| introduction | jurisprudence |
| conspiracy section | Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act |
| illustration | |
| relevant case laws | mirza akbar vs emperor, badri rai vs st. of bihar, mohd. khalid vs st. of WB |
| present problem | question related |
| judgement | probable decision based on our reasoning |
| conclusion |
Conspiracy is defined in under section 120A IPC :
when two or more persons agree to do an illegal act or legal act by unlawful means with common intention, is said to commit conspiracy.
Essentials of conspiracy-
- 2 or more persons
- agreement
- unlawful act
- common intention
section 10 IEA : When things said or done by two or more conspirators in reference with common design
- – reasonable ground
- – 2 or more persons
- – things said or done or written by such person
- – with common intention
- – commit unlawful offence or actionable wrong
- – such intention was first entertained by any of them is a relevant fact
- – for proving conspiracy against each of them
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 purpose, 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 the 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 at although the persons by whom they were done were
stranger to him, and although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy
or after he left it.
The statement made by any person during conspiracy is admissible u/s 10 and can convict each of them(Badri Rai vs State of Bihar). If the statement made after conspiracy is not admissible u/s 10(Mirza Akbar vs Emperor).
RELEVANT CASE LAWS:
Mirza Akbar vs Emperor
facts:
There was exchange of love letters. These letters were also containing plan to kill. Husband (Ali Askar) was killed by Umar Sher (Hired goon) on August 23, 1938 in pursuance of conspiracy between Mehr Taja (wife) and Mirza Akbar (Lover). Umar Sher was caught red handed by public. Mirza Akbar was requesting public to release Umar Sher. Mehr Taja (wife) made confession before Magistrate and revealed about the conspiracy.
The principal evidence of the conspiracy between Mehr Teja (wife) and her paramour Mirza Akbar comprised certain letters, wherein they expressed deep love towards each other and their desire to get rid of Ali Askar so that they should marry each other and there was finding money for a hired assassin to get rid of him. Subsequently, Ali Askar was shot by a man who had no motive to shoot him.
issue:
Could Mehr Teja’s statement which was made in the appellant’s absence be admissible under section 10 against the appellant?
judgement:
In this case, ratio of Queen v. Blake case was considered. This case illustrates the two aspects
of conspiracy namely; what is admissible and what is inadmissible.
→ Admissible-What in that case was held to be admissible against the conspirator was the
evidence of entries made by his fellow conspirator contained in various documents used
for carrying out the fraud.
→ Inadmissible- A document not created while carrying out the transaction, but made by
one of the conspirators after the fraud was completed, was held to be inadmissible against
the other.
➢ The three documents taken as a whole show that the two writers of the documents desired
to get rid of Ali Askar so that they should marry each other. There was a question of
finding money for hired assassin to get rid of him.
➢ It was observed that statement to Magistrate was not part of conspiracy. It was made after
ceasing conspiracy. After murder common intention had fulfilled.
Relevancy under Section 10:
→ Admissible- Things said, done or written while the conspiracy was on foot are relevant as
evidence of the common intention, once reasonable ground has been shown to believe in
its existence.
→ Inadmissible- Any narrative or statement or confession made to a third party after the
common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating and had ceased to exist is
inadmissible against the other party.
In this case court concluded that:
→ Admissible – It was concluded that contents of letters were admissible as showing
conspiracy.
→ Inadmissible – Statement made to Magistrate was not relevant under Section 10 of the
IEA because it was made after ceasing conspiracy.
The letters were admissible under Section 10 of the Act as it contains conspiracy against deceased.
But the statement made to Magistrate was not relevant under section 10 IEA as it was made after the conspiracy had been attained.
Badri Rai vs State of Bihar
facts:
Ramji Sonar, was a gold smith by profession, and runs a shop. Inspector of Police, made a seizure of certain ornaments and molten silver from a vacant building in front of the house of Ramji. The seizure was made on the suspicion that the ornaments and the molten silver were stolen property, which were to be sold to Ramji in a shape which could not be identified with any stolen property. Both appellants met with police officer and offered for bribe to hush up the case. The Inspector told them to come to the police station. The first appellant, Badri (friend of Ramji), came to the police station, saw the Inspector, and offered to him a packet wrapped in a piece of old newspaper, containing Rs 500 in currency notes. He told the Inspector, that Ramji, had sent the money through him in pursuance of the talk that they had with him, in the evening of August 24, as a consideration for hushing up the case that was pending against Ramji. At the time the offer was made, several police officers, besides a local merchant, were present there. Inspector at once write down the FIR and took action. The case is related to Section 165A r/w120B of the IPC and Section 10 of the IEA.
issue:
Whether the statement made by Badri, that he had been sent by the Ram Ji with the money to be offered by way of bribe to the police officer, was admissible against Ram Ji?
judgement:
Court has responded in affirmative and held that, it was made in reference to common intention in pursuance of conspiracy. Conspiracy was to give the bribe to hush up the case.
In this case Supreme Court also considered ratio of Mirza Akbar case and Blake case.
The court said the previous incident where both the appellants approached the inspector for bribing him to hush up the case against second appellant was the clear evidence of the two persons having conspired to commit the offence of bribing the police officer.
The above incident clearly indicates that the appellants had entered into a conspiracy to commit the offence.
The court finally held in this case the consideration and the statement made by one conspirator against another in course of the conspiracy is clearly covered under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Mohd. Khalid vs State of W. B.
facts:
When there was a demolition of Babri Masjid, it created riots among Hindus and Muslims. They used to protect themselves from other community. Mohd. Khalid created bombs to protect themselves along with his friends from Hindus so that they can’t attack on them. The bombs created by him were blasts on that area where he made them, then he convicted for committing conspiracy and he was also charged under TADA for bombing.
issue:
Whether the statement made by the co-conspirator after the two days of the incident would be admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
judgement:
The accused-appellants have questioned the legality of the conviction and sentences imposed, while the State has questioned the propriety of acquittal in respect of the offences in terms of Sections 302/34 and 436/34 IPC. The evidence of PWs 40, 67 and 68 even after a close scrutiny cannot be termed to be unreliable. Additionally, we find that relatives of PW 68 have lost their lives. Mere delay in examination of the witnesses for a few days cannot in all cases be termed to be fatal so far as the prosecution is concerned. Looked at from any angle, the evidence of PWs 40, 67 and 68 cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers’ residences could not be included in the statistics. If the core of war crimes — deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage-taking and the killing of prisoners — is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as “peacetime equivalents of war crimes”.
The court held that the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that any accused continues to be member of the conspiracy, hence the appeal was dismissed.
Present Problems:
Three revolutionaries A,B, and C, shoot a SHO of a police station. While fleering from the scene one of them, C, on seeing a fellow-traveler D, shouted to him loudly, “we have shot the SHO of this police station; now get pamphlets published to this effect and distribute in public”. later when all 4 of them are been tried for conspiracy to overthrow constitutional govt. through violent means, the prosecution lies on the above statement of C. can he be permitted to do that?
Answer: ‘D’ was just a fellow traveller and he can’t be prosecuted for conspiracy as there was mens rea and actus reus on the part of D. He can be a prosecution witness.
A, B, C are tried for entering into conspiracy to commit murder of X. After the murder was committed B was arrested on the charge of conspiracy. He was examined before a Magistrate and there he made a statement to the effect that there was a conspiracy between him, A and C for murdering X. Prosecution intends to prove this statement against A and C under section 10 of IEA,1872.
Answer: B’s statement against A and C can’t be provable u/s 10 Indian Evidence Act as he got arrested and conspiracy doesn’t exist here .
P, N and K are charged with the conspiracy to murder Z in consequence of which conspiracy Z was murdered on 16 April, 2021. N wrote a letter on 9 April, 2021 to K that stated, “I will contact P tomorrow, convincing him to join our mission. P will then start following Z, and we will get rid of him soon”. K responded to N in writing on 15 April, 2021 that stated, “Don’t worry, as P has started his job, and he is quite competent, we will also rejoice soon after getting rid of Z.” On the evening of 19 April, 2021, N tells P and K, “Great work! We all have eliminated our common enemy”. Discuss the relevancy of the preceding facts to prove P’s complicity in the said conspiracy as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and decided cases, if reasonable ground exists that P had joined the said conspiracy.
Answer: P had joined the conspiracy to kill Z as N contacted him to join their mission and common intention also exist on the part of P along with others as per section 10.
Karim wrote a letter to X asking him to supply explosives for blowing up govt. building. X took some time. In the meantime, Karim wrote another letter to X asking reasons for delay. However, before the second letter could reach X, Karim received the explosives and used the same. In case of conspiracy, Prosecution wants to produce both these two letters. Decide.
Answer: letters are showing the existence of conspiracy but due to delay of the 2nd letter, X blow up the building. So we can say that there is conspiracy and X is part of it.
