Section 10 Evidence Act 1872: Things Said or Done by Conspirator in Reference to Common Design
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of things said, done or written by one conspirator in reference to the common design. It creates a special rule of relevancy where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong.
This page explains the legal position under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 immediately before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. It is intended for matters governed by the former Act, including proceedings protected by the applicable repeal-and-savings provision.
Meaning and purpose of Section 10
A conspiracy is ordinarily formed in secrecy, and direct evidence of the agreement may be difficult to obtain. Section 10 therefore makes specified acts, statements and writings of a conspirator relevant against the persons believed to be participating in the conspiracy, subject to the statutory conditions. The provision concerns evidentiary relevancy; it does not by itself dispense with the need for the court to first find reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed.
Text and effect of Section 10
Section 10 - Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design
In substance, where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention, after that intention was first entertained by any one of them, is relevant against each person believed to be so conspiring. Such material may be used both to prove the existence of the conspiracy and to show that a person was a party to it.
Essential conditions for applying Section 10
- Reasonable ground to believe: There must first be material giving reasonable ground to believe that at least two persons conspired together.
- Object of conspiracy: The alleged agreement must relate to committing an offence or an actionable wrong.
- Act, statement or writing: The relevant material may consist of something said, done or written by a conspirator.
- Reference to common intention: The act, statement or writing must relate to the common design or common intention of the conspiracy.
- Relevant period: Section 10 operates in relation to the subsisting common design. A conspirator is not made responsible under this rule for acts of another conspirator done after termination of the conspiracy.
Reasonable ground to believe and prima facie foundation
The opening words of Section 10 are important. The court must have a prima facie basis for believing that the conspiracy existed before the special rule is applied. Once that foundation is available, acts and statements made by a conspirator in execution of or in reference to the common intention may become relevant against the other conspirators.
Common design and the period of conspiracy
The statutory expression is tied to the common intention of the conspirators. The Supreme Court has explained that the provision does not make one conspirator responsible for acts of another done after the conspiracy has terminated. Accordingly, the timing and purpose of the statement, act or writing are important when determining admissibility and evidentiary value.
Illustration to Section 10
The statutory illustration concerns reasonable ground for believing that A joined a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India. It refers to different participants procuring arms, collecting resources, persuading persons to join, publishing writings, transmitting money and writing about the conspiracy. Those facts are treated as relevant to prove both the existence of the conspiracy and A's complicity, even though A may have been unaware of some acts or may not have personally known the persons who performed them.
The illustration demonstrates the breadth of the relevancy rule once its foundational conditions are met. It should, however, be read with the statutory language and judicial safeguards governing proof of conspiracy.
Section 10 and statements of co-conspirators
Section 10 is a special rule applicable to conspiracy evidence. Judicial decisions caution courts against mechanically accepting a conspirator's statement against another conspirator. Corroboration may be sought as a matter of prudence, while the ultimate question remains one of admissibility and appreciation of the evidence in the facts of the case.
Position before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governed evidence law until the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. The 2023 Adhiniyam repealed the 1872 Act but contains a savings clause for an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before commencement. This article deliberately states the pre-1 July 2024 position under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Practical summary
For Section 10 to operate, the court must first have reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed. Material said, done or written by a conspirator must be connected with the common intention. If these conditions are satisfied, the material may be relevant against persons believed to be participating in the conspiracy for proving both the conspiracy and participation in it. The evidentiary weight of such material remains a matter for judicial assessment.
Legal note: This article explains the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 position before commencement of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and is intended as general legal information.