Acts and statements of conspirators become relevant against all involved.
Introduction
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that when there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or actionable wrong, anything said, done, or written by any one of them in reference to their common design becomes relevant against all conspirators. This provision recognizes the collective nature of conspiracy and allows courts to consider interlinked conduct among participants.
It forms a crucial evidentiary rule for proving criminal conspiracy through indirect evidence.
Objective of the Provision
The objective of Section 8 is to facilitate proof of conspiracy, which is typically executed in secrecy and rarely supported by direct evidence. The provision aims to:
- allow admission of acts and statements of co-conspirators
- establish collective responsibility in conspiracy cases
- enable proof of common intention or agreement
- strengthen circumstantial evidence relating to organized offences
- prevent conspirators from escaping liability due to absence of direct proof
It ensures that courts can evaluate the entire chain of coordinated conduct between conspirators.
Join Lexibal’s WhatsApp Community for latest updates
Meaning / Concept
Section 8 is based on the evidentiary principle that conspiracy creates a shared legal linkage among participants.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The agreement itself constitutes the offence, even if the intended act is not completed.
Common design
Common design means a shared intention or plan among conspirators to achieve an unlawful objective. Once such design is established, the acts and statements of one conspirator may become evidence against others.
Acts, statements, and writings of conspirators
The provision includes:
- spoken words
- written communications
- gestures and conduct
- coordinated movements
- preparatory steps taken toward execution
However, such acts must relate to the common design and occur during the continuance of the conspiracy.
Reasonable ground to believe conspiracy exists
Before applying Section 8, the court must first find prima facie evidence suggesting the existence of conspiracy. Only then do statements or acts of co-conspirators become admissible against others.
Detailed Explanation of the Section
Section 8 provides that where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together:
anything said by any one of them
anything done by any one of them
anything written by any one of them
in reference to their common intention or design
is relevant against all persons believed to be part of the conspiracy.
This applies:
- after the formation of conspiracy
- during the continuance of conspiracy
- in connection with execution of common design
Key features of the provision include:
- admissibility of co-conspirator statements
- admissibility of acts done in furtherance of conspiracy
- requirement of prima facie proof of conspiracy
- relevance extending to all conspirators
- limitation to acts connected with common design
Statements made after the conspiracy has ended generally fall outside the scope of this provision unless they relate to execution still in progress.
Procedure or Legal Framework
Courts apply Section 8 through a structured evidentiary assessment.
The court first examines whether reasonable grounds exist to believe a conspiracy was formed.
It identifies the participants in the alleged conspiracy.
It evaluates whether statements, acts, or writings were made in reference to the common design.
It determines whether such acts occurred during the subsistence of the conspiracy.
If these conditions are satisfied, the evidence becomes admissible against all conspirators.
Thus, admissibility depends on the existence and continuity of the conspiracy.
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial interpretation of the corresponding provision under earlier law continues to guide application of Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor (1940)
The Privy Council held that acts and statements of conspirators are admissible against co-conspirators only if made during the continuance of the conspiracy and in reference to its common design.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (Parliament Attack Case) (2005)
The Supreme Court clarified that once conspiracy is prima facie established, acts and communications between conspirators become admissible against all participants involved in the plan.
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988)
The Court observed that conspiracy is usually proved through circumstantial evidence, including conduct and communications among conspirators forming part of the common design.
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)
The Supreme Court emphasized that statements made after the conspiracy has ended are not admissible unless they relate to execution of the common design still in operation.
These rulings establish the evidentiary boundaries governing admissibility of co-conspirator acts and statements.
Also Read: Section 6 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – BSA 2023
Importance of the Provision
Section 8 plays a vital role in criminal justice administration because it:
- enables proof of secret agreements between offenders
- strengthens prosecution in organized crime cases
- allows collective liability to be established
- supports reliance on circumstantial evidence
- facilitates prosecution of complex conspiracies
- prevents evidentiary gaps arising from absence of direct testimony
It is particularly important in cases involving terrorism, corruption, organized crime, and economic offences.
Connection with Other Sections
Section 8 operates within the broader framework of relevancy provisions under the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and is closely connected with provisions relating to:
- facts forming part of the same transaction
- motive, preparation, and conduct
- facts explaining or introducing facts in issue
- admissions and confessions
- statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses
Corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 corresponds to Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which governed relevancy of acts and statements of conspirators in reference to common design.
Illustrative Example
Suppose three individuals plan to rob a jewellery store and coordinate through written messages and phone calls regarding timing and roles.
One conspirator purchases weapons, another arranges transport, and a third conducts surveillance of the store.
Even if only one conspirator is caught at the scene, the communications and preparatory acts of the others become relevant against all under Section 8 because they relate to the common design.
Conclusion
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 recognizes the collective nature of conspiracy by making acts, statements, and writings of one conspirator relevant against all participants when made in reference to their common design. The provision strengthens prosecution of coordinated criminal activity and plays a central role in establishing liability in conspiracy-based offences.
