Conspiracy under Section — 10 of IEA, 1872

Question: What is Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and how does it relate to conspiracy?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the admissibility of statements, acts, and writings by co-conspirators in the context of proving a conspiracy. This section plays a crucial role in criminal law by providing a framework for establishing the existence of a conspiracy and implicating its members through evidence related to their common design.

Main Body

Section 10: Conspiracy

Section 10: Things Said or Done by Conspirator in Reference to the Common Design

Key Elements:

• Reasonable Ground to Believe: There must be prima facie evidence suggesting that two or more persons have conspired.
• Objective: The conspiracy should aim to commit either an offence or an actionable wrong.
• Statements, Acts, and Writings: Anything said, done, or written by any of the conspirators in reference to their common intention after the conspiracy was first formed is relevant.
• Against All Conspirators: This evidence is admissible against each conspirator to prove both the existence of the conspiracy and the involvement of each conspirator.

Principle of Agency

• Basis: Section 10 is based on the principle of agency, which serves as an exception to the general rule that one cannot be criminally liable for the actions of others. This principle posits that conspirators act as agents for one another within the scope of their common design.

Ingredients of Section 10

Key court cases such as Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra, Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan and Others v. State of Maharashtra, and CBI v. V.C. Shukla have outlined the essential ingredients of Section 10:

1. Prima Facie Evidence: There must be initial evidence sufficient to afford a reasonable ground for the court to believe that two or more persons are part of a conspiracy.
2. Reference to Common Intention: Once the prima facie evidence is established, anything said, done, or written by any conspirator in reference to their common intention becomes admissible.
3. After Formation of Intention: The statements, acts, or writings must have occurred after the conspirators formed their common intention.
4. Relevance to Proving Conspiracy: Such evidence is relevant for proving both the existence of the conspiracy and the participation of each conspirator, regardless of when the specific act was performed in relation to the conspirator’s involvement.
5. Usage: This evidence can be used only against a co-conspirator, not in their favor.

Conclusion

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is pivotal in conspiracy cases as it allows for the admission of statements, acts, and writings by conspirators that are connected to their common design. It provides a mechanism for establishing the existence of a conspiracy and implicating its members based on the collective evidence of their actions and intentions.

Question: What are the important points laid down in Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra regarding Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act plays a crucial role in cases of conspiracy by allowing statements, acts, and writings by co-conspirators to be used as evidence. The case of Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra elucidates the application and limits of this section, emphasizing the principle of agency and the conditions under which this evidence becomes relevant.

Main Body

Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra

Key Points Laid Down:

1. Agreement to Commit an Offence or Wrong:

• There must be an agreement to commit either an offence or an actionable wrong.
• This agreement can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence.

2. Doctrine of Agency:

• Section 10 is based on the principle of agency, meaning that if the conditions under Section 10 are satisfied, the acts done by one conspirator are admissible against the co-conspirators.

3. Prima Facie Evidence Requirement:

• The court must be satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together. This means there must be prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy before their acts can be used against their co-conspirators.

4. Relevance of Acts Done After Forming Common Intention:

• Once reasonable grounds exist, anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in reference to the common intention, after the intention was first entertained, is relevant against the others. This helps in proving both the existence of the conspiracy and the involvement of the conspirators.

5. Limitations on Evidentiary Value:

• The evidentiary value of the acts is limited by two circumstances:
• The acts must be in reference to their common intention.
• The acts must have been done after the intention was formed by any one of them.

6. Wide Scope of “In Reference to Their Common Intention”:

• The phrase “in reference to their common intention” is broader than “in furtherance of” used in English law, encompassing anything said, done, or written by a co-conspirator after the conspiracy was formed. This applies even if the acts were done before another conspirator entered or after they left the conspiracy.

7. Use Against Co-Conspirators:

• The evidence can only be used against a co-conspirator, not in their favor.

Analysis:

1. Prima Facie Evidence:

• There must be prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy.

2. Doctrine of Agency:

• If the prima facie condition is met, anything said, done, or written by any one of the conspirators in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the others.

3. Timing of Acts:

• Anything said, done, or written by a conspirator must be after the common intention was formed by any one of them.

