Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 8
Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design
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. Illustration. Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the State. The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in Kolkata for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Mumbai, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Singapore the money which C had collected at Kolkata, 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.
Why this exists
Conspiracies are secretive by nature, so direct proof of an agreement is rare. This rule, carried forward from Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lets courts piece together a conspiracy from the words and acts of different conspirators acting in different places and times, since ordinary rules against hearsay would otherwise make such acts inadmissible against people who weren't present or didn't personally do them.
How courts read it
Indian courts, interpreting the identical Section 10 of the 1872 Act, have held that this provision applies only once 'reasonable ground' to believe a conspiracy exists is independently shown—it cannot itself be used to prove the conspiracy's existence from scratch in a circular way. Courts have also emphasized that only acts and statements made during the currency of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common design are covered; statements made after the conspiracy has ended or that are merely narrations of past events (as opposed to acts in furtherance) are generally excluded, a distinction drawn in various Supreme Court rulings on conspiracy trials.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This section alone can be used to first prove that a conspiracy existed.
Fact: Courts have clarified there must already be independent 'reasonable ground' to believe a conspiracy exists before statements/acts of one conspirator become admissible against others under this rule. - Myth: A person can only be implicated by acts they knew about or people they met.
Fact: The provision (and its illustration) expressly allows implicating someone even if they were ignorant of the specific acts and never met the persons who did them, as long as those acts furthered the common design. - Myth: Any statement by a conspirator at any time can be used against the group.
Fact: Courts have read in a limitation that only statements/acts made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common design qualify — not mere narrations after the fact or personal confessions unrelated to advancing the plan.