Mirza Akbar v. Emperor (1940) PC 176

Introduction

• This case deals with conspiracy under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The words relied upon in Section 10 are in reference to their common intention.
• In this case the wife and her paramour were prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to murder her husband.

Facts

• In this case the wife(W) and her paramour(M) prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to murder her husband and hired a sharpshooter (U).
• The guilt of U was not really open to doubt as he was caught red handed.
• The main evidence against the wife and her paramour was their love letters in which they expressed deep love and affection towards each other.
• The authenticity of the letters as to their content and handwriting are established as bonafide.
• During the trial for conspiracy to murder her husband, the wife had made certain statements implicating M.
• The statements were admitted in evidence by Trial Court as relevant against the appellant (U) under Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld the conviction of the appellant accused of an offence under Section 302/ 120B of Indian, Penal Code, 1860.

Issue Involved

Whether the Statement made by the wife is wrongly admitted by the trial Court and appellant Court?

Privy Council’s Observations

• The council said that the words under Section 10 must be construed in accordance with it and not capable of being widely construed to include a statement made by one conspirator in the absence of the other with reference to the past acts done in the actual course of carrying out the conspiracy after it has been completed.
• The council said that the letters were written when the conspiracy was going on and with a view to attaining their object.
• However, the statement made before the Magistrate did not fall under Section 10 as it was made after the object was attained and the conspiracy ceased to exist.
• The council further observed that as far as the terms of letters, they are consistent with a conspiracy between the prisoners to procure the death of husband.

Conclusion

• The council finally held that the statements are not consistent with a conspiracy because they were made after attaining the object, therefore they are not admissible as evidence, but they do not vitiate the proceedings.

Notes

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states, 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 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.