Mirza Akbar v. Emperor (1940) PC 176

This case explains how Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 works in conspiracy trials. Acts or words of one conspirator can be used against others only when they are said or done during the conspiracy and to advance the common plan. Statements made after the plan is over are not covered.

Here, love letters written while the plan was live were relevant. But the wife’s later statement to a Magistrate, made after the killing, was inadmissible against her alleged co-conspirators.

1. Can a statement by one conspirator, made after the object is achieved, be used against other conspirators under Section 10?
2. Were the wife’s letters and her later Magistrate statement both admissible against the co-accused?

• Section 10, IEA: Once there is a reasonable ground to believe a conspiracy exists, anything said, done, or written by any conspirator in reference to their common intention, after the first moment of that intention, is relevant against all.
• The act/statement must be during the life of the conspiracy and must have a direct nexus to advancing the plan.
• Post-conspiracy narratives or confessions do not come in under Section 10.

• The scope of Section 10 is not to be read widely to include post-event statements made by one conspirator in the absence of others.
• The letters were written while the plan was active and could be used to show the common design.
• The wife’s statement before the Magistrate was made after the object was achieved; the conspiracy had ceased. It was inadmissible against the co-accused under Section 10.

For Section 10 to apply, the statement must be made during the currency of the conspiracy and must be in reference to the common intention. After-the-fact statements fall outside its ambit.

• Sets a clear time window for admissibility in conspiracy cases.
• Stops the use of later narratives to unfairly rope in co-accused.
• Guides investigators to collect contemporaneous communications and acts.

• During + For the Plan = admissible; After the Plan = generally not admissible under S.10.
• Letters written while the plan runs can prove existence of conspiracy.
• Magistrate statements made later are not Section 10 material against co-accused.

Mnemonic: “Live Plan, Linked Words.”

1. Live: Statement must be during the conspiracy.
2. Plan: It must push the plan forward.
3. Linked: It must be linked to the common intention.

Issue: Does Section 10 permit using a conspirator’s post-event statement against co-conspirators?

Rule: Section 10 admits statements/acts made during the conspiracy and in reference to the common design.

Application: Love letters written while the plan was alive were relevant; the later Magistrate statement was not.

Conclusion: Post-conspiracy statements are inadmissible under Section 10 against other accused.

Conspiracy

Agreement by two or more persons to commit an offence.

Common Intention

Shared plan or design behind the unlawful act.

Section 10, IEA

Rule that extends relevance of acts/words of one conspirator to others, if said during and for the plan.