Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts
Section 10: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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.
Illustrations Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the [Government of India]. The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in Calcutta for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Kabul the money which C had collected at Calcutta, and the contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy, and to prove A’s complicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 10
- Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
- B. S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India & Ors.
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors.
- Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr v. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana
- Md. Jamiludin Nasir v. State of West Bengal
- Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. The State of Maharashtra, Through Cbi, Bombay
- Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra
- Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar
- Sunil Rai @ Paua & Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
- Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan v. State of Maharashtra
- S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Ref: v. Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member, Maharashtra Public Service Commission
- Sidharth Etc. Etc. v. State of Bihar
- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@Afsan Guru
- Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh
- K. Hashim v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Hardeep Singh Sohal Etc. v. State of Punjab Through CBI
- Nazir Khan and Ors. v. State of Delhi
- The Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh
- Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal
- Suresh and Anr. v. State of UP
- Saju v. State of Kerala
- State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Jayalalitha
- State of Maharashtra v. Damu and Ors.
- State Through Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Sit Etc. v. Nalini and Ors. Etc. Etc.
- State of Gujarat v. Mohammed Atik and Ors.
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla and Ors.
- Ammini and Ors. v. State of Kerala
- Ghulam Din Buch Etc. Etc. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir