Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling

Reference: The Indian Evidence Act

Section 14

Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant.
Explanation 1- A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
Explanation 2- But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this Section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.
Intention, knowledge and other states of mind are important in a criminal case. In fact, no act can be an offence under the Indian Penal Code in the absence of a guilty intention: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. They are important in some types of civil cases as well – fraud, malicious prosecution and, at times, negligence – although, generally, the maxim requiring a person to have a guilty mind is inapplicable in the civil realm.
Showing evidence of states of mind is not easy because no one can truly know, with absolute certainty, what goes on in the mind of another. Evidence of other acts done which may reveal a state of mind are relevant under this Section. If the act done is a crime, it must – as in the case of evidence of other acts – be restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
For example, Illustration (a) says that ‘A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. The fact that at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles off which he was in possession to be stolen.’ Thus, he can be shown to have had knowledge that the goods were stolen.
Anything having a distinct and immediate reference to the particular act in question is relevant. (Emperor v. Debendra Prasad, 1909) However, evidence of the general reputation of a person cannot be given under this Section.
It was held on appeal in a case where a man was convicted on eight counts of indecently assaulting his grandsons that evidence of pornographic magazines found in his possession had no probative value except with regard to his propensity to commit the crime and as such, should not have been admitted. (R v. Burrage, 1997)
Where the previous commission of an offence is relevant, the previous conviction of the person is also relevant under Explanation 2. Further, in R v. Z, 2000, a man accused of rape said that he had obtained consent or, alternatively, that he believed that he had obtained consent. The testimony of four women who had earlier accused him of having raped them was used to rebut his defence even though he had been acquitted of having raped three of them. It was held that previous acquittals may be relevant in a subsequent case where the defendant is charged with rape. The House of Lords held that the principle of double jeopardy did not make relevant evidence inadmissible merely because it pointed towards the fact that the accused had previously been acquitted of a crime he was guilty of. The accused was in fact not placed in double jeopardy at all because the facts giving rise to the later prosecution differed from those in the earlier ones.