Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts
Section 8: Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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 the payment of money, B denies the making of the bond. 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “Queen”.
The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is 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 of other wills to be prepared, of which he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) 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 favourable 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.
(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 afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) 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 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 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.
(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 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.
(k) 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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 8
-
Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra
Appellant was convicted for matricide-killing of one’s own mother. By the present appeal, the appellant calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court.
-
Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment relying on the confessional FIR filed by the appellant-accused himself and the medical evidence to uphold his conviction, however, altering it from s.302,…
-
Vibhor Garg v. Neha
Issue arose whether the conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them could be permitted to be made admissible in evidence; whether in light of the Evidence Act and the Family Courts Act, 1984, a…
-
Vaibhav v. The State of Maharashtra
In a case based on circumstantial evidence where there were missing links in the chain of circumstances, whether the finding of the High Court regarding the conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss.302, 201 r/w…
-
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 304 IPC, and u/ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, 1959.
-
Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/ss.306, 498A, and 34 IPC; and incase the first informant dies before stepping into the…
-
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim.
-
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs v. The State of Gujarat
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, whereby, the Division Bench partly accepted the appeal preferred by the appellant accused-A1 and…
-
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT
Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder.…
-
Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if can be deemed to be in the ‘custody’ of the police, admissibility of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and sentence of the…
-
Sajeev v. State of Kerala
Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused-A10 and A11 u/ss. 302, 307, and 326/120B IPC and s.55(a ), (h), (i) and s. 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act by the courts below is sustainable in law.
-
Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder and attempt to rape relying on the testimony of the prosecution witnes s despite contradictions, only…
- Mukesh Singh v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
-
Irfan @ Naka v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Whether the prosecution could be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant who was convicted for offence punishable u/ss.302, 436 and 326-A, IPC and sentenced to death, for allegedly…
- Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- Digambar v. The State of Maharashtra
- Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka
- Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.
- Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Subramanya v. State of Karnataka
- Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
- Venkatesh @ Chandra & Anr. Etc v. State of Karnataka
- Pappu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Lochan Shrivas v. The State of Chhattisgarh
- Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra
- Ram Chandra Prasad Singh v. Sharad Yadav
- Raja v. State by the Inspector of Police
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors.
- State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta
- Asar Mohammad and Ors. v. The State of U.P.
- Charandas Swami v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Dhal Singh Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan
- Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal
- Vasant Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra
- Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan
- Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P.
- Sushil Sharma v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi
- Anuj Kumar Gupta @ Sethi Gupta v. State of Bihar
- Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
- State of Rajasthan v. Shravan Ram & Anr.
- Vivek Kalra v. State .Of Rajasthan
- R. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
- Gudu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
- Sandeep v. State of U.P.
- K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
- Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India
- Maqbool @ Zubir @ Shahnawaz and Anr. v. State of Ap.
- Dharnidhar v. State of U.P.
- Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Akhlaq v. State of U.P.
- Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr. v. State of Assam
- Gagan Kanojia and Anr. v. State of Punjab
- Vikramjlt Singh@ Vicky v. State of Punjab
- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@Afsan Guru
- State of Rajasthan v. N.K. - the Accused