4. Relevance Before, During, and After:

• The evidence is relevant for proving the conspiracy and membership of other conspirators, whether the acts occurred before entering or after leaving the conspiracy.

5. Use Against Co-Conspirators Only:

• This evidence can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in their favor.

Supporting Case: Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration)

• Jagannatha Shetty, J. analyzed that Section 10 comes into play only when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence. Once prima facie evidence exists, anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in reference to the common intention is relevant against the others.

Supporting Case: State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru

• The case involved a terrorist attack on the Parliament House. Section 10 was applied based on the principle of agency among the conspirators, making statements and acts by one conspirator admissible against the others if the conditions under Section 10 were satisfied.

Conclusion

The case of Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra highlights the conditions and limitations under which Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act applies in cases of conspiracy. It underscores the need for prima facie evidence, the principle of agency, and the relevance of acts done after the common intention was formed. This framework ensures that conspirators can be held accountable for their collective actions in furtherance of their common design.

Question: What were the significant points in the case of Mirza Akbar v. Emperor regarding conspiracy and the admissibility of evidence under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

The case of Mirza Akbar v. Emperor is a landmark decision concerning the applicability of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, which addresses the evidentiary rules in cases of conspiracy. This case involved a murder plot and examined the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, such as love letters and confessions, made by co-conspirators.

Main Body

Facts of the Case:

— Conspiracy and Murder:

• Mirza Akbar and Mehr Taja (wife of the deceased, Ali Askar) conspired to murder Ali Askar.
• Umar Sher, a hired goon, killed Ali Askar on August 23, 1938.
• Umar Sher was caught red-handed, and Mirza Akbar tried to intervene for his release.

— Confession:

• Mehr Taja made a confession before a Magistrate, revealing the conspiracy details.

Decisions of the Courts:

1. Additional Sessions Judge: Convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B (conspiracy to commit murder).
2. Judicial Commissioner: Appeal dismissed.
3. Privy Council: The final appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Arguments and Points Considered by the Privy Council:

— Mirza Akbar’s Argument:

• Contended that the statement made by Mehr Taja to the Magistrate should not be admissible against him as it was made after her arrest and outside his presence.

— Admissibility of Evidence:

(a) Queen v. Blake:

• Admissible: Evidence of entries made by a conspirator in documents used to carry out the fraud.
• Inadmissible: Documents or statements made after the conspiracy was completed and not part of carrying out the transaction.

(b) Three Letters:

• The letters between Mirza Akbar and Mehr Taja indicated a conspiracy to murder Ali Askar.
• The content showed a common intention to find money to hire an assassin.

(c) Statement to Magistrate:

• This statement was made after the conspiracy had ceased and therefore was not admissible as part of the conspiracy.

(d) Common Intention:

• The court emphasized that common intention should exist at the time when the act (saying, doing, or writing) was performed by the conspirators.

(e) Relevancy under Section 10:

• Admissible: Acts done, said, or written during the existence of the conspiracy are relevant.
• Inadmissible: Statements or confessions made after the conspiracy ended are not admissible against co-conspirators.

(f) Conclusion:

• Admissible: The contents of the letters were relevant to proving the conspiracy.
• Inadmissible: The confession made to the Magistrate after the conspiracy had ended was not relevant under Section 10.

Final Decision:

• Despite excluding the confession made to the Magistrate, there was sufficient evidence (the letters) to justify the conviction of Mirza Akbar.
• The Privy Council advised dismissing the appeal, upholding the convictions based on the letters, which clearly indicated a conspiracy to murder Ali Askar.

Conclusion

The case of Mirza Akbar v. Emperor underscores the strict requirements for the admissibility of evidence under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court delineated between evidence relevant to the ongoing conspiracy and statements made after its conclusion. This decision highlights the necessity of demonstrating a common intention and the active pursuit of the conspiracy for evidence to be admissible against co-conspirators.

Question: What was the significance of the case Badri Rai and Another v. State of Bihar regarding the admissibility of statements under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act in a conspiracy case?

