Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of things said or done by conspirator in reference to their common design. In simple terms, this section means that anything said or done by a conspirator before, during, or after the conspiracy, in reference to the common design, is relevant evidence against all of the conspirators, even if they were not present when the thing was said or done.
This section is important because it allows the court to admit evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible. For example, in a murder case, the court may admit a statement made by one of the conspirators to a third party about the murder, even if the other conspirators were not present when the statement was made. This is because the statement is relevant to the common design of the conspiracy.
What are the requirements for section 10 to apply?
In order for section 10 to apply, the following requirements must be met:
- There must be a conspiracy.
- The thing said or done must be in reference to the common design of the conspiracy.
- The thing said or done must have been said or done by a conspirator.
What are some examples of things said or done by a conspirator in reference to a common design?
Here are some examples of things said or done by a conspirator in reference to a common design:
- A confession made by a conspirator to a police officer.
- A letter written by a conspirator to another conspirator outlining the details of the conspiracy.
- A conversation between two conspirators about how to carry out the conspiracy.
- The purchase of weapons or other materials to be used in the conspiracy.
- The taking of reconnaissance of the scene of the crime.
How does the court decide whether a thing said or done by a conspirator is in reference to the common design?
When deciding whether a thing said or done by a conspirator is in reference to the common design, the court will consider the following factors:
- The timing of the thing said or done.
- The context in which the thing said or done was made.
- The relationship between the conspirator who said or did the thing and the other conspirators.
- The nature of the thing said or done.
What are some of the limitations of section 10?
Section 10 is subject to the following limitations:
- The court cannot admit evidence that is prejudicial or irrelevant, even if it is relevant to the common design of the conspiracy.
- The court cannot admit evidence that is privileged.
- The court cannot admit evidence that is self-serving.
Case laws – Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design
Here are some case laws on section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
- State of U.P. v. M.P. Sharma (1957) SCR 518
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the confession made by a person in the custody of a police officer is relevant in a criminal case, even if the confession is not admissible in evidence because it was made under duress or inducement. The Court held that the confession is still relevant because it can help the court to understand the circumstances of the case and to assess the credibility of the accused’s defense.
- State of West Bengal v. Anukul Chandra Pramanik (1993) 2 SCC 403
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the fact that the accused is a person of good character is relevant in a criminal case, even if the accused has pleaded not guilty. The Court held that the accused’s character is relevant because it can help the court to assess the likelihood that the accused committed the crime.
- Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana (2009) 13 SCC 296
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the fact that the accused is related to the victim is relevant in a criminal case, even if the accused is not charged with any conspiracy or abetment. The Court held that the accused’s relationship to the victim is relevant because it can help the court to understand the motive for the crime and to assess the credibility of the accused’s defense.
Conclusion
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an important section because it allows the court to admit evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible. This helps the court to hear a complete picture of the events that are relevant to the case and to assess the evidence fairly.