Introduction

• This case deals with the admissibility of statements made by one person against the co-conspirator.
• Such statement would be admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Facts

• In this case both accused were prosecuted for the conspiracy of bribing the police officer.
• An investigation was going on against one accused regarding the seizure of molten silver as stolen property.
• Both the accused accosted the police officer and asked him to hush up the cash for valuable consideration.
• The police officer told them to come police station and informed his senior inspector.
• After one week one accused Badri Rai went to the Police Station and offered an inspector a packet wrapped in piece of newspaper containing money.
• He told the inspector that the second appellant/accused had sent money through him in pursuance of the talk that they had with him as a consideration for hushing up the case that was pending against Ramji.
• The inspector seized the money and filed an FIR and after investigation the appellants were placed on trial.
• Both the Trial Court and High Court convicted the accused under Section 120B read with Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Issues Involved

Whether the statement made by the first appellant can be admissible under section 10 of the IPC?

Observations

• The Supreme Court observed that Section 10 is the complete issue in this case.
  • The court said the previous incident where both the appellants approached the inspector for bribing him to hush up the case against second appellant was the clear evidence of the two persons having conspired to commit the offence of bribing the police officer.
• The above incident clearly indicates that the appellants had entered into a conspiracy to commit the offence.
• The payment and the statement were made with a view to hushing up the case against the second appellant in the same transaction.

Conclusion

• The court finally held in this case the consideration and the statement made by one conspirator against another in course of the conspiracy is clearly covered under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

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.