Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: actionable wrong in Somasundaram @ Somu vs State Rep.By Dy.Comm.Of Police on 28 September, 2016Matching Fragments
The learned senior counsel further contends that since the accused A-4 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B of IPC, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the “Evidence Act”) has no application either. Section 10 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
“10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. Where there is reasonable round 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.” The learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State v. Nalini[2], wherein the scope of Section 10 of the Evidence Act was discussed as under: