Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. (2002) 7 SCC 334

Introduction

• This case deals with the Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• In this case the question was if the statement made by the co-conspirator can be used as evidence under Section 10 of the India Evidence Act, 1872.

Facts

• In this case, the accused persons conspired together to manufacture the bomb illegally by using explosives to strike terror and to disturb communal harmony.
• On investigation, 8 persons including the six appellants were found linked with the commission of offence.
• The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) was applied on all the accused and TADA found them guilty.
• They were held liable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the TADA.

Issues Involved

Whether the statement made by the co-conspirator after the two days of the incident would be admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Observations

• The court observed that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that they conspired together.
  • This condition must be satisfied even when there is prime facie evidence to show that they have committed a criminal conspiracy.
• Section 10 is an exception to the general rule where the statement made by one conspirator is admissible against the other conspirator restricts it to the statement made during the period when the agency subsisted.
• The court further said that the expression in reference to their common intention is wider than the words in furtherance of the common intention, but once the common intention is ceased then the statement made by the former conspirator thereafter cannot be regarded as one made in reference to the common intention.
• The court relied on the Mirza Akbar v. Emperor (1940) where the Court said the word common intention signifies common intention existing at the time when the thing said, done or written by one of them.
• Things said, done or written while the conspiracy was on foot are relevant as evidence of the common intention.

Conclusion

The court held that the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that any accused continues to be member of the conspiracy, hence the appeal was dismissed.

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 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.