Mirza Akbar vs.

Emperor

was a landmark case in which the Privy Council dealt with the
interpretation of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 which talks
about relevancy of conspiracy.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

● Sec 120B, Indian Penal Code–punishment for criminal conspiracy.

● Sec 302, Indian Penal Code – punishment for murder.
● Sec 10 Indian Evidence Act- things said or done by conspirators regarding common
design.

FACTS:

● Here, the allegation of the prosecution was that Mehr Teja, the wife of Ali Askar and
her paramour Mirza Akbar, conspired to murder Ali Askar (husband).
● It is further alleged that Mehr Teja and Mirza Akbar hired a sharp shooter, Umer
Sher, for committing the murder of Ali Askar (husband).
● Umar Sher (sharp shooter) was caught red-handed in murdering Ali
Asker(husband).
● Mirza Akbar (paramour) reached the spot and pleaded that Umer Sher (shooter) is
innocent, but Mehr Teja (wife), Mirza Akbar (paramour), and Umer Sher (shooter)
were prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Evidence against the Accused:

1. The principal evidence of the conspiracy between Mehr Teja (wife) and her paramour
Mirza Akbar comprised certain letters, wherein they expressed deep love towards each
other and their desire to get rid of Ali Askar so that they should marry each other and there
was finding money for a hired assassin to get rid of him. Subsequently, Ali Askar was shot
by a man who had no motive to shoot him.

2. Mehr Teja (wife) also made statements before the magistrate after they had arrested
her on the charges of conspiracy.

LEGAL ISSUE:

What is the Relevancy of aforesaid two evidences under Section 10 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872?
RATIO DECIDENDI:

The court observed that:

● Section 120A of IPC 1860: When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be
done (i) an illegal act or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated as a criminal conspiracy.
● Section 10 IEA 1872–things said or done by a conspirator regarding a common
design (relevancy of criminal conspiracy).

That Admissions of Evidence related to acts outside the period of conspiracy is irrelevant:

● This is very clear with S.10 that the things said, done, or written will be relevant only
then when such intention was first entertained by any one party in the conspiracy.
● That the things said, done, or written are not relevant when the conspiracy is over.

DECISION:

● It was held that the letters were relevant under section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act
as their terms were only consistent with a conspiracy between Mehr Teja (wife) and
Mirza Akbar (paramour) to procure the death of Ali Askar (husband) and they were
written when the conspiracy was going on & the purpose of attaining their object.
● But the statement to the magistrate was held to be not relevant u/sec 10 of the
Indian Evidence Act, as it was made after the object of the conspiracy had already
been attained & come to the end.

CONCLUSION:

In the judgment, the word ‘common design’ signifies a common intention existing when the
thing was said, done or written by the one of them. Things said, done, or written while the
conspiracy was on foot are relevant as evidence of common intention, once the
reasonable ground has been shown to believe its existence.

But it would be a very different matter to hold any narrative or statement or confession
made to a third party after the common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating
and has ceased to exist is admissible against the third party.