no direct proof is necessary because conspiracies are hatched in secrecy.

no direct proof is necessary because such conspiracies are hatched in secrecy. In Raman Lal (Supra), it is ruled as under; Page 13 of 15 “Conspiracy – I.P.C. Sec. 120 (B) – Apex court made it clear that an inference of conspiracy has to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only because it becomes difficult to get direct evidence on such issue – The offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the others – A Co-conspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must also be held liable – Proceeding against accused Judge cannot be quashed.” 23. That, Section 10 of Evidence Act reads thus; “10. 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 one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to 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 '[Government of India]. The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in Calcutta for a like Page 14 of 15 object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Kabul the money Chad collected at Calcutta, and the contents of a letter written by H giving which 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