Things Said or Done by a Conspirator (s. 8) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Things Said or Done by a Conspirator (s. 8)

Five men plot a robbery. One buys the getaway car, another writes a letter arranging the meeting, a third scouts the bank. Only one of them is later caught with a letter in his pocket — yet that letter can be used against all five. Section 8 is the reason a conspiracy is so dangerous to be part of: the words and acts of any one plotter, done to further the plot, become evidence against every other.

A conspiracy is a secret agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act. By its nature the plotters act separately, so the ordinary rule — that a man is bound only by his own words — would make conspiracies almost impossible to prove. Section 8 [IEA s. 10] solves this by a rule of agency: each conspirator is treated as the agent of the others for the purpose of the common design.

What the section makes relevant. Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence, then anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention is a relevant fact against each of them — usable both to prove the existence of the conspiracy and to show that a particular person was a party to it.

The two crucial limits — this is where the marks and the case law sit:

• Timing. The statement or act is relevant only if made after the conspiracy was formed and while it was still continuing — i.e. during the currency of the common design. Anything said before the plot began, or after it ended (a later confession, a narrative once caught), is outside s. 8.
• “In reference to the common intention.” The act or words must be in furtherance of the plot, not a mere past narrative of it. A conspirator’s later confession describing what was done is not admissible against the others under this section.

Why the rule exists. Without it, only a plotter’s own acts could be proved against him, and the collective nature of a conspiracy — the very thing that makes it a distinct offence — could never be established.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — inside the currency of the plot, or outside it?

Facts. A, B and C conspire to cheat a bank. During the plot, A writes B a letter naming C as the inside man. Months later, after the fraud is over and the three are arrested, C tells the police “B was the mastermind.”

Rule. Section 8 makes a conspirator’s words relevant against the others only if said while the conspiracy was continuing and in reference to the common design.

Apply. A’s letter, written during the plot and to further it, is relevant against B and C. C’s statement to the police, made after the conspiracy ended and as a mere narrative, is not relevant under s. 8 against B.

Conclusion. Only communications made during the currency of, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy bind the co-conspirators.

Note the limit. A post-arrest confession falls outside s. 8; it is governed instead by the confession sections (ss. 22–24).

Section 8, BSA 2023: “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.”

In Simple Terms: Once there is reason to believe people plotted together, whatever any plotter says or does to carry out the plot can be used against all of them — but only for acts done in furtherance of the plot while it was alive.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Section 8 — conspirator's acts"]:::root
    ROOT --> Q1{"Reasonable ground to<br/>believe a conspiracy?"}
    Q1 -->|"No"| OUT["Section 8 does not apply"]:::diamond
    Q1 -->|"Yes"| Q2{"Said/done during the plot<br/>&amp; in furtherance of it?"}
    Q2 -->|"No (before / after / narrative)"| OUT2["Not relevant under s. 8"]:::diamond
    Q2 -->|"Yes"| IN["Relevant against ALL conspirators"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Mirza Akbar vs King Emperor (1940) — the Privy Council confined s. 10 IEA (now s. 8) to acts done while the conspiracy was on foot; a statement made after the common design had ended (a post-arrest narrative) is not admissible against co-conspirators.
• State of Maharashtra vs Damu (2000) — reiterated that only things said or done in reference to the common intention, during its continuance, are relevant against all.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics