is no indictable. When two agree to carry in into effect, the very plot is an act
in itself.'
Thus conspiracy consists in a combination or an agreement. It has three essential
elements
(a) two or more persons,
(b) agreement,
(c) unlawful purpose or criminal object.
Essential Elements.--
To prove conspiracy the following elements must be proved:
(A) In Criminal Conspiracy to commit an offence-
(i) there must be an agreement between two or more persons; and
(ii) that agreement must be to commit an offence under the Indian Penal Code or
any special or local Act.
In Criminal Conspiracy other than to Commit an offence-
(i) there must be an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) the agreement must be to do some illegal act or legal act by illegal means; and
(iii) that some overt act was committed in pursuance of such agreement.
In Civil Conspiracy-
(i) that there was an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) that the agreement was to effect some unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by
unlawful means;
(iii) that some overt act1 was done in pursuance of the agreement; and
(iv) that the overt act resulted in damage to the plaintiff.
In Civil Conspiracy-
(i) that there was an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) that the agreement was to effect some unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by
unlawful means;
(iii) that some overt act was done in pursuance of the agreement; and
(iv) that the overt act resulted in damage to the plaintiff.
Conditions for application of Sec.10 of Indian Evidence Act
[Link] grounds for belief in the existence of conspiracy .
Before the section 10 can be applied it must be established by independent evidence
that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons conspired to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong
Balmokand v. Emperor, AIR 1915 ;Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC it was held that reasonable ground to believe mean that
there must be prima facie evidence in support of the existence of conspiracy between
two or more accused; Balmokand v. Emperor, AIR 1915 ; Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan
Lal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC.
2. There must be some act or statement of the conspiracy:-
Section 10 allows evidence to be given of anything said, done or written by any of the
conspirators; S.H. Jhabwala v. Emperor, AIR 1933 .
Anything said means any statement, speech or declaration; S.H. Jhabwala v. Emperor, AIR
1933 . Anything done means some act done and not merely intention or knowledge of the
person; S.H. Jhabwala v. Emperor, AIR 1933 .
Anything written includes (i) manuscript whether signed or unsigned by the person, and (ii)
matter transcribed by a typist on a typewriter or printed; Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC.
3. Things said, done or written in reference to common intention:-
it must be borne in mind that the thing said, done or written by one person will be
admissible against him and others in a conspiracy case only when that thing is said,
done or written in reference to the common intention of the conspiracy.
Anything written by a conspirator will not be admissible against him or other if it is
not done in reference to the common intention of the conspiracy; Tribhuvan Nath v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC.
4. Death of the conspirator .: Death of the conspirator who made a statement does
not affect the admissibility under Sec 10 .
6. Restrictions as to use of evidence .:
It can be used for two purpose :
1. As to prove the existence of the conspiracy
2. To prove that a particular person was a member of that conspiracy .
Distinction between English Law and Indian Law.--
The provisions of section 10 are wider than those of the English Law in two respects:
(a) Under the English Law, an act must have been done or declaration made in execution or in
furtherance of the common objects while under section 10, to establish the admissibility of the
act or declaration it is sufficient to show that it as reference to the common intention as the
section 10 uses the words 'in reference to'.
(b) Under the English Law the act of conspirator must have been done or declaration made
before the persons against whom it is sought to be given in evidence, ceased to be a member of
the conspiracy; in Indian Law the act or declaration would be admitted even though it was made
after the person against whom it is sought to be given in evidence, terminated his connection
with the conspiracy.
Mirza Akbar vs Emperor
In Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 ; the allegation of the Prosecution was that W, the wife of MR. X, and her paramour B, conspired to
murder X. It is further alleged that W and B hired C for committing the murder of X. C was caught red-handed in murdering X. B, who
reached the spot pleaded that C is innocent (absence of motive). W, B and C were prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to murder.
The principle evidence or the conspiracy between W and her lover B, consisted of certain letters, in which they expressed deep love
towards each other and referred to 'money' and 'means' (most probably in connection with X's murder). W also made statements before
the Magistrate after she had been arrested on the charge of conspiracy. Her letters and her statements were admitted in evidence
against B as being the things said and written by a conspirator in reference to their common intention. B preferred an appeal to the Privy
Council against the relevancy of this evidence.
It was held that the letters were relevant under section 10 as their terms were only consistent with a conspiracy between W and B to
procure the death X, and they were written at a time when the conspiracy was going on and for the purpose of attaining their object. But
the statement to the Magistrate was held to be not relevant under section 10 as it was made after the object of the conspiracy had
already been attained and had come to an end.
The court observed: "The words 'common intention' signify a common intention existing at the time when the thing was said, done or
written by one of them. Things said, done or written while the conspiracy was on foot are relevant as evidence of the common intention.
But it would be very different matter to hold that any narrative/statement/confession made to a third party after the common intention
or conspiracy was no longer operating and had ceased to exist, is admissible against the other party. There is then no common intention
of the conspirators to which the statement can have reference.
