§ SECTION 6 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

Three routes in one section: the why of an act, the getting-ready for it, and how the people involved behaved — before it and after it.

How to read Section 6

Two sub-sections, two Explanations, and the Act’s longest run of illustrations.

What it is about

(1) motive and preparation; (2) the conduct of parties, their agents and the victim — whether previous or subsequent to the event.

The conduct test

Conduct enters only if it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue — a two-way test that keeps unrelated behaviour out.

Words vs deeds

Exp. 1: statements alone are not conduct — unless welded to acts. Exp. 2: words said to a person that shape his conduct come in with it.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 6 · verbatim

(1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

(2) 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 Adhiniyam.

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. 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 advocates 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 person who robbed B”, and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.

(g) The question is, whether A owes B ten thousand rupees. 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 ten thousand 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 A 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, A 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 raped. The fact that, shortly after the alleged rape, A 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, A said that A had been raped is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160.

(k) The question is, whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, A 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 A 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 clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160.

In short: the run-up and the aftermath of an act both speak. (1) motive and preparation are always relevant. (2) the conduct of the parties, their agents and the victim comes in if it influences or is influenced by the facts — before or after. Words alone are not conduct (Exp. 1), but words that reached a person and moved his conduct ride in with it (Exp. 2).

→ Flight, silence, tampering, a prompt complaint — behaviour is evidence because people act out what they know.

Glossary

motive

The reason pushing a person towards an act — relevant, never conclusive by itself.

preparation

Arranging the means — procuring poison, drafting the will, buying the weapon.

conduct

Behaviour — deeds, not bare words (Exp. 1); of parties, agents and the victim.

influences or is influenced by

The two-way filter: the conduct shaped the fact, or the fact shaped the conduct.

abscond

To run and hide from the law — classic subsequent conduct (illustrations (h), (i)).

complaint vs bare statement

A prompt complaint is conduct; merely saying it happened is not — that travels under § 26(a) or § 160 (illustrations (j), (k)).

The picture

Three roads into the same courtroom.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

(1) Motive & preparation(2) ConductThe ExplanationsThe Illustrations

sub-s. (1)Motive & preparation

In one lineThe why (motive) and the getting-ready (preparation) of an act are always relevant to it.

Any fact is relevantthe resultthe sub-section opens with its conclusion: the fact comes in.

which shows or constitutesshows OR isevidence pointing to a motive — or the motive-fact itself.

a motivethe whythe reason that would push a person towards the act.

or preparationgetting readyarranging the means — buying the poison, drafting the will.

for any fact in issue or relevant fact.anchoredalways tied to a fact in issue or an already-relevant fact.

ExampleA had insured B’s life heavily last month (motive) and bought a weapon last week (preparation) — both relevant to whether A killed B, though neither is the killing itself.

✗ Not thisMotive is never proof by itself — many people have motives and do nothing. It is relevant, not conclusive; and absence of motive equally only weighs, never decides.

sub-s. (2)Conduct — before and after

In one lineHow the parties (and the victim) behaved — before or after — comes in, if that behaviour influences or is influenced by the facts of the case.

The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding,whose conduct · 1the parties to the case — and their agents.

in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto,about the casethe behaviour must concern the case or its facts — not life at large.

and the conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding,whose conduct · 2the victim’s conduct counts too.

is relevant,the resultit comes in…

if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact,the two-way test…only if it shaped the fact — or was shaped by it.

and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.before or afterplanning beforehand and flight afterwards both speak.

ExampleIllustration (f) in action: after the robbery, C says in A’s presence “the police are coming to look for the person who robbed B” — and A immediately runs. Conduct influenced by the fact in issue: relevant.

✗ Not thisA stranger’s behaviour is not covered — the sub-section names the parties, their agents, and the person offended against. And conduct unconnected to the case — however odd — fails the two-way test.

Explanations 1 & 2When do words count as conduct?

In one lineWords alone are not conduct (Exp. 1) — but words tied to deeds, and words that moved a person whose conduct is in, ride along (Exp. 2).

Explanation 1.—The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements,⚠ words alone outa bare statement is not “conduct” under this section…

unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements;words + deeds in…unless the words ride on an act — accompanying and explaining it.

but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Adhiniyam.the savingstatements may still enter by other doors of the Act.

