Mirza Akbar vs Emperor

Mirza Akbar vs. Emperor [AIR 1940 PC 176]

Law of Evidence [LW 3018] Internal Component: Presentation

Aaishani Mukhopadhyay 2083128

Index

1.

Summary of concept

2.

Facts of case

3.

Laws involved and evidence given

4.

Issue

5.

Judgement

6.

Conclusion

Conspiracy in Commission of Crime

The term conspiracy is defined as "a secret plan by two or more persons to carry out an illegal or immoral act ". Conspiracy in the commission of some illegal activity is dealt with under Section 120A of the IPC and is punishable under Section 120B. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the admissibility of evidence in cases of conspiracy.

Fun Fact: Originally, the term ‘conspiracy’ was used to refer to the acts of agreement of two or more persons to institute a false legal case against someone or to carry on legal proceedings in a vexatious or improper way.

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case involves four individuals- Ali Askar (deceased), Mehr Teja, Mirza Akbar and Umer Sher. Mehr Teja was the wife of Ali Askar and was having an affair with Mirza Akbar. The wife and her paramour hired Umer Sher, a sharpshooter to kill Ali Askar, who was caught red-handed in the act and subsequently, all three of them were prosecuted.

FACTS OF THE CASE (contd.)

Umer Sher's guilt was easy to prove as he was caught red-handed with a single barrel shotgun in his hand, the barrel of which smelt as if freshly discharged with an empty cartridge jammed in the barrel.

Given Evidence

Relevant Legal Provisions

1. The principal evidence of the conspiracy between Mehr Teja 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 also made statements before the magistrate after they had arrested her on the charges of conspiracy

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

Issue

What is the Relevancy of aforesaid two evidences under Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Judgement

The court observed that: 1.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. 2. 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.

Thus, the court held that: 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

The word ‘common design’ signifies a common intention existing when the thing was said, done or written by one of them. Things said, done, or written while the conspiracy was on foot are relevant as evidence of common intention, once 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.

Thanks