Bench:
- Lord Wright
- Lord Porter
- Sir Madhavan Nair (Privy Council)
Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176
Facts:
The appellant, Mirza Akbar, was convicted for conspiracy to murder, which led to an actual murder, under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case involved a criminal conspiracy in which Mirza Akbar and others planned and executed the murder of an individual. The prosecution argued that the murder was a direct result of the conspiracy and that all conspirators were equally responsible for the crime.
The trial court convicted Mirza Akbar based on certain statements made by co-conspirators, treating them as admissible evidence under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mirza Akbar appealed against his conviction, arguing that the evidence used against him was inadmissible, as it included statements made by co-conspirators after the crime had already been committed.
The case was heard by the Privy Council, which was the highest appellate court for India at the time.
Issues:
- Whether the statements made by co-conspirators after the completion of the crime could be used as evidence against the accused under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Whether the accused could be convicted solely based on hearsay statements made by others involved in the conspiracy.
Arguments:
Prosecution (State/Emperor)
The murder was a direct result of a conspiracy, and as per Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, any statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible against all members of the conspiracy.
The accused was involved in the conspiracy, and his guilt could be inferred from circumstantial evidence and statements made by other conspirators.
The prosecution relied on the doctrine of agency, arguing that a conspiracy is like a partnership, where the acts and statements of one conspirator are binding on all others involved.
Defense (Mirza Akbar)
The defense argued that the statements made by co-conspirators after the crime had already been committed should not be admissible as evidence.
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act allows statements of co-conspirators to be used as evidence only if they are made in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, once the crime is committed, the conspiracy ends, and any statements made afterward should not be used against the accused.
The conviction was based primarily on hearsay statements, which is not a legally reliable form of evidence.
The defense also contended that there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the case was based only on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle Applied):
The Privy Council ruled that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies only to statements made by co-conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objectives.
Once the conspiracy is completed (i.e., the crime is committed), any subsequent statements made by conspirators are not admissible against other accused persons. The doctrine of agency in criminal conspiracy applies only while the conspiracy is ongoing, not after its execution. A person cannot be convicted solely on hearsay evidence or statements made by co-conspirators after the crime.
Observations:
The Privy Council emphasized that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act must be strictly interpreted to avoid wrongful convictions based on post-crime statements of co-conspirators. It noted that if statements made after the crime were accepted as evidence, it could lead to false implications, as accused persons might be convicted based on statements they had no opportunity to deny or challenge.
The ruling clarified that conspiracy ends once its main objective is achieved. Any statements made after that cannot be considered as being made “in furtherance of the conspiracy”.
The case also reinforced the importance of direct and reliable evidence in criminal trials, rather than relying solely on circumstantial or hearsay evidence.
Decision:
The Privy Council allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of Mirza Akbar.
It ruled that the statements made by co-conspirators after the crime was completed were inadmissible, and since there was no direct evidence against the accused, his conviction could not be sustained. The judgment reaffirmed that criminal liability cannot be imposed based on post-crime statements made in the absence of the accused.
Important Terms:
- Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Deals with the admissibility of statements made by co-conspirators but only when they are made during the continuation of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objectives.
- Doctrine of Agency in Conspiracy – A legal principle that acts and statements of one conspirator can be attributed to all co-conspirators, but only while the conspiracy is active.
- Hearsay Evidence – Statements made by someone who is not a direct witness to the crime; generally inadmissible in court unless covered by a legal exception.
