Section 10 Indian Evidence Act: Things Said or Done by Conspirators
Understand when the words, actions and writings of one alleged conspirator may be relevant against another. This guide explains historical Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the corresponding Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
Section 10: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design
The historical provision reads:
Where 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 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.
In practical terms, the rule recognises that a conspiracy may be carried out through coordinated conduct by several people. Once the required foundation is shown, relevant acts, statements or writings concerning their shared objective may be considered in relation to the alleged participants.
Current equivalent: Section 8 of the BSA retains the rule on things said or done by a conspirator in reference to the common design. The legal test is not satisfied merely because people know each other or because one person makes an accusation against another.
When can a co-conspirator's statement or act become relevant?
| Requirement | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Reasonable ground | There must be a reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons conspired to commit an offence or actionable wrong. Mere suspicion is insufficient. |
| Common intention | The act, statement or writing must refer to the shared design, not merely a person's private affairs. |
| Connection in time | The provision refers to matters occurring after the common intention was first entertained by any conspirator; the relationship to the ongoing common design remains important. |
| Relevance against participants | Qualifying material may be relevant both to establish the conspiracy and to show participation, but relevance does not automatically establish guilt. |
Statutory illustration under Section 10
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. ------------------------
What the illustration shows: Different people may perform different tasks toward a common unlawful objective, including procuring weapons, raising funds, recruiting others and communicating plans. The rule can make such connected acts and communications relevant to the alleged conspiracy even if a particular participant did not personally witness each act.
Historical drafting note: the original text was updated by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, substituting "Government of India" for "Queen".
Important limits on conspiracy evidence
1. A foundational link must be established
The court must have reasonable grounds for believing in the alleged conspiracy before applying the special relevance rule. An unsupported assertion by one accused person does not by itself establish the participation of every other accused.
2. Statements must concern the common design
A statement describing a completed conspiracy, made after its object has ended, does not automatically qualify merely because the speaker once participated. Whether the conspiracy was continuing and whether the statement referred to its shared objective require careful examination.
3. Relevance is different from proof of guilt
Even when material is relevant, the court must evaluate its reliability, authenticity, other applicable evidentiary restrictions and the complete evidence against each accused. Criminal liability must be established according to the applicable standard of proof.
4. Distinguish the evidence rule from the offence of conspiracy
Section 8 BSA governs relevance of evidence. It is distinct from the substantive criminal offence of conspiracy, addressed under Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A question of admissibility is not the same as a determination of criminal liability.
5. Electronic communications
Messages, emails and digital records may provide evidence of coordination, but their admissibility and proof remain subject to the BSA rules concerning electronic or digital records, including Sections 61 to 63 where applicable.
Old and new evidence law: quick reference
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 |
|---|---|
| Section 10: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design | Section 8: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design |
| Section 9: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts | Section 7: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts |
| Section 8: Motive, preparation and conduct | Section 6: Motive, preparation and conduct |
For proceedings initiated before the new law commenced, consult the savings clause and the relevant procedural history rather than assuming that the new law applies retrospectively.
Official legal sources
Consult the authoritative text and commencement notifications through the India Code legislative database, the Gazette of India, and the Ministry of Home Affairs. Search for the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), particularly Sections 8 and 170, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023), Section 61.
Frequently asked questions
What is Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act?
It makes acts, statements and writings of a co-conspirator concerning the common intention relevant against persons reasonably believed to be parties to the conspiracy, subject to statutory conditions.
What is the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 addresses things said or done by conspirators in reference to a common design.
Can a statement made after a conspiracy ends be used automatically?
No. The statement must relate to the common intention within the statutory rule. A later narrative or confession is not automatically admissible against every alleged conspirator.
Does Section 10 prove that a conspiracy exists by itself?
No. There must first be a reasonable ground to believe that the conspiracy existed; the rule does not eliminate the need to establish the required evidentiary foundation.
This article provides general legal information. Application of evidentiary rules depends on the facts, applicable legislation and judicial decisions.