SECTION (10 TO 16)

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

 SECTION 10
• The basic principle which is underlined under Sec. 10 is the theory of
agency and hence every conspirator is agent of this association in
carrying out the object of conspiracy. Sec. 10 renders anything said or
done or written by any one of the conspirators in reference to their
common intention as relevant fact not only as (i) against each of the
Conspirators but (ii) proving the conspiracy itself.
• The only condition for application of the rule of Sec. 10 is that there
must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have
conspired together to commit an offence.
• State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde
There was no doubt that there was reasonable ground to believe that
four of accused conspirators have conspired to commit the offence of
abduction and murder of children involved in this case. So when these
accused had spoken to each other in reference to common intention as
could be gathered from conspirators can be regarded as relevant facts
falling within the preview of Sec.10.
• 1. There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a
court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy;
• (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any
one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence
against the others;
• (3) any thing said, done or written by him should have been said, done or
written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them;
• (4) it would be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered
the conspiracy, whether it was said, done or written before he entered the
conspiracy or after he left;
• (5) and it can be used only against a conspirator and not in his favour.
 Mirza Akbar v. Emperor
• Mirza Akbar, Mst Mehr Teja and Umar Sher were convicted for the murder of Ali Askar, the husband of Mst. Mehar
Teja.
• The prosecution case was that Mst. Mehar Teja and Mirza Akbar desired to get rid of Askar so that they should
marry each other. Umar Sher was hired for the purpose. Umar Sher shot Ali Askar dead. After the murder was
committed, Mst Mehr Teja was arrested on the charge of conspiracy.
• She was examined before a magistrate and there she made certain statement implicating Mirza Akbar. This
statement was admitted in evidence both by the trial Judge and Judicial Commissioner as relevant against the
appellant under Sec.10, Evidence Act.
• The Privy Council held that the words of Sec.10 are not capable of being widely construed so as to include a
statement made by one conspirator in the absence of the other with reference to past acts done in the actual
course of carrying out the conspiracy, after it has been completed.
•
Appellant Mirza Akbar and Mst Teja were tried for conspiracy to commit the murder of Ali Askar, husband of Mst.
Mehar Teja. After the murder was committed Mst. Mehar Teja was arrested. She made the statement to the effect
that there was conspiracy for murdering Ali Askar.
• It was held that the statement was made with reference to past act 'common intention' in the section signify
common intention existing at the time when the thing was done, written or said. Things said, written or done while
the conspiracy is at foot are relevant.
• The statement was held to be not admissible.
• Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with facts which ordinarily
have nothing to do with that of a case are not in themself , but they have become
to the relevant only by virtue of fact that they are either inconsistent with any
fact in issue or relevant fact or they make the existence of a fact in issue or
relevant fact either highly probable or improbable.
Illustrations
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.
The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.
The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance
from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable,
though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A,
B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no
one else, and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
• Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar (2001)
A distance of 400-500 yards between the place of occurrence and the
place where the accused was claimed to be present (present in g
panchkula meeting) was held to be not amounting to present
elsewhere. It could not be an impossibility that one could be present
at both the place or less simultaneously.
Kalu Mirza v. Emperor (1909)
Where a person is charged with cheating, evidence can be given of the
fact that he belong to an organisation of habitual cheats as this would
make it probable that the committed the crime-
Facts which makes thing highly improbable are also relevant

In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1956) The witnesses testified that

they saw the deceased being shot from a distance of twenty-five feet.
The medical report showed that the nature of the wound was such that
it could have been caused only from distance less than a yard. Thus, the
expert opinion rendered the statement of witnesses highly improbable.
Umashanker v. State of Chattisgarh (2001) in a charge of passing a fake
currency note, the relevancy of possession of other fake note proved
mens rea or guilty state of mind or knowledge.
Section 13
 Section 14
• ILLUSTRATIONS

• RES INTER ALIOS ACTATE

• A Fact in issue cannot be proved by showing that facts similar to it.

The question that whether a person has committed a crime, the fact that he
had committed a similar crime ago is irrelevant.
Section 15 is an exception to maxim i.e. evidence of similar fact is not
relevant.
SECTION 16