Answer:

Introduction

The case of Badri Rai and Another v. State of Bihar is a significant legal precedent dealing with the admissibility of statements made by conspirators under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). This case involved a conspiracy to bribe a police officer to hush up a criminal case, raising important questions about the relevance and admissibility of statements made in pursuance of a common intention.

Main Body

Facts of the Case:

1. Appellants:

• First Appellant: Badri Rai
• Second Appellant: Ramji Sonar, a goldsmith by profession.

2. Incident Leading to Conspiracy:

• On August 22, 1953, the Inspector of Police seized certain ornaments and molten silver from a vacant building near Ramji’s shop, suspecting them to be stolen property. Ramji was arrested and later released on bail.

3. Conspiracy to Bribe:

• On August 24, 1953, both appellants met the police officer and offered a bribe to hush up the case. The Inspector directed them to come to the police station.

4. Bribe Attempt:

• On August 31, 1953, Badri Rai went to the police station and offered Rs 500 in currency notes to the Inspector, stating that Ramji had sent the money as a bribe to hush up the case. This offer was made in the presence of several police officers and a local merchant. The Inspector immediately reported the matter and arrested Badri Rai.

Legal Issue:

— Admissibility of Statement:

• The primary issue was whether Badri Rai’s statement on August 31, 1953, that Ramji had sent the money for bribery, was admissible against Ramji under Section 10 of the IEA.

Court’s Consideration and Decision:

1. Doctrine of Agency:

• The court applied the principle of agency, which states that acts done by one conspirator in furtherance of a common intention are admissible against the other conspirators.

2. Relevant Precedents:

• The court considered the principles laid down in Mirza Akbar v. Emperor and Queen v. Blake:
• Mirza Akbar v. Emperor: Established that statements made after the common intention had ceased are not admissible.
• Queen v. Blake: Differentiated between admissible acts done in pursuance of a conspiracy and inadmissible statements made after the conspiracy ended.

3. Common Intention:

• The statement made by Badri Rai was considered relevant as it was made in pursuance of the common intention to bribe the police officer, which was part of the ongoing conspiracy.

4. Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court concluded that the statement made by Badri Rai was admissible against Ramji because it was made in reference to their common intention in furtherance of the conspiracy. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the convictions.

Conclusion

The case of Badri Rai and Another v. State of Bihar reinforced the application of Section 10 of the IEA in conspiracy cases, establishing that statements made by one conspirator in furtherance of a common intention are admissible against other conspirators. The court’s decision highlighted the importance of the timing and context of statements to determine their relevance and admissibility in proving a conspiracy.

Question: What was the significance of the case Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla regarding the admissibility of evidence and statements under the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

The case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, decided by the Supreme Court of India on March 2, 1998, is a landmark judgment that delves into the intricacies of Sections 10, 17 to 21, and 34 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). The case centered around allegations of corruption and the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, including diaries and files, in proving the existence of a conspiracy involving high-profile politicians.

Main Body

Facts of the Case:

1. Search and Seizure:

• On May 3, 1991, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) searched the premises of J.K. Jain in New Delhi and recovered diaries, notebooks, and files containing details of financial transactions.
• These documents allegedly recorded receipts and payments of large sums of money, including illegal transfers through hawala channels.

2. Allegations:

• The Jain brothers, S.K. Jain, B.R. Jain, and N.K. Jain, were accused of acting as middlemen and facilitating the transfer of bribes to politicians and public servants.
• Prominent politicians, including L.K. Advani and V.C. Shukla, were implicated in receiving bribes to influence the award of government contracts.

Legal Proceedings:

1. Special Judge:

• The CBI registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Charge-sheets were submitted, and charges were framed against the accused.

2. High Court:

• The accused challenged the charges in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, which quashed the proceedings and discharged the accused.

3. Supreme Court:

• The CBI appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the entries in the diaries and files were admissible under Sections 10, 17, and 34 of the IEA.

Court’s Consideration and Decision:

1. Section 34 — Entries in Books of Account:

• The CBI argued that the documents were admissible under Section 34 as they recorded regular business transactions.
• The Supreme Court clarified that loose sheets or scraps of paper do not constitute a ‘book’ under Section 34, which requires entries to be made in a bound or fastened collection of sheets.

