Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of two appellants by the courts below for offences under Section 120B read with Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for conspiracy to bribe a public servant. The prosecution case was that on August 24, 1953, when the Inspector of Police investigating a case against the second appellant was on his way to the police station, both appellants accosted him and the second appellant asked him to hush up the case for a consideration. Subsequently, on August 31, 1953, the first appellant offered a packet containing Rs. 500 to the Inspector at the police station, stating that the second appellant had sent the money in pursuance of the earlier talk. The trial court and the High Court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellants. In the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that there were no reasonable grounds to believe a conspiracy existed, and the charge under Section 120B was deliberately added to make the act of one admissible against the other. They further argued that the statement of August 31 was not admissible against the second appellant because the object of the conspiracy, i.e., payment of the bribe, had already been accomplished before the statement was made. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that the incident of August 24 clearly indicated that both appellants had entertained the intention to commit the offence, thereby providing sufficient evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, justifying the framing of a charge under Section 120B along with Section 165A. Regarding admissibility, the Court ruled that the payment of the bribe and the accompanying statement on August 31 were part of the same transaction and were made in furtherance of the common intention, not after its termination. Therefore, the statement was admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, not only to prove the fact of conspiracy but also to prove that the second appellant had constituted the first appellant as his agent. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Existence of Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120B, 165A - Evidence of prior meeting and offer on 24/08/1953 showed both appellants entertained common intention to bribe public servant, providing clear indication of existence of conspiracy, thus court justified in framing charge under Section 120B read with Section 165A; Held that such evidence was sufficient to draw up the charge (Paras Not mentioned). B) Evidence - Admissibility of Co-Conspirator's Statement - Section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Statement made after accomplishment of conspiracy's object may still be admissible if made in furtherance of the common intention and forms part of the same transaction; payment of bribe and accompanying statement on 31/08/1953 were made in pursuance of conspiracy and not after its termination, so statement admissible against second appellant to prove conspiracy and that first appellant acted as his agent; Held that statement was rightly admitted under Section 10 (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the statement of a co-conspirator made after the object of the conspiracy was accomplished is admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, against the other conspirator; Whether there was reasonable ground to believe in existence of conspiracy to frame charge under Section 120B IPC.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Law Points
- conspiracy charge justified by prior meeting and offer
- co-conspirator's statement admissible under s.10 though object accomplished if in furtherance
- statement proves conspiracy and agency
