Tiêu đề Lecture 6.pdf ✅

Law of Evidence Lecture 6 By Aakanksha Derashree
Section 10 SECTION 10. Things said or done by conspirators about common design 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. Illustrations- 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. OBJECT OF SECTION • A conspiracy, in general, is conducted in secrecy by two or more persons. Such conspirators' aim and purpose are to cause injury or harm to their opponents, and even sometimes to the State. • In general, it is very difficult to prove such conspiracy. Due to the nature of its secrecy, it is highly impossible to obtain direct evidence of a conspiracy. • Therefore, to meet this situation, Section 10 mitigates the degree of burden of proof from the prosecution. Hence, it is sufficient under this Section to make the acts and declarations (anything said, written or done) of a conspirator against the other co-conspirators. • Once a reasonable ground exists anything said, done, or written by one of the conspirators about the common intention, after the said intention was entertained, is relevant against the
others, not only to prove the existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. • It can only be used to prove the existence of the conspiracy or that the other person was a party to it. It cannot be used in favor of the other party or to show that such a person was not a party to the conspiracy. SCOPE: • The law of conspiracy has been laid down under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872. This Section explains the mode of proof in criminal cases. • This Section comes into play only if the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offense or an actionable wrong, i.e., there should be a prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his conspirators. INGREDIENTS: 1. There must be prima facie evidence that two or more persons are the members of a conspiracy to commit a crime. 2. Anything said, done, or written by any of them should have been said, done, or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them. 3. If the said conditions are fulfilled, i.e., anything said, done or written by any one of them about committing a crime.to their common intention will be evidence against the others. 4.There must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit a crime. 5.The evidence can be taken against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring. 6. Where a fact is proved against one of conspirators under this Section, such proved fact become a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring. 7. Theory of Principal and Agent: The principal is liable for the acts of the agent. Similarly the theory of agency is applicable to the law of conspiracy. Each co-conspirator is a principal and as well as an agent. Hence each co-conspirator is liable for the punishment. 8. It is relevant against a co-conspirator, whether it was done or written before he entered into the conspiracy or after he left it.
9. If the thing was said, done, or written in the past that is before such intention was entertained by any one of them is not relevant. 10. A thing done, said, or written by any one of the members of the conspiracy after the conspiracy is over is not relevant. RELEVANT CASE LAWS MIRZAAKBAR V EMPEROR Facts of the Case - Mst. Mehr Laqa and Umar Sher were convicted for the murder of Ali Askar, the husband of Mst. Mehr Laqa. The prosecution case was that Mst. Mehr Laqa and Mirza Akbar desired to get rid of Askar so that they should marry each other that they have conveyed through letters. Umar Sher was hired for the purpose. Umar Sher shot Ali Askar dead. After the murder was committed, Mst. Mehr Laqa was arrested on the charge of conspiracy. She was examined before a Magistrate and there she made certain statement implicating Mirza Akbar. This statement was admitted in evidence both by the trial Judge and Judicial Commissioner as relevant against the appellant under Section 10, Evidence Act. Issues of the Case – Relevency of aforesaid two evidence under sec 10 of IEA. Decision- It was held that the letters were relevant under Sec.10 as their terms were only consistent with a conspiracy between them to procure the death of deceased ,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 be attained and had come to an end. The court observed: 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. MOHD.KHALID V STATE OF W.B Facts- In this case, the appellants were charged for striking terror in people by using explosives & killing a large number of people in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. TADA court found them (appellants) guilty of offenses mentioned in the charge sheet.