Section 8: Things Said or Done by Conspirator in Reference to Common Design

Overview

Section 8 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, deals with evidence related to conspiracies. It says that if a group of people are planning a crime together (a conspiracy), anything said or done by a member of that group *while* the plan is ongoing, is relevant and can be used as evidence in court. This helps prove the conspiracy existed and what the members intended to do.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section covers all types of evidence – oral statements (what was said), written documents (letters, notes), and even electronic communications (emails, messages). It doesn’t rely on ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ evidence distinctions; any form showing the communication is relevant.
• Conditions for Admissibility: For the evidence to be admissible, two things must be proven: (1) a conspiracy existed, and (2) the statement, act, or writing happened *while* the conspiracy was still active. The statement must relate to the common plan.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution (the side bringing the case) has the burden of proving that a conspiracy existed. Once they establish that, any statements or actions linked to the conspiracy become relevant. The burden isn’t on the accused to *disprove* the statement’s relevance, but on the prosecution to show its connection to the conspiracy.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges use Section 8 to understand the intent and scope of a conspiracy. They look at what the conspirators said to each other, what actions they took to further the plan, and any written records of their agreement. This evidence helps the court determine if a crime was planned and how it was supposed to be carried out. The court will assess if the evidence genuinely relates to the common design and wasn’t simply a casual conversation.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1: Two people, A and B, plan to rob a bank. A tells B, “I’ll drive the getaway car, and you go inside.” This statement by A is relevant evidence of the conspiracy, even if A later denies planning the robbery.
• Example 2: A group is suspected of fixing a cricket match. During police surveillance, one member, C, sends a text message to another, D, saying, “Confirm the signal for tomorrow.” While seemingly ambiguous, if other evidence suggests a pre-arranged signal was part of the match-fixing plan, this text message becomes relevant, even without directly mentioning the fixing.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, doesn’t include specific provisos or explanations attached to Section 8. The section operates on the core principle that communications during a conspiracy are inherently relevant to proving the conspiracy itself.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

Section 8 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely mirrors Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are no significant shifts in the core principle of admissibility of statements made during a conspiracy. The new Bill aims for clarity and simplification of language, but the legal effect remains substantially the same.

Key Takeaways

• Statements/actions during a conspiracy are relevant.
• The prosecution must prove the conspiracy existed.
• All forms of communication (oral, written, electronic) are covered.
• Evidence must relate to the common plan to be admissible.