Code
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.
Illustration.
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war
against the State.
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected
money in Kolkata for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Mumbai,
E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to
G at Singapore the money which C had collected at Kolkata, 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.
Explanation
Section 8 recognizes a fundamental principle in conspiracy law:
When there is reasonable ground to believe a conspiracy exists, the acts, statements, or writings of any one conspirator — in relation to the conspiracy — are relevant and admissible against all others involved, even if they were not directly involved in or aware of the specific act or statement.
This provision allows the court to connect the dots between conspirators, even if their roles are indirect or dispersed across time and geography.
Illustration
Suppose A is believed to be involved in a conspiracy to wage war against the State.
Even if A:
-
Did not know B, C, D, E, F, G, or H;
-
Was unaware of their specific acts;
-
Or joined the conspiracy after some of these acts happened…
…the following would still be relevant against A:
-
B procures arms in Europe for the conspiracy,
-
C collects money in Kolkata,
-
D recruits members in Mumbai,
-
E publishes writings in Agra promoting the cause,
-
F sends money from Delhi to G in Singapore,
-
H writes a letter describing the conspiracy.
All of these acts and writings are admissible to:
-
Prove that a conspiracy existed,
-
Show A’s role or connection, even indirectly.
Common Questions and Answers
Q1. Can statements made before or after someone joins a conspiracy be used against them?
Yes, if the conspiracy was ongoing and the acts or words relate to the common objective.
Q2. Is direct knowledge of co-conspirators’ acts required for admissibility?
No, even unknown acts or statements are admissible if there’s reasonable ground to believe a conspiracy existed.
Q3. What is “reasonable ground to believe”?
It means evidence or inference strong enough to raise a genuine belief — not mere suspicion — that a conspiracy exists and the person was party to it.
.
