Introduction:
Section 10 deals with the admissibility of evidence in a conspiracy case and is based on the theory of implied agency i.e. every conspirator is an agent of this association in carrying out the objects of the conspiracy. The special feature of the section is that anything said or done or written by any member of conspiracy is evidence and admissible against the other if it relates to the conspiracy. Section 10 has been deliberately enacted in order to make acts and statements of a co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of conspirators, because of the nature of crime.
Section 120 A of IPC,1860:
This section has to be read with Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code. Conspiracy as defined under Section 120 A of the IPC states that,
When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done,
- an illegal act or
- an act which is not illegal but illegal by its means,
is said to be a conspiracy. Provided that no agreement other than an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy.
Section 10 Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
According to Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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.
Conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Thus, direct evidence is seldom available. It is to be inferred from circumstances.
The scope of the provision may be explained with the help of following illustration:
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.
Conditions of Section Relevancy under Section 10 are:-
- There shall be prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have entered into a conspiracy.
- If the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written, by anyone of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other.
- Anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the time when, the intention to conspire was first entertained by any of them.
- The acts/statements of a conspirator can only be used for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy or that a particular person was a party to it. It cannot be used in favour of the other party or for the purpose of showing that such a person was not a party to the conspiracy.
- Anything said, done or written may be proved against a conspirator who joined after or left before such thing was said, done or written
Thus, the special feature of the rule is that anything said, written or done by any member of the conspiracy is an evidence against the other members even if they are done in their absence and without their knowledge, the Only condition being that the act must have reference to their common intention.
Case Laws
Kehar Singh vs Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1883:
The fact that the two accused, one of whom actually caused death, were seen together before the event isolating themselves on a roof top and making every possible effort to conceal their conversauon from the family members, was held by Supreme Court to be enough prima facie proof of conspiracy so as to punish one for the action of the other.
Rakesh Kumar v. State, 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports 74 (Delhi) :
The Court observed that Section 10 will come into play when Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence there should be prima-facie evidence that person was a party to a conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirators, Section-10 of Evidence Act which is an exception to the general rule, while, permitting the Statement made by one conspirator to be admissible as against another conspirator restricts to the statement made during the period when the agency subsisted – Once it shown that a person became snapped out of conspiracy, any statement made subsequent thereto cannot be used as against the other conspirators.
Mirza Akbar vs. Emperor (AIR 1940 PC 176)
In this case, 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 wad 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 principal evidence of 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 Sec. 10 as their terms were only consistent with a conspiracy between W and B to procure the death of 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 Sec. 10 as it was made after the object of the conspiracy had already been attained and had come to an end.
Badri Rai v State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 953)
In this case, Ramji and Badri were prosecuted for conspiracy for bribing a police officer. An inspector of police was on his way to the police station. Both Ramji and Badri approached him and requested that they would duly reward him if he could hush up the case relating to stolen ornaments, etc. recovered from Rami’s house and which was under investigation. The inspector told them to come to the police station. The inspector reported the matter to his senior officer. Badri also came to the police station and offered him a packet of currency notes. He told the inspector that Ramji had sent the money as a consideration for hushing up the case against him. The inspector seized the money and drew up the F.I.R.
The only question before the Supreme Court was whether the offer of money and the accompanying statement made by Badri were relevant against Ramji. The court said that when both the accused approached the inspector and requested him to hush up the case, that clearly showed that they had conspired to bribe a police officer. That being so, anything said or done by any of them in reference to their conspiracy to bribe was relevant against the other also. The statement and the offer of bribe had clear reference to their common intention and were, therefore, relevant against both. Thus, a statement made along with the offence is part of the same transaction and is hence admissible.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v Jaspal Singh (2003) 10 SCC 586:
It was held that once there was sufficient material to reasonably believe that there was concert and connection between persons charged with a common design, it is immaterial as to whether they were strangers to each other, or ignorant of the actual role of each of them, or that they did not perform any one or more of such acts by joint efforts.
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla (‘Hawala Case’) (AIR 1998 SC 1406)
In this case, it was alleged that during the years 1988 to 1991 the Jains (accused) entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves, the object of which was to receive unaccounted money and to disburse the same to their companies, friends, close relatives and other persons including public servants and political leaders of India. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, S.K. Jain lobbied with various public servants and government organizations to persuade them to award contract to different foreign bidders with the motive of getting illegal kickbacks (through hawala channels) from them.
An account of receipts and disbursements of the monies was maintained by J.K. Jain in the diaries and files recovered from his house and Tain brothers authenticated the same.
It was held that entries in the diary of a person showing the names of certain persons to whom payments were supposed to have been made were not sufficient to create a reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed between the persons whose names were mentioned and the person who was keeping the diary.
Conclusion:
If two or more persons conspire together to commit an offence, each is regarded as the agent of the other, and just the principal is liable for the acts of agent, so each conspirator is liable for what is done by his fellow conspirator, in furtherance of the common intention entertained by both of them. Section 10 of the Evidence Act has been deliberately enacted in order to make such acts or statements of the co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of conspirators, because of the nature of the crime. It is to be noted that once the conspiracy is over this section has no applicability.
