- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Things Said or Done by Conspirators in Reference to Common Design [Section 8]
Meaning and Scope of Section 8
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with the relevancy of acts, statements, and writings made by conspirators in relation to a common design. The section provides that when there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, then anything said, done, or written by any one of them in reference to the common intention becomes relevant against all the conspirators.
Such evidence is admissible not only for proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for showing that a particular person was a party to it. This provision corresponds to Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which defines criminal conspiracy.
Nature of Criminal Conspiracy
Criminal conspiracy means an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. The essence of conspiracy lies in the agreement or common plan itself. Since conspiracies are generally formed secretly and carried out in secrecy, direct evidence is rarely available.
Therefore, conspiracy is usually proved through surrounding circumstances, conduct, communications, and actions of the conspirators. Section 8 becomes important because it allows the acts and statements of one conspirator to be used against the others.
Principle Behind the Section
This section is based on the principle of mutual agency among conspirators. Once a conspiracy is established, every conspirator is treated as an agent of the others in matters relating to the common design. Consequently, anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is considered relevant against all.
Section 8 is also regarded as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence because statements made by one person are admissible against other conspirators.
Illustration Under the Section
The illustration attached to the section explains the rule clearly. Suppose there are reasonable grounds to believe that A joined a conspiracy to wage war against the State. In such a case, the following facts become relevant:
Essentials for Applicability of Section 8
For evidence to become admissible under this section, certain conditions must be fulfilled.
1. Prima Facie Evidence of ConspiracyThere must first be reasonable grounds for believing that two or more persons were members of a conspiracy.
2. Statement or Act Must Relate to Common IntentionThe act, statement, or writing relied upon must be connected with the common design or intention of the conspirators.
3. Act or Statement Must Be Made During the ConspiracyThe statement, act, or writing must have been made after the conspiracy was formed.
4. Evidence Usable Only Against Co-ConspiratorsSuch evidence can be used only against the co-conspirators and not in their favour.
Judicial Interpretation
Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan v State of Maharashtra
In this case, the Supreme Court summarized the main ingredients of Section 8. The Court held that there must first be prima facie evidence of conspiracy. Once such evidence exists, anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in relation to the common intention becomes relevant against the others.
The Court further stated that such evidence is admissible both for proving the conspiracy and for proving participation of the accused persons in it.
Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration)
In this case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 8 comes into operation only after the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons conspired together.
The Court emphasized that once such evidence is available, the acts and statements of one conspirator become relevant against all others because the section is founded on the principle of mutual agency among conspirators.
State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
This case arose from the Parliament Attack incident of 13 December 2001. The Supreme Court considered whether statements made by an accused after arrest could be admitted under Section 8.
The Court held that statements made after the conspiracy had ended were not admissible under this section. Only those acts and statements made during the continuance of the conspiracy are relevant. Once the conspiracy ends, the principle of mutual agency also ends.
Illustrative Problem
Suppose A, B, and C are prosecuted for conspiracy to murder D. During the trial, letters exchanged between them while planning the murder are produced in evidence. These letters are relevant because they were written during the conspiracy and relate to the common intention.
However, if B later makes a statement before a Magistrate after his arrest describing the conspiracy, that statement is not relevant under Section 8 because it was made after the conspiracy had ended.
Conclusion
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is an important provision relating to criminal conspiracy. Since conspiracies are usually secret in nature, direct evidence is difficult to obtain. Therefore, the law allows the acts, writings, and statements of one conspirator to be used against the others.
The section helps courts establish the existence of a conspiracy and determine the involvement of accused persons through circumstantial evidence. However, such evidence is admissible only when there is prima facie proof of conspiracy and only for acts or statements made during the continuance of the conspiracy.
Meaning and Scope of Section 8
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with the relevancy of acts, statements, and writings made by conspirators in relation to a common design. The section provides that when there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, then anything said, done, or written by any one of them in reference to the common intention becomes relevant against all the conspirators.
Such evidence is admissible not only for proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for showing that a particular person was a party to it. This provision corresponds to Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which defines criminal conspiracy.
Nature of Criminal Conspiracy
Criminal conspiracy means an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. The essence of conspiracy lies in the agreement or common plan itself. Since conspiracies are generally formed secretly and carried out in secrecy, direct evidence is rarely available.
Therefore, conspiracy is usually proved through surrounding circumstances, conduct, communications, and actions of the conspirators. Section 8 becomes important because it allows the acts and statements of one conspirator to be used against the others.
Principle Behind the Section
This section is based on the principle of mutual agency among conspirators. Once a conspiracy is established, every conspirator is treated as an agent of the others in matters relating to the common design. Consequently, anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is considered relevant against all.
Section 8 is also regarded as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence because statements made by one person are admissible against other conspirators.
Illustration Under the Section
The illustration attached to the section explains the rule clearly. Suppose there are reasonable grounds to believe that A joined a conspiracy to wage war against the State. In such a case, the following facts become relevant:
- B procured arms in Europe for the conspiracy.
- C collected money in Kolkata for the same object.
- D persuaded people in Mumbai to join the conspiracy.
- E published writings in Agra supporting the object of the conspiracy.
- F transmitted money from Delhi to Singapore.
- H wrote a letter describing the conspiracy.
Essentials for Applicability of Section 8
For evidence to become admissible under this section, certain conditions must be fulfilled.
1. Prima Facie Evidence of ConspiracyThere must first be reasonable grounds for believing that two or more persons were members of a conspiracy.
2. Statement or Act Must Relate to Common IntentionThe act, statement, or writing relied upon must be connected with the common design or intention of the conspirators.
3. Act or Statement Must Be Made During the ConspiracyThe statement, act, or writing must have been made after the conspiracy was formed.
4. Evidence Usable Only Against Co-ConspiratorsSuch evidence can be used only against the co-conspirators and not in their favour.
Judicial Interpretation
Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan v State of Maharashtra
In this case, the Supreme Court summarized the main ingredients of Section 8. The Court held that there must first be prima facie evidence of conspiracy. Once such evidence exists, anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in relation to the common intention becomes relevant against the others.
The Court further stated that such evidence is admissible both for proving the conspiracy and for proving participation of the accused persons in it.
Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration)
In this case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 8 comes into operation only after the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons conspired together.
The Court emphasized that once such evidence is available, the acts and statements of one conspirator become relevant against all others because the section is founded on the principle of mutual agency among conspirators.
State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
This case arose from the Parliament Attack incident of 13 December 2001. The Supreme Court considered whether statements made by an accused after arrest could be admitted under Section 8.
The Court held that statements made after the conspiracy had ended were not admissible under this section. Only those acts and statements made during the continuance of the conspiracy are relevant. Once the conspiracy ends, the principle of mutual agency also ends.
Illustrative Problem
Suppose A, B, and C are prosecuted for conspiracy to murder D. During the trial, letters exchanged between them while planning the murder are produced in evidence. These letters are relevant because they were written during the conspiracy and relate to the common intention.
However, if B later makes a statement before a Magistrate after his arrest describing the conspiracy, that statement is not relevant under Section 8 because it was made after the conspiracy had ended.
Conclusion
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is an important provision relating to criminal conspiracy. Since conspiracies are usually secret in nature, direct evidence is difficult to obtain. Therefore, the law allows the acts, writings, and statements of one conspirator to be used against the others.
The section helps courts establish the existence of a conspiracy and determine the involvement of accused persons through circumstantial evidence. However, such evidence is admissible only when there is prima facie proof of conspiracy and only for acts or statements made during the continuance of the conspiracy.
0 Comments