IEA 8 — Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Statutory text

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such
suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any
person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation  1.––The  word  “conduct”  in  this  section  does  not  include  statements,  unless  those
statements  accompany  and  explain  acts  other  than  statements;  but  this explanation  is  not  to  affect  the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation  2.––When  the  conduct  of  any  person  is  relevant,  any  statement  made  to  him  or  in  his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
Illustrations
(a) A is tried for the murder of B.
The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money, B denies the making of the bond.

The  fact  that,  at  the  time  when  the  bond  was  alleged  to  be  made,  B  required  money  for  a  particular purpose, is relevant.
 (c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.
 The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.
(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A.
The facts that, not long before, the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which the
provisions of the alleged will relate; that he consulted vakils in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts of other wills to be prepared, of which he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, either before, or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which
would  tend  to  give  to  the  facts  of  the  case  an  appearance  favourable  to  himself,  or  that  he  destroyed or
concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The  facts  that,  after  B  was  robbed,  C  said  in  A’s  presence  ––  “the  police  are  coming  to  look  for  the man who robbed B,” and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000.
 The facts that A asked C to lend him  money, and that D said to C in A’s presence and hearing–– “I
advise  you  not  to  trust  A,  for  he  owes  B  10,000  rupees,”  and  that  A  went  away  without  making  any answer, are relevant facts.
(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The  fact  that  A  absconded,  after  receiving  a  letter,  warning  him  that  inquiry  was  being  made  for  the criminal, and the contents of the letter, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime.
The  facts  that,  after  the  commission  of  the  alleged  crime,  he  absconded,  or  was  in  possession  of
property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
 (j) The question is, whether A was ravished.
The  facts  that,  shortly  after  the  alleged  rape,  she  made  a  complaint  relating  to  the  crime,  the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.
 The  fact  that,  without  making  a  complaint,  she  said  that  she  had  been  ravished  is  not  relevant  as
conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
 (k) The question is, whether A was robbed.
The  fact  that,  soon  after  the  alleged  robbery,  he  made  a  complaint  relating  to  the  offence,  the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.

The  fact  that  he  said  he  had  been  robbed,  without  making  any  complaint,  is  not  relevant,  as  conduct
under  this  section,  though  it  may  be  relevant  as  a dying  declaration  under  section  32,  clause  (1),  or  as corroborative evidence under section 157.

Back to IEA