Section 8 Evidence Act

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4

Motive preparation and previous or subsequent

conduct (Section 8)
(Prepared by Sharif Mollah)

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act runs as follows -


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 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, it 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 or other wills to be prepared of which
he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime. The facts, 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 favorable to himself, on that he destroyed or concealed
evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who
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 afterward A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000. The fact that, A asked C
to lend him money, and that D said to C in A’s presence and hearing “Advice you
The Orient Tavern 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 facts 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
facts 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 offense, 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.

(a) Motive-
The word, 'Motive' means " the reason behind the act or conduct or an act to be
achieved in doing an act". Motive differs from intention. Intention refers to
immediate consequences, on the other hand, motive refers to ultimate purpose
with which an act is done. An act may be done with bad intention but good
Motive.
Udaya Pal Singh Vs. State AIR 1972 SC 54, in this case, Court held that evidence
of motive is relevant under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act.
Kundula Vs State 1993, in this case, Supreme Court held that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence, motive assumes a great significance as its evidence in an
enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning.

When there is a direct evidence, the evidence of motive is not much significant.
The evidence of Motive becomes important to corroborate the circumstantial
evidence.
Sakharam vs State AIR 1992 SC 758, in this case, Court held that absence of
motive may not be relevant when evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus point
in case where the evidence against the accused is only circumstantial

(b) Preparation - Preparation consists in arranging the means necessary for the
commission of a crime. Every crime is necessarily preceded by preparation.
Example- 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.
Evidence tending to show that the accused made a preparation to commit a
crime, it is always admissible.

(c) Conduct -
The Second Part of Section 8 (IEA) deals with the relevancy of the conduct, It
says, "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."
Conduct is different from the character. conduct is what a person is in the
estimation of others
Nagesh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 119 - in this case, Court held that if the first
information report (FIR) is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving
information is admissible against him as an evidence of his conduct.

Made by Sharif Mollah,Department of law,BSMRSTU,


ID No: 17 law 019,
Mobile:01845753860

You might also like