2. Section 10 — Evidence in Conspiracy Cases:

• The CBI contended that the entries were admissible under Section 10 to prove a conspiracy involving the Jain brothers and the politicians.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that for Section 10 to apply, there must be prima facie evidence of a conspiracy. The overt acts must be done in pursuance of the conspiracy.
• The court found no prima facie evidence of a conspiracy between the Jain brothers and the politicians, as mere acquaintance or attendance at social events did not suffice to establish a conspiracy.

3. Sections 17 to 21 — Admissions:

• The CBI argued that the entries were admissions under Sections 17 and 21.
• The Supreme Court noted that admissions by one accused cannot be used against co-accused unless they qualify as confessions under Section 30 of the IEA.
• The court distinguished between admissions and confessions, stating that admissions made by co-accused cannot be used against others.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the CBI’s appeal, highlighting key principles regarding the admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases. The judgment clarified the scope of Sections 10, 17 to 21, and 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence of a conspiracy and the proper definition of a ‘book’ under Section 34. The case underscores the importance of rigorous standards in proving conspiracies and the limitations on using admissions against co-accused.

Question: How did the Supreme Court interpret the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Section 10, in the case of Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, in relation to conspiracy and the admissibility of confessions?

Answer:

Introduction

The case of Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, decided by a full bench of the Supreme Court on September 3, 2002, is a significant judgment that addresses the application of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) concerning the admissibility of confessions in establishing conspiracy. This case stemmed from a series of terrorist attacks in Calcutta in 1993, which were allegedly linked to the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992.

Main Body

Facts of the Case:

1. Background:

• The Babri Mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992, leading to widespread unrest.
• Terrorist attacks occurred in Calcutta on March 16 and 18, 1993, resulting in numerous casualties and injuries.

2. Charges:

• Several individuals, including Mohd. Khalid, were arrested and charged with offenses under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (causing grievous hurt), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The prosecution relied on Section 10 of the IEA to establish a conspiracy.

Arguments:

Mohd. Khalid’s Arguments:

1. The collection of weapons was for self-defense.
2. His confession was not voluntary and was later retracted.
3. There was a delay in examining witnesses, which could compromise the evidence.

State’s Reply:

1. The collection of weapons was intended to disrupt communal harmony, not for self-defense.
2. The confession was voluntary, and the retraction was an afterthought.
3. The delay in witness examination was due to prioritizing the safety of lives.

Supreme Court’s Considerations:

1. Voluntariness of Confession (Section 24 of IEA):

• A confession must be voluntary, made of free will without coercion, inducement, or promise of any reward.

2. Confession Against Co-accused (Section 30 of IEA):

• A confession can be used against a co-accused only if it is a proper confession, not just incriminating information.
• It must be corroborated by other evidence.

3. Definition and Admissibility of Confession:

• A confession involves an admission of guilt, not just an inference.
• It is not considered evidence under Section 3 of the IEA against the non-confessing co-accused as it is not given under oath, not in the accused’s presence, and not subject to cross-examination.

4. Post-Arrest Statements:

• Statements made after arrest to a police officer, even if they involve confessions, do not fall within the ambit of Section 10.

5. Prima Facie Evidence for Conspiracy:

• The existence of prima facie evidence of conspiracy is a prerequisite for invoking Section 10.
• If established, statements made by one conspirator can be substantive evidence against another, provided they reference their common intention.

6. Agency Theory in Conspiracy:

• Each conspirator is an agent of the others in pursuing the conspiracy’s objectives.
• Section 10 allows statements made by one conspirator during the conspiracy to be admissible against others, but not after the conspiracy has ceased.

7. Comparative Analysis (English and Indian Law):

• Indian law under Section 10 is broader, allowing evidence of statements made “in reference to their common intention” rather than “in furtherance of the common object” as in English law.

8. Acceptance of Previous Jurisprudence:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the principles laid down in previous cases such as Mirza Akbar regarding the scope and application of Section 10.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed Mohd. Khalid’s appeal, underscoring the need for prima facie evidence of conspiracy and the conditions under which confessions and statements can be used against co-accused. This judgment reinforces the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases and the necessity of ensuring confessions are voluntary and corroborated by other evidence.