Section 8 Indian Evidence Act: Motive, Preparation and Conduct

Introduction:

Section 8 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of motive, preparation, previous conduct (conduct of accused before the commission of offence) and subsequent conduct (conduct of accused after the commission of offence).

According to Section 8 Indian Evidence Act 1872 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 a 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. Motive Facts which show a motive for any facts in issue or relevant facts are relevant. The only condition is that the motive considered should be of the man who commits the crime.

Illustrations:

1. 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.
2. A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. A is accused of a crime. The facts that, 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, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.
6. 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.
7. The question is, whether A owes B Rupees 10,000. The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C in A’s presence and hearing–“I advise you not to trust A, for he owes B10,000 Rupees”, and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts.
8. The question is, whether A committed a crime. The fact 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.
9. 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 properly acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
10. 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 fact 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.
11. The question is, whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to the offence, 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.

Section 8 Indian Evidence Act deals with:

• A fact which shows or constituents a motive for any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant.
• A fact which constituents or shows preparation of any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant.
• Previous or subsequent conduct of any party or of any agent to any party to any suit or proceedings, in reference to such suit or proceedings, or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact, are relevant provided such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.
• Previous or subsequent conduct of any person an offence against whom is subject of any proceedings or suit is relevant provided such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.
• Statements accompanying and explaining acts
• Statements made in presence and hearing of a person whose conduct is relevant provided the statement affects such conducts.
  Statements of a party to a proceeding accompanying and explaining the acts shall be relevant only if explains the conduct of the parties. Further, such statement must amount to a complaint to be considered as admissible or relevant. Such a complaint must be voluntary and not an answer to a question.
  Statements affecting the conduct of a party to a proceeding shall be relevant. These statements should be put before a court in the presence of the party. For example, A kills B. C shouts stating that the police is coming to arrest the murderer. A absconds. This would make C’s statement relevant.

Motive: 

       The word ‘motive’ means “the reason behind the act or conduct or an act to be achieved in doing an act.”

Salmond describes motive as ” the ulterior intent”.  It may be good or bad.

 Motive is the moving power, which impels one to do an act.  In other words, a motive is that which moves a man to do a particular act. It is an emotion or State of Mind, which leads a man to do an act. Motive by itself is no crime, however heinous it may be. Once a crime has been committed, the evidence of motive becomes important. Therefore, evidence of the existence of a motive for the crime charged is Admissible.

          Motive differs from intention. Intention refers to immediate consequences, whereas, motive refers to ultimate purpose with which an act is done. An act may be done with bad intention but good motive.

Proof of Motive:

Motive cannot always shown directly. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstantial in evidence.
E.g.: A is tried for murder of B, The fact that B was present at the  scene of the offence, while A was murdering C, B tried to extort money from A, by threatening him to reveal in the public that A murdered C are relevant.

Example : When A is pregnant, her husband B dies in an accident. She delivers a child C. The child C becomes legal heir of property of B. D the brother of B administers some medicine to A which results in miscarriage of A. Here C’s motive is to grab entire property of B.

Importance of Evidence of motive: 

Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, whether based on the testimony of eye witnesses or circumstantial evidence. Motive alone is not sufficient evidence to establish that the crime in question has been committed by a particular person. Where a crime is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is not necessary to consider the evidence of motive. Inadequacy of motive does not affect the cogent evidence but is important, whether evidence is doubtful.

Case Laws:

In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. state of U. P., AIR 2000 SC 1706 case, the Supreme Court observed: “Motive is exertion of human will and, hence an ‘internal act’. Motive by definition, ‘is moving power which impels action for definite result, or to put it differently motive is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act’.

In State of Punjab v. Bittu AIR 2016 SC146 case, the Supreme Court observed that the proof of motive alone cannot be sufficient to convict the accused as it is not substantive evidence but only corroborative in nature.

R v Palmer, May 14 to May 26, 1856. George Hebert, 89 Cheapside, London  case, the accused borrowed large sums of money from his deceased friend to pay his dues. The deceased died because of poisoning in a hotel, after coming back from a race they both attended. Since the accused had a strong motive to kill him, he was held liable. If a certain motive can be assigned, its adequacy is not questioned, only its existence is enough to prove concerned facts.

In Murarilal Sharma v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 1593 case, the Court held that where a fact can strongly link accused to the fact in issue, motive plays a secondary role. And while, when considering circumstantial evidence, evidence of motive plays the fundamental role.

In   State of MP v. D. Kumar, 5 November, 1996 Munnibai was killed. Kumar was the tenant of the house of Munnibai’s father-in-law who had an evil eye on her. Munnibai told her mother-in-law who told her husband. The father in law asked Kumar to vacate the house. The Supreme Court held it as motive for the murder.

Motive should not be confused with intention. Intention is an act of the will directing an act or a deliberate omission. It shows the nature of the act which the man believes he is doing.

R v Palmer, May 14 to May 26, 1856. George Hebert, 89 Cheapside, London  case, the accused borrowed large sums of money from his deceased friend to pay his dues. The deceased died because of poisoning in a hotel, after coming back from a race they both attended. Since the accused had a strong motive to kill him, he was held liable. If a certain motive can be assigned, its adequacy is not questioned, only its existence is enough to prove concerned facts.

In Murarilal Sharma v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 1593 case, the Court held that where a fact can strongly link accused to the fact in issue, motive plays a secondary role. And while, when considering circumstantial evidence, evidence of motive plays the fundamental role.

In   State of MP v. D. Kumar, 5 November, 1996 Munnibai was killed. Kumar was the tenant of the house of Munnibai’s father-in-law who had an evil eye on her. Munnibai told her mother-in-law who told her husband. The father in law asked Kumar to vacate the house. The Supreme Court held it as motive for the murder.

Motive should not be confused with intention. Intention is an act of the will directing an act or a deliberate omission. It shows the nature of the act which the man believes he is doing.

In accident and negligence cases, the proof of motive is irrelevant. In cases of defamation, kidnapping, rape, murder, cheating, etc. the proof of motive becomes relevant.

Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code deals with ‘General Exception’ wherein the act which otherwise constitutes offence ceases to do so under certain circumstances set out in this chapter. This chapter provides certain circumstances under which though the person commits the act, it results in the injury but due to absence of the blameworthy mind, that act is not liable for any punishment or it is exempt from the punishment. This chapter provides the circumstances, which are nothing but the principles of the common law system. All these general exceptions are recognized the concept of mens rea in the IPC.

Preparation:

Preparation in itself is no crime, but when accompanied with an offence committed thereof, it becomes relevant. Thus, Preparation along with attempt is regarded as a crime. Preparation only evidences a design or plan to do a certain thing as planned. It may not be always carried out , but it is more or less likely to be carried out.

According to Illustration (c) to Section 8 Indian Evidence Act, 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.” Here, procuring of poison is no crime but when the poison is administered to murder B, it becomes relevant.

Example 1: In a case of burglary the four accused held a meeting to arrange for the crime. For this a iron bar and pair of pincers were also necessary. The accused bought a iron rod and also pair of pincers. These facts were admitted by them. Thus shows their preparation for it.

Example 2: A and B were accused of killing C, a guest at their hotel. The night of the murder, the maids and the guard were sent away so that no one would witness the murder. The next day she was asked not to clean their room. This is relevant to show the preparation of the crime.

The law does not take cognizance, except in certain cases for which provision has been made in the Indian Penal Code itself making preparations punishable, as there is still enough time for a person to change his mind. Thus, the law doesn’t punish the person unless he has passed beyond that stage of preparation.

If ‘A’ acquires a revolver from certified ammunition store with a license with intention to kill his bitter enemy ‘B’ and keeps the same in his pocket duty loaded. But he does nothing more than that. A has an intention and made preparation to carry out his intention but he has not committed the offence. At this stage, it is impossible to prove that ‘A’ had the loaded revolver only with the intention of killing ‘B’.

There are some offences, so grave that it would be of utmost importance to stop them at the stage of preparation itself. That is why such offenses are punishable even before the actual commission of the crime i.e. at the very preliminary stage i.e. mere at the preparation stage.

• Preparation to wage war against the Government (Section 122).
• Preparation to commit depredation on territories of power at peace with the Government of India (Section 126).
• Making or selling instrument for Counterfeiting of Coins (Section 233 to 235 )
• Making or selling instrument for printing Government Stamps (Section 255 and 257)
• Possessing Counterfeit Coins, False Weight or Measurement and Forged Documents (Section 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474)
• Preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399).

Mere possession of these things is a crime and a possessor can’t plead that he was still at the stage of preparation.

In cases where the offence is attempted or actually committed, evidence of preparation on the part of accused clearly establishes the requisite mens rea. Though preparation itself is not punishable and is irrelevant if the offence is not attempted or committed, preparation is proof of premeditation where the offence is committed or attempted. Thus, preparation is a proof of motive, and also help repel contention that the act was ‘accidental’ and not ‘intentional’ within the meaning of Section 15.

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. Guilty mind begets guilty conduct.

Under Sec. 8, the conduct of the following parties is relevant –

• parties to a suit/ proceeding or of their agent (plaintiff and defendant in a civil suit,
• accused in a criminal proceeding),
• any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding (injured person).

It is a conduct which is directly and immediately influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact but it does not include action resulting from some intermediate cause. In this regards, the following facts are relevant in criminal cases:-

• Conduct of the accused shortly before or after the commission of offence which influenced or was influenced by his commission;
• Statement made by him which accompany and explain the conduct;
• Statement made to him or in his presence and hearing which affects his conduct.

The word “party” U/s 8 refers to parties or their agents in civil suits as well as accused and private complainant. S. 8 do not apply to conduct of witness.

Some of the instances of guilty conduct are: the defendant turned pale, when arrested, a defendant charged with wife’s murder, failed to shed tears; the defendant’s offer to marry the girl who charged him with rape; bribing; concealing one’s identity; feigning insanity; absconding; or silence.

Explanations to Sec. 8 (Relevancy of Statements)

What is relevant under Sec. 8 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 Sec. 8 recognize two exceptions when statements may be admitted.

Explanation 1

It provides that mere statements do not constitute ‘conduct unless they accompany and explain acts other than statements.

Illustrations:

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 fact 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 Us 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence U/s 157. (Conduct).

Thus, the act of an injured person in making a complaint about the offence done to him is a conduct and the words in which the complaint is made is a statement accompanying that conduct and, therefore, both are relevant under explanation 1.

Explanation 2

“It provides that when the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is also relevant.”

Such statements are admitted because without their help the conduct may be unintelligible. Thus, if a man accused of a crime is silent or flies, or guilty of a false or evasive response, his conduct is coupled with the statement, in the nature of an admission, and therefore, evidence against himself.

Illustration : 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. 15

Case Laws :

Queen-Empress v Abdullah (1885) 7 All 385 (F.B.) – 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 taken to a police station and thence to a hospital where attempts were made to know from her the name of the accused. But she was unable to speak, her throat being cut. She answered by signs of her hand. When the name Abdullah (accused) was mentioned she made an affirmative sign. She died on the third day.

A reference was made to the Full Bench over the question whether the signs of the hand she made in response to the questions put to her were relevant under Sec. 8 as the conduct of an injured person.

Learned Judge held it to be subsequent conduct and prosecuted Abdullah for her murder. Learned Judge observed that There is no difference in principle between the act of A in running away when told that police were coming, and the act of deceased in moving her hand in answer to the questions. Both are the cases of ‘conduct’ within the meaning of Section 8.

Himachal Pradesh Administration vs. Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975

It was held that where accused made a statement to the police in police custody disclosing that he purchased a weapon of offence from someone and later on took the police to that person who confirms this fact, it would be admissible Us 8 as conduct of the accused. It was observed that: “the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the panchas that the accused had taken them to P.W. 11 and pointed him out and as corroborated by P.W. 11 himself would be admissible U/s 8 of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused.”

Other Facets of Conduct :

Other facets , which may be considered as conduct are: