Sec. 10 IEA- Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.
Section – 10. 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
- 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 be 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.
Illustrations Sec. 10 IEA
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.
Case Law- Sec. 10 IEA
Reasonable Grounds to believe
Naimat Singh, (1953) 2 All 250. it was held that this expression means that there should exist prima facie evidence in support of the existence of conspiracy between two accused and it is then only that anything said, done or written by one can be used against the other.
Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 these words signify a common intention existing at the time when the thing was 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. Hence, 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 not admissible against the other party. there is then no common intention of the conspirators to which the statement can have reference.
Balmukund v. Crown, (1915) PR No.17 of 1915 Cr.
In order to decide whether any act done or statement made or thing written by alleged conspirator is admissible in evidence against any person, the test is to see, first, whether there is reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed between him and such person and secondly, whether such act, statement or writing had reference to their common intention.
Emperor v. Abani Bhushan Chuckerbutty, (1910) 38 Cal 169 (SB) a confession by a conspirator made to a magistrate after arrest disclosing the existence of a conspiracy, its objects and the names of its members, is not admissible under this section against the co- conspirators jointly tried with him, but only under section 30.
Agreement but not direct meeting necessary.
Per Jenkins C.J., in Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor, ( 1909) 37 Cal 467, 507 To establish the charge of conspiracy there must be agreement, there need not be proof of direct meeting or combination, nor need the parties be brought into each other’s presence. the agreement may be inferred from circumstances raising a presumption of a common concerted plan to carry out the unlawful design. so, again it is not necessary that all should have joined in the scheme from the first. those who come in at a later stage are equally guilty, provided the agreement be proved.
Section -10 IEA