8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
Reference: The Indian Evidence Act
Section 8
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 subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact ins 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.
In Empress v. Rama Birapa, 1878, it was observed that the Evidence Act intends to make only those statements relevant which are the essential complement of acts done or refused to be done so that the act itself or the omission to act acquires a special significance as a ground for inference with respect to the issues in the case under trial.
Motive:
Motive is what induces a person to do or say anything. It is an emotion or desire which leads to the doing of an act or anything being said. It is impossible to have any tangible evidence of a person’s motive but it can often be inferred from a person’s behaviour or conduct. Previous threats, altercations or litigations between parties may be admitted to prove motive. (Chhotka v. State of West Bengal, 1958) However, motive is not a substitute for proof no matter how strong it is. (State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, 2003)
The effect of the absence of proof of motive is that the other evidence to prove guilt must be closely examined. (Atley, 1955) But if the other evidence is clear, cogent and reliable, or there is credible direct evidence, the Courts have held time and time again that it does not matter if there is no proof of motive.
However, if there is only circumstantial evidence, evidence of motive becomes important to corroborate it. (S G Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, 1973) In such a scenario, the absence of a motive would be a plus point for the accused. (Sakharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972)
Preparation:
Preparation comprises arranging or devising the means to do any act. It is not relevant if the preparations are to do something legal. For example, buying poison to kill rats is legal but buying poison to kill one’s spouse is relevant if the murder is committed – it once again becomes irrelevant if the person abandons the plan to commit murder because no inference of guilt arises where the execution of a crime for which preparations have been made is voluntarily abandoned.
In case of a crime, it may consist not only of preparations to actually commit the crime but also to:
§ Escape the scene undetected
§ Divert suspicion
§ Prevent discovery
§ Destroy relevant evidence
Conduct:
The way in which a person behaves is basically what constitutes his conduct and is relevant in the cases mentioned in the Act. It does not matter when the conduct took place. Since time immemorial, the way in which an accused behaved was considered while determining his guilt – the Bible itself said that while ‘the wicked flee, the righteous man is as bold as a lion’.
A person’s conduct is not the same as his statements. The latter comprises words or actions which can be interpreted as words (as in the case of sign language). An ‘act’ may constitute either conduct or statement depending on the context. E.g. shaking one’s head to exercise one’s neck is not a statement but it is a statement if it is to say, “Yes” or “No” in response to a question.
Under Section 119, a witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open court. Evidence so given is deemed to be oral evidence.
Further, conduct may include acts with statements. In Queen-Empress v. Abdullah, 1885, the running down a street by a wounded person simultaneously saying the name of his assailant and how the wounds were inflicted were proved together held to constitute his conduct as a whole.
In Queen-Empress v. Sami, 1890, it was recognized that ‘it is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt and therefore of guilt itself’.
Section 8
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 subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact ins 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.
In Empress v. Rama Birapa, 1878, it was observed that the Evidence Act intends to make only those statements relevant which are the essential complement of acts done or refused to be done so that the act itself or the omission to act acquires a special significance as a ground for inference with respect to the issues in the case under trial.
Motive:
Motive is what induces a person to do or say anything. It is an emotion or desire which leads to the doing of an act or anything being said. It is impossible to have any tangible evidence of a person’s motive but it can often be inferred from a person’s behaviour or conduct. Previous threats, altercations or litigations between parties may be admitted to prove motive. (Chhotka v. State of West Bengal, 1958) However, motive is not a substitute for proof no matter how strong it is. (State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, 2003)
The effect of the absence of proof of motive is that the other evidence to prove guilt must be closely examined. (Atley, 1955) But if the other evidence is clear, cogent and reliable, or there is credible direct evidence, the Courts have held time and time again that it does not matter if there is no proof of motive.
However, if there is only circumstantial evidence, evidence of motive becomes important to corroborate it. (S G Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, 1973) In such a scenario, the absence of a motive would be a plus point for the accused. (Sakharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972)
Preparation:
Preparation comprises arranging or devising the means to do any act. It is not relevant if the preparations are to do something legal. For example, buying poison to kill rats is legal but buying poison to kill one’s spouse is relevant if the murder is committed – it once again becomes irrelevant if the person abandons the plan to commit murder because no inference of guilt arises where the execution of a crime for which preparations have been made is voluntarily abandoned.
In case of a crime, it may consist not only of preparations to actually commit the crime but also to:
§ Escape the scene undetected
§ Divert suspicion
§ Prevent discovery
§ Destroy relevant evidence
Conduct:
The way in which a person behaves is basically what constitutes his conduct and is relevant in the cases mentioned in the Act. It does not matter when the conduct took place. Since time immemorial, the way in which an accused behaved was considered while determining his guilt – the Bible itself said that while ‘the wicked flee, the righteous man is as bold as a lion’.
A person’s conduct is not the same as his statements. The latter comprises words or actions which can be interpreted as words (as in the case of sign language). An ‘act’ may constitute either conduct or statement depending on the context. E.g. shaking one’s head to exercise one’s neck is not a statement but it is a statement if it is to say, “Yes” or “No” in response to a question.
Under Section 119, a witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open court. Evidence so given is deemed to be oral evidence.
Further, conduct may include acts with statements. In Queen-Empress v. Abdullah, 1885, the running down a street by a wounded person simultaneously saying the name of his assailant and how the wounds were inflicted were proved together held to constitute his conduct as a whole.
In Queen-Empress v. Sami, 1890, it was recognized that ‘it is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt and therefore of guilt itself’.
Labels: Evidence
<< Home