Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Illustration.
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the State.
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in Kolkata for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Mumbai, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Singapore the money which C had collected at Kolkata, and the contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy, and to prove A's complicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.
Section 8, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 10 Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mohd Juned Shaikh vs The State of Gujarat State of Gujarat Secreatary
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving terrorism under POTA, where the prosecution proves through confessional statements (recorded with all statutory safeguards), eyewitness testimony (corroborated by medical and forensic evidence), circumstantial evidence (including mobile phone records, recovery of weapons, and other incriminating items), and expert opinions (ballistic and forensic), the accused can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court's acquittal based on a hypertechnical approach and perverse appreciation of evidence can be reversed by the Supreme Court. Ocular evidence is to be preferred over medical evidence unless the medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular evidence being true. Confessional statements recorded under Section 32 POTA with all safeguards are admissible and can be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. A PIL filed with oblique motives and in conjunction with accused persons is misconceived and should be dismissed.
On this section: Section 10 deals with relevance of facts in criminal conspiracy. Section 25 deals with confessions to police. Section 26 deals with confessions during police custody. Section 27 deals with discovery of facts through confession. Section 30 deals with confessions by co-accused. Section 65A and 65B deal with computer-generated records. Section 162 deals with police statements.
-
Bomb Selvam @ Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu State Rep. by Deputy Commissioner of Police
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of the majority opinion (Justice V. Gopala Gowda) is that accomplice evidence, even if the witnesses are not formally designated as accomplices, must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence before an accused can be convicted. When the prosecution fails to provide such independent corroboration and the accused has been acquitted of the conspiracy charge, the conviction under abetment cannot be sustained. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the involvement of each accused individually in each offence charged, and mere presence at meetings or involvement in preparatory acts without direct evidence of participation in the crime is insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Relevance of statements made by conspirators in reference to common intention; applicability when conspiracy charge fails
-
Manickam @ Poonga Manickam vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence requires corroboration from independent sources in material particulars connecting accused with crime. One accomplice cannot corroborate another. When accomplice evidence is the sole link between accused and crime and lacks independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC precludes conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of overt act in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence can sustain conviction when corroborated by confessional statements, vehicle recoveries, and circumstantial evidence. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with different ingredients. Presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abduction is proved and victim murdered soon thereafter.
On this section: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design - not applicable if conspiracy not proved
-
Somasundaram @ Somu vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a divergent opinion on the reliability of accomplice evidence and the legal distinction between criminal conspiracy and abetment. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, acquittal under Section 120-B IPC is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of specific overt acts in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including eyewitness testimony, confessional statements, and recovery of articles, can sustain conviction even without formal designation as accomplice. Additionally, acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct ingredients, and the presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abductors cannot explain the fate of the abducted person.
On this section: Relevance of statements made by conspirators in reference to common intention; discussed in context of Section 120-B acquittal
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split decision with no single ratio decidendi. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and when such corroboration is absent and the accused are acquitted of conspiracy, conviction under abetment provisions cannot be sustained. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence can be relied upon when sufficiently corroborated by confessional statements and recovery of articles, and acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct legal requirements.
On this section: Admissibility of statements by conspirators in reference to common intention; requires reasonable ground to believe conspiracy existed
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split verdict with two divergent ratios: (1) Per Justice Gopala Gowda: Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC (abetment by conspiracy) because the latter requires proof of conspiracy as a prerequisite. Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated, cannot sustain conviction when independent evidence fails to place accused at scene of crime or establish their specific role. (2) Per Justice Arun Mishra: Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including confessions, recoveries, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction. The presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies to abductors regarding victim's fate.
On this section: Admissibility of statements by conspirators; application limited to existence of conspiracy
-
Iruthayaraj@iruthi& ORS. vs Home Ministry State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing Chennai
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi is split between the two judges. Justice Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated by other accomplices, cannot sustain conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused to the crime. When the charge under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) is not proved, conviction under Section 109 (abetment by conspiracy) cannot be sustained as it requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove each accused's individual involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt through independent evidence, not merely through accomplice testimony. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by confessions of co-accused, recovery of material objects, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction even without direct evidence of the accused's presence at the scene of crime. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. The presumption that an abductor is a murderer when the victim is found dead soon after abduction can be applied to sustain conviction when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
On this section: Relevance of statements by conspirators in reference to common intention; applicability only when conspiracy proved
-
Balamurugan @ Bala and Anr. Etc vs The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda held that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained even if the accomplice evidence is otherwise reliable. Justice Arun Mishra held that accomplice evidence can be relied upon if corroborated by confessional statements of other accused, recovery of articles, and circumstantial evidence, and that acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 when the ingredients of abetment are satisfied.
On this section: Relevance of statements by conspirators; applicability when conspiracy not proved
-
K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving counterfeiting of currency notes, the evidence of accomplices (approvers) is admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and can form basis of conviction if credible and cogent, provided it is corroborated in material particulars as required by Section 114(b) Evidence Act as a matter of prudence. Such corroboration need not be direct evidence of the crime but can be circumstantial evidence of the accused's connection with the crime. The definition of 'counterfeiting' under Section 28 IPC is wide and covers causing one thing to resemble another with intention or knowledge of deception without requiring exact reproduction, and Explanation 2 creates rebuttable presumption of counterfeiting intent when resemblance is such that person might be deceived. Sections 489A, 489C and 489D IPC apply to foreign currency including US dollars and cover possession of materials and instruments for counterfeiting process.
On this section: Relevance of facts in criminal conspiracy - evidence of facts constituting part of same transaction or conspiracy is relevant
-
Firosuddin Basheeruddin vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 10, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. When two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act or legal act by illegal means, that agreement constitutes criminal conspiracy even if the substantive crime is not committed. Not all conspirators need know every detail of the conspiracy; unity of objective is essential while there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to each other. Once the existence of conspiracy is proved, every act, declaration and writing of any conspirator referable to common intention is relevant against all conspirators. In organized crimes involving division of labour, each conspirator may perform different tasks in furtherance of the common objective, and each is liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy regardless of whether that particular conspirator directly participated in the substantive offense. The prosecution must establish the agreement to commit an unlawful act through proved facts and circumstances from which reasonable inference of conspiracy may be drawn, and the court must guard against unfairness by ensuring cogent evidence of involvement of each accused.
On this section: Relevancy of facts in criminal conspiracy - declarations and acts of conspirators referable to common intention are relevant against all conspirators
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 8
What have the courts held on Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Mohd Juned Shaikh vs The State of Gujarat State of Gujarat Secreatary (05 Jul 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 10, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Section 10 deals with relevance of facts in criminal conspiracy. Section 25 deals with confessions to police. Section 26 deals with confessions during police custody. Section 27 deals with discovery of facts through confession. Section 30 deals with confessions by co-accused. Section 65A and 65B deal with computer-generated records. Section 162 deals with police statements. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 8, section 8 BSA, section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa 8-32x44. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mohd Juned Shaikh vs The State of Gujarat State of Gujarat Secreatary (05 Jul 2019).
What should I read with Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
It carries forward IEA 10 (Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 8, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.