026b9adee937d-S 14 and 15

Section 14 talks about two things:
First part talks about facts showing the existence of state of mind which includes intention,
knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards particular person
are relevant. Focus is given on particular person, which means state of mind is not towards
general person, but a particular person.
Second part of Section 14 says, facts showing the existence of any state of body or bodily
feeling are Relevant.
Illustrations
 A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. If he is found of
other stolen goods in his possession. Here it shows his state of mind.
 Similarly, A is accused of delivering to other a counterfeit coin which, at the time of
delivery, he knew it to be counterfeit. If he is found of other counterfeit coins in his
possession then, this shows state of mind of A.
Explanation-1: A fact is said to be relevant as showing state of mind only when it shows
state of mind related to particular matter (or person) and not general matter.
Illustration related to fact showing state of mind related to particular matter:
A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire not reasonably fit for use,
whereby A was injured. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriages which
he let to hire, is irrelevant. Here, it is matter related general thing.
The fact that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that particular
carriage, is relevant. It is relevant because it is related to particular carriage/matter.
Res Inter Alios Асtаtе:

This maxim implies that inferences are not to be drawn from one transaction to another
which is not specifically connected with it, merely because the two resemble each other as a
matter of fact. They must be linked together by the chain of cause and effect in some
reasonable manner before an inference may be drawn.
A fact in issue cannot be proved by showing that facts similar to it, but not part of the same
transaction, have occurred at other times. Thus, when the question is whether a person has
committed a crime, the fact that he had committed a similar crime some time ago is
irrelevant.
Explanation-2: Previous conviction of the person is also relevant under section 14.
illustration:
A is accused of delivering to other a counterfeit coin which, at the time of delivery, he knew
it to be counterfeit. If A was previously convicted of delivering counterfeit coins are relevant.
 R vs. Prabhudas (1874): This case explains, Explanation-1 of Section 14. In this case, accused
was found of documents apparently forged. It was held not relevant in prosecution for
forging a promissory note as it shows tendency of committing a offence of that class and not
an intention to commit that particular offence (i.e., committing of forgery of promissory
note) It was not found relevant under section 14.
 Aveson vs Kinnaird (English case): Lady made statement as to state of her health to the
insurance company that her health is good. But Insurance company claimed that she made
false statement to them as when visitor visited her, she told him that she was in bad state of
health. These statement of visitor were allowed by the court and held to be relevant as it
shows her state of mind (Which includes intention, ill-will, good faith etc.). This case similar
to Illustration (m).
Section 15 lays down the rules of admissibility of evidence in cases, where the question is
whether a particular act was accidental or done with particular intention or knowledge. The
section raises two questions viz.,
Whether the act with which a person is charged, is accidental or intentional, and (ii)
whether the act was done with a particular knowledge or intention. It is important to note
that in cases showing the existence of any state of mind which proves and disapproves of
intention for doing an act being necessary are regulated by the Section 14 of the Act.
Section 14 is a general section dealing with all cases in which state of mind is involved.
Section 15, on the other hand, provides specifically for allowing evidence of similar
occurrences. It is not an exception but an application of general rule laid down in Section 14.
It picks out only those cases where the question is whether a particular act is accidental or
intentional. In order to prove intention the section is to apply to the act of similar nature,
because Section 15 is particular application of the general rule laid down in the Section 14.
An act is said to be similar to another when it is similar to a fact in issue only.
For example, if a person is prosecuted for theft, a similar act had to be committed by him on
other occasion. Since the general principle laid down in Section 14 is to exclude the
evidence of similar facts, this principle devised by the Section 15 will apply only when there
is a striking similarity between the fact on which the case is based and the fact of which
evidence is offered. The two facts possess a common characteristic.
Section 15 has also laid down another principle that “all the acts should form parts of a
series of similar occasion,” Under the section the similar occurrences must be many. One
single instance cannot constitute a series of similar occurrence and it is not admissible.
It is necessary that all acts should form part of a series of similar occurrence. The reason is
that if the act was not accidental, it must have been done intentionally or with knowledge.
In the case of Panchu Das v. Emperor the accused Panchu Das introduced himself to a rich
prostitute as a Maharaja and another man as his darwan (doorkeeper). Both of them
regularly visited the house of the prostitute and suddenly they disappeared. The woman
was found dead in her room and her valuables had gone. No trace of the man could be
found and police closed the file. After two years the two men were arrested in another city
when they were playing similar trick with another rich prostitute. It was held by a majority
that evidence of murder and robbery of the first woman was not relevant under any of the
provisions of the Act. Referring to Section 15 it was also held that they were likely persons
who had committed the crime because their modus operandi was similar and “there was no
room for any doubt that the acts with which the accused were charged were identical.”
Similarly, the same principle was followed in Noor Mohammed v The King. In this case the
accused was tried for the murder of a woman named Ayesha by poisoning her. Evidence
was given to show that the accused had previously murdered another woman by similar
trick.
The evidence were held inadmissible as there was no direct evidence. If the accused was
proved to have administered poison to Ayesha in circumstances consistence with accident,
the proof that he had previously administered poison to any other in similar circumstances
might well have been admissible. It has been regarded that “the relevancy of similar fact not
as a rule of law but of practice.
Section 15 applies to such type of act which was only particular in nature and the modus
operandi was also the same. Secondly, the similar act formed parts of a series of occurrence
and the act was done with the state of mind (intention, knowledge etc.). It is not accident
but intentional. The words of the section make if quite clear that it is not necessary that all
acts should form parts of one transaction. But it is similar occurrences.

026b9adee937d-S 14 and 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

026b9adee937d-S 14 and 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

026b9adee937d-S 14 and 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 14 talks about two things:

Res Inter Alios Асtаtе:

You might also like