A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India, in Badri Rai & Anr v. State of Bihar [(1959) SCR 1141], examined the evidentiary value of statements made by co-conspirators under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in a case involving charges under Section 120B read with Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants faced charges for conspiring to bribe a public servant in relation to a police investigation. The case revolved around an incident where the appellants allegedly offered a bribe to the investigating officer to suppress criminal charges against the second appellant. The Court upheld the admissibility of statements made by one conspirator during the continuation of the conspiracy against the other co-conspirator. The ruling emphasized the principle that conspiracy is inherently secretive and evidence under Section 10 becomes crucial in unraveling such offences. The Supreme Court also elucidated that the act of offering the bribe and accompanying statements formed part of the same transaction and thus remained within the ambit of ongoing conspiracy.

Keywords: Conspiracy, Bribery, Public Servant, Indian Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code, Co-conspirator Statement, Admissibility of Evidence, Section 10 Evidence Act, Section 120B IPC, Section 165A IPC.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Badri Rai & Another v. State of Bihar

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1956

iii) Judgement Date
August 18, 1958

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice B.P. Sinha and Justice Jafer Imam

vi) Author
Justice B.P. Sinha

vii) Citation
(1959) SCR 1141

viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Section 120B IPC, Section 165A IPC, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Criminal Law, Law of Evidence, Anti-Corruption Law, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case emerged against the backdrop of a police investigation involving allegations of handling stolen property by the second appellant, Ramji Sonar, a goldsmith. The prosecution alleged that Ramji, assisted by Badri Rai, conspired to bribe the police inspector handling his case. The core legal dispute revolved around the admissibility of evidence, especially statements made by one conspirator implicating the other, and whether the prosecution had valid grounds to invoke conspiracy charges under Section 120B IPC.

The incident involved complex facts of attempted bribery and statements made at different stages of the conspiracy. The appeal raised significant questions about how far Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act can extend to rope in co-conspirators for statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Ramji Sonar, a goldsmith, operated a shop in village Naogachia, Bihar, situated between the police station and the residential quarters of the Inspector of Police. On August 22, 1953, the Inspector seized certain ornaments and molten silver from a vacant building near Ramji’s residence. The items were suspected to be stolen and were being melted by six outsiders with tools allegedly provided by Ramji. Consequently, the Inspector arrested Ramji and six others but released Ramji on bail the same day.

Two days later, on August 24, 1953, while the Inspector was en route to the police station, both appellants intercepted him. Ramji requested him to suppress the case in exchange for valuable consideration. The Inspector declined and reported the matter to his superior officers. Subsequently, on August 31, 1953, Badri Rai visited the police station and offered the Inspector a packet containing Rs. 500 in currency notes. He stated that Ramji had sent the money as agreed upon earlier for quashing the investigation.

Multiple police personnel and a local merchant witnessed the bribe offer. The Inspector immediately recorded the First Information Report and seized the bribe money. Both appellants were prosecuted under Section 120B IPC read with Section 165A IPC. The trial court and the Patna High Court convicted both accused, sentencing them to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment and fines. Badri Rai faced an additional conviction under Section 165A IPC.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the evidence of statements made by one co-conspirator is admissible against the other under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act?

ii) Whether the conspiracy was in existence on August 24, 1953, and continued until the bribe was offered?

iii) Whether the conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC was rightly framed?

iv) Whether the payment and accompanying statements formed part of the same transaction constituting the offence?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

The defence contended that no sufficient material existed to prove a conspiracy. They argued that the Inspector fabricated the case to cover his wrongful arrest of Ramji.

They asserted that the conspiracy had already been completed by the time Badri made the statement on August 31, 1953. Therefore, the statement could not bind Ramji under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The counsel criticized the prosecution’s reliance on a conspiracy charge, alleging that it was introduced merely to admit Badri’s statement against Ramji.

They argued that Badri’s statement, being made after the money was offered, should be inadmissible as it did not form part of the conspiracy.

The defence relied upon Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor [(1940) LR 67 IA 336], emphasizing that statements made after the accomplishment of the conspiracy’s objective are inadmissible.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that

The prosecution maintained that both appellants jointly approached the Inspector on August 24, 1953, with a bribery proposal. This meeting indicated that the conspiracy existed as early as that date.

They argued that Badri’s statement on August 31, 1953, was made while executing the conspiracy’s object and therefore admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.

They emphasized that the act of offering the money and the accompanying statement were part of one continuous transaction.

The prosecution stressed that in conspiracy cases, subsequent acts and declarations that relate to the common intention and further the conspiracy are admissible.

They cited R v. Blake [(1844) 6 QB 126] as supporting the principle that declarations accompanying the act of execution fall within the scope of conspiracy evidence.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 120B IPC on Indian Kanoon

ii) Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 165A IPC on Indian Kanoon

iii) Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 10 Indian Evidence Act on Indian Kanoon

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court held that both appellants conspired to bribe a public servant. The joint approach on August 24, 1953, confirmed the conspiracy’s existence.

The statement made by Badri on August 31, 1953, while delivering the bribe money, formed part of the same transaction. Hence, it remained admissible against both conspirators under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court emphasized that conspiracy is often secretive. Therefore, acts or declarations by one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy bind others.

The decision in Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor and R v. Blake were distinguished. The Court clarified that the statement in this case was not post-conspiracy but part of the conspiracy’s execution.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the prosecution rightfully framed charges under Section 120B IPC alongside Section 165A IPC.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that conspiracies usually operate in secrecy, necessitating special evidentiary rules like Section 10 of the Evidence Act. This rule allows acts and statements of one conspirator to be attributed to others when the acts relate to the common object.

The Court noted that had Section 10 not existed, proving conspiracies would become practically impossible due to their covert nature.

c. GUIDELINES

• Evidence of one conspirator’s acts/statements, if in furtherance of conspiracy, applies to all conspirators.

• Courts may rely on Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act to admit such evidence.

• Conspiracy must be ongoing when the act or statement occurs for Section 10 to apply.

• Statements made simultaneously with an act that furthers conspiracy remain admissible.

• The charge of conspiracy need not be independent; it may serve to widen admissibility under Section 10.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment in Badri Rai & Anr v. State of Bihar remains a landmark ruling clarifying the application of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in conspiracy prosecutions. The Supreme Court’s nuanced reading of what constitutes acts “in reference to their common intention” provides significant jurisprudential guidance.

The Court balanced evidentiary rigor with pragmatic acknowledgment of conspiracy’s covert nature. It resisted the defence’s narrow interpretation of Section 10, emphasizing that the statement was intrinsically linked to the bribe transaction.

The judgment contributes to India’s anti-corruption jurisprudence by ensuring that conspirators cannot escape liability by exploiting procedural technicalities.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) Mirza Akbar v. The King Emperor [(1940) LR 67 IA 336]

ii) R v. Blake [(1844) 6 QB 126; 115 ER 49]

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Section 120B

• Section 165A