BSA Section 8: Things Said or Done by a Conspirator in Reference to Common Design (Evidence Act 10 Mapping) (2026)
What Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) does: it makes things said, done or written by one conspirator in reference to the common design relevant against every other conspirator. It carries forward Section 10 of the old Indian Evidence Act. Last verified October 2026.
Explainer · Evidence Law · BSA
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the new evidence law in force since 1 July 2024, makes the acts and words of one conspirator relevant against all of them. It replaced Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. If you still look up "Section 10 of the Evidence Act", this is the provision you now need. It is the main tool the prosecution uses to prove a conspiracy and to show who was part of it. This explainer sets out what Section 8 covers, the threshold it needs, how it maps to the old law, and what changed. Last verified October 2026.
- What it is: Section 8 of the BSA makes things said, done or written by one conspirator in reference to the common design relevant against all of them.
- Old section: it carries forward Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Threshold: there must first be reasonable ground, from independent evidence, to believe a conspiracy exists.
- Limits: the act or statement must be in reference to the common intention and after it was first formed.
01Why the number changed
The conspiracy rule in evidence law sat in Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for over a century. Since 1 July 2024, the Evidence Act is replaced by the BSA, and the relevancy sections were renumbered. The same rule now sits in Section 8 of the BSA.
In practice, a proceeding on or after 1 July 2024 cites Section 8 of the BSA. An older matter keeps the Section 10 citation. Read each by the date of the proceeding.
02What Section 8 says
Section 8 of the BSA provides that 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 them in reference to their common intention is a relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be conspiring.
Two jobs
The rule works both ways. It can be used to prove that the conspiracy existed, and to prove that a particular person was a party to it.
The idea rests on agency. In a conspiracy, each conspirator is treated as the agent of the others in carrying out the common plan. Because conspiracies are hatched in secret, the law lets the acts and words of one member be used against all.
03The threshold: reasonable ground first
Section 8 does not let the court jump straight to the statements of one accused to convict the rest. There must first be reasonable ground to believe a conspiracy exists, shown by independent, prima facie evidence. Only then do the acts and words of one conspirator become relevant against the others.
This order of proof is a real safeguard. The court looks for some outside evidence of the agreement before it uses the words of a co-conspirator to fill in the details.
04The limits in time and reference
Two limits are built into the section. First, the thing said or done must be in reference to the common intention. Idle talk that is not part of carrying out the plan is not covered. Second, it must be after the time the common intention was first entertained.
Courts have long read these limits strictly. A confession made after arrest, when the conspiracy is over, is generally not a statement in reference to the common design, so it does not bind the others under this section.
05Old to new: Evidence Act 10 to BSA 8
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is now Section 8 of the BSA. Commentators treat the new section as carrying over the old wording, with the illustrations kept, so the doctrine is unchanged.
| Point | Old law (Indian Evidence Act) | New law (BSA) |
|---|---|---|
| Same transaction (res gestae) | Section 6 | Section 4 |
| Motive, preparation and conduct | Section 8 | Section 6 |
| Conspirator statements | Section 10 | Section 8 |
Because the wording is carried over, the leading authorities on conspiracy evidence, including the rule that acts and statements must be made during the conspiracy and in reference to the common design, continue to apply under Section 8.
06What changed
The substance did not change. The threshold of reasonable ground, the limits in time and reference, and the agency basis all carry over. The change is the section number and modern language.
The practical point: in a matter on or after 1 July 2024, cite Section 8 of the BSA. In an older matter, the citation stays Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Note that this is an evidence provision, so it has no punishment or cognizable or bailable status of its own. Those attributes belong to the offence of criminal conspiracy, which is charged under the penal code.
07Where Claw fits
Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.
Proving a conspiracy turns on more than a century of rulings on when the reasonable ground threshold is crossed, so the authorities you need run from the old Evidence Act decisions to the newest judgments on the BSA. Claw holds a body of over 30 crore judgments, reaching back to Supreme Court rulings from 1950 and High Court rulings from 1990, so the older Section 10 line sits next to the fresh Section 8 reading, and a query comes back in under 5 seconds. For a matter that is still running, it follows the case, its orders and its hearings across 9,102 courts, benches and forums.
Claw does not use your case documents to train its AI models, so you can test a Section 8 argument on real facts without putting the brief at risk. Open a free Claw account to gather the conspiracy authorities behind the reasonable ground point, and widen the net through case search across Indian courts.
08Sources and further reading
- India Code (official text of the BSA, 2023): indiacode.nic.in
- PRS Legislative Research (BSA overview and comparison): prsindia.org
- Section 8, BSA (bare text): devgan.in
- Claw: clawlaw.in
This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law changes through amendments and judgments, so check the current text and take advice from counsel before you act.
09Frequently asked questions
What is Section 8 of the BSA?
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that where there is reasonable ground to believe persons have conspired, anything said, done or written by one of them in reference to the common intention is relevant against each of them. It restates Section 10 of the old Indian Evidence Act.
Which old section does BSA Section 8 replace?
It replaces Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The relevancy sections were renumbered, so the old Section 10 is now Section 8 of the BSA.
Can one conspirator's statement alone convict the others?
No. The court must first find reasonable ground, on independent and prima facie evidence, to believe that a conspiracy exists. Only then are the acts and statements of one conspirator relevant against the others.
Does a confession after arrest bind co-conspirators under Section 8?
Generally no. The statement must be in reference to the common design and made while the conspiracy is on foot. A confession made after arrest, when the conspiracy is over, usually falls outside this section.
Does old case law on Section 10 still apply?
Yes, in large part. Because the wording is carried over, judgments decided under Section 10 of the Evidence Act still guide how Section 8 of the BSA is read.
Can I find conspiracy judgments in Claw?
Yes. Claw searches a body of over 30 crore judgments, including Supreme Court decisions from 1950 and High Court decisions from 1990, so both the old Section 10 cases and the new Section 8 rulings surface in under 5 seconds, and it can follow a live conspiracy matter, its orders and its hearings across 9,102 courts, benches and forums. It researches and tracks the matter but does not give legal advice.