Section 6 BSA Motive Preparation and Conduct
Motive, Preparation, Subsequent Conduct Explained - Section 6 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
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, irrelevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Note: In Indian Evidence Act, 1872 this provision was incorporated under Section 8.
Motive
Motive is moving power which impels one to do an act. It is the inducement for doing the act. In other words, it is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. Evidence of motive is always relevant, for men do not act wholly without motive.
Tarseem Kumar v Delhi Administration (1994): On the murder of an old widow possessed of wealth, the fact that the accused was to inherit her fortunes on her death was held to be relevant as it showed that the accused had a motive.
Awadhesh v State of UP (1995): Where certain lands were inherited by the deceased along with his brother but the accused got them transferred into their names and criminal and revenue cases were pending between them at the time when the deceased was killed, it was held that these facts constituted a sufficient evidence of motive.
Role of proof of motive in determining criminal liability
Narayan v. State of Maharashtra (1971): SC held that no doubt, motive is helpful in deciding a case but often it is very difficult to prove the motive with which an act has been done, and so it has been laid down that if it is clear and certain that a crime has been committed, it is not essential to prove that there was a motive for the crime. Absence of motive or inadequacy of motive is of comparative unimportance where there exists absolutely cogent evidence that a crime has been committed by a particular person.
State of UP v Babu Ram (2000): The Court observed that evidence of motive is not sufficient by itself to lead to conviction nor absence of it to discredit other evidence. When there is clear evidence that a person has committed an offence, the motive becomes insignificant. A murder case based on direct evidence does not become weak just because of the want of a motive.
Md. Adil v State (2009): The court held that, although proving motive is not essential to establish criminal liability, demonstrating it can strengthen one's case before the court.
Algupandi v. State of Tamilnadu (2012): SC reiterated that existence of a motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always a relevant factor.
When proof of motive becomes significant
Natha Singh v Emperor (1946): It was held that the evidence of motive assumes special importance when the whole case is built upon circumstantial evidence.
Preparation
According to Sir Henry Maine, "preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence".
Preparation consists of a design or plan or blueprint for doing an act. For example, the sharpening of a knife before an affray in which the knife was used is relevant as an act of preparation. For the same reason, it is relevant to show that the accused hired a revolver a few days before the murder.
Conduct
The conduct of a man is particularly important to the law of evidence, for his guilt or the state of mind is often reflected by his conduct. It is often said "guilty mind begets guilty conduct".
Whose Conduct is relevant
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam makes the conduct of following persons as relevant:
- any party to a suit/proceedings
- any agent of such party
- accused in criminal proceedings
- any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, namely, the victim of a crime
What Conduct is relevant
The conduct must be in reference to the facts in issue or relevant facts. Furthermore, the conduct must be of a nature which:
- influences facts in issue or relevant facts, or
- influenced by the facts in issue or relevant facts
Example 1: A is accused of murder of B. A absconds immediately after B's death. A's absconding is relevant as conduct under Section 8 because it suggests a guilty mind, influenced by the fact in issue (the murder of B).
Example 2: S is suspected of having poisoned T. He tried in every way to prevent the body of T from being medically examined. This conduct of S in preventing the medical examination of the body of T is relevant.
Example 3: F accuses E of raping him. F runs to the police immediately after the alleged rape and files a complaint. F's conduct is relevant as it is influenced by the alleged fact in issue (the assault), and it shows a natural reaction from the victim.
Conduct of what time is relevant
The conduct of the parties is relevant under section 6 if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Therefore, conduct may be:
Contemporaneous to fact in issue or relevant fact, or
(For example, in a bride burning case, the mother-in-law and sister in law chose to remain as mere spectators when the woman was being burnt. This conduct suggests that they were privy to the offence committed).
Previous conduct, or
(For example, A is accused of murdering B. A is seen buying a knife a few days before B's death, and Googling "how to stab someone fatally." Such previous conduct shows A's intention to commit offence of murder).
Subsequent conduct
(For example, accused absconding soon after the offence was committed, accused was found to erase evidence of the commission of the alleged offence, victim filing an FIR or complaint soon after the commission of alleged offence).
Conduct is relevant against whom
In Deshraj Sharma v State (1951): It was laid that the conduct of a man is admissible only against him. The conduct of one accused is not relevant against a co-accused.
Whether statements amount to conduct under Section 6
What is relevant under Section 6 is the conduct of the parties and not their statements. While the law is generous in reference to conduct, it is strict in reference to statements. The reason is that it is too easy to make false statements but it is not so easy to put up false conduct.
Explanations to Section 6 recognises two exceptions when statements may be admitted as conduct.
Explanation 1
It provides that mere statements do not constitute 'conduct' unless they accompany and explain acts other than statements.
For example, the question is, whether A was raped. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, A made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant as it is not merely a statement but also accompany an act of reporting to the authorities.
But if in the same case, A says that she had been raped without making any complaint is not relevant as it is a merely without any accompanying act.
Explanation 2
It provides that when the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence, which affects such conduct, is also relevant.
For example, 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.
Statement made in answer to question: Whether amounts to conduct
In Queen Empress v Abdullah (1885): The accused was prosecuted for the murder of a young girl, a prostitute. She was attacked while asleep in her home. It was already morning and there was sufficient light to enable her to identify her assailant, who cut her throat with a razor. She was later taken to a hospital where her mother, Kotwal, Deputy Magistrate and surgeon put questions to her about the identity of the assailant. She was fully conscious and was able to hear but was unable to speak because of the injury to the throat. Then it was agreed that she would give her replies of "yes" and "no" by signs and gestures of her hand. When some names were mentioned of persons who could have been the culprits, she made a negative sign but when Abdullah's name was mentioned she made an affirmative sign.
It was held by the majority that Dulari's statement was not relevant as conduct under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) but was relevant as a dying declaration under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) as a statement relating to the cause and circumstances of her death. It was held that for conduct to be relevant under this section, it must have been directly influenced by the fact in issue and not by the interposition of questions by others like in this case. Her signs have no meaning unless they are taken along with the questions. Answers to questions imposed by third persons are not relevant as conduct.