Explanation 2.—When the conduct of any person is relevant,the triggeronce someone’s conduct is in…

any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing,words that reached him…what was said to him, or within his hearing…

which affects such conduct, is relevant.words that moved him…comes in too, if it shaped that conduct.

ExampleIllustration (g): D says in A’s presence “don’t trust A — he owes B ten thousand rupees”, and A walks away without a word. The statement reached A and shaped his conduct; his silent departure is conduct — both come in.

✗ Not thisExp. 1 does not banish statements from the trial — it only says they are not “conduct” here. The Act’s own illustrations (j) and (k) send bare statements to other doors: § 26(a) or § 160.

IllustrationsEleven pictures the Act itself gives

In one lineTwo motives · two preparations · five kinds of tell-tale conduct · two complaints — the Act’s richest gallery so far.

(a) blackmailmotiveB knew A had murdered C and was extorting A — A’s motive to silence B.

(b) needed moneymotiveB needed money at the very time the bond was allegedly made.

(d) the willpreparationA enquired, consulted advocates, had draft wills prepared.

(e) tamperingconductA manufactured, destroyed or concealed evidence, kept witnesses away, suborned false testimony.

(f) flightconduct + Exp. 2“the police are coming” said in A’s presence — A ran at once.

(g) silenceconduct + Exp. 2“he owes B ten thousand rupees” said in A’s hearing — A left without answering.

(h) absconding on warningconductA absconded after a letter warned that inquiry was afoot; the letter’s contents too.

(i) flight & possessionconductafter the crime: absconding, possessing its proceeds, concealing its tools.

(j) complaint — rapecomplaint vs statementA’s prompt complaint (its circumstances and terms) is conduct; a bare statement is not — it may enter under § 26(a) or § 160.

(k) complaint — robberycomplaint vs statementsame split: the prompt complaint is conduct; the mere assertion travels by other sections.

📜 11 illustrations (a–k) are inside this box — scroll down to see all · tap any picture to zoom

A’s motive to silence the blackmailer B · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (a) — A murdered C; B knew and blackmailed A — so A had a motive to murder B. (tap to zoom)

B needed money when the bond was allegedly made · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (b) — B needed money for a purpose at that very time — motive to execute the bond. (tap to zoom)

A procured poison like that given to B · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (c) — before B’s death A procured similar poison — preparation. (tap to zoom)

inquiry, advocates, draft wills — preparing the will · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (d) — inquiries made, advocates consulted, draft wills prepared — preparation for the will. (tap to zoom)

fabricating evidence and obstructing witnesses · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (e) — false alibi, destroying evidence, keeping witnesses away, suborning false evidence — conduct. (tap to zoom)

A ran the moment he heard the police were coming · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (f) — “the police are coming!” said in A’s presence, and A ran at once — subsequent conduct. (tap to zoom)

A stayed silent when told he owed B ₹10,000 · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (g) — accused in his hearing of owing B, A walked away silent — silence as conduct. (tap to zoom)

A absconded after a letter warned of inquiry · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (h) — A absconded after a warning letter — the flight and the letter’s contents are relevant. (tap to zoom)

absconding, possessing proceeds, concealing tools · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (i) — after the crime: absconding, holding its proceeds, hiding its tools — all relevant. (tap to zoom)

prompt complaint = conduct; a bare statement is not · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (j) — a prompt rape complaint (its circumstances and terms) is conduct; a bare statement is not (see § 26(a)/§ 160). (tap to zoom)

robbery: complaint = conduct; a mere assertion is not · tap outside or × to close

Illustration (k) — same for robbery: the prompt complaint is conduct; a mere assertion is not. (tap to zoom)

▾ scroll for more

ExampleRead the gallery as a map of the section: (a)(b) = motive · (c)(d) = preparation · (e)(h)(i) = conduct after the act · (f)(g) = Explanation 2 at work · (j)(k) = the complaint / bare-statement line.

Connected provisions

§ 5

Occasion, cause & effect

§ 5 admits the setting; § 6 admits the mind and the behaviour around the act.

§ 4

Same transaction

Conduct at the very event may already be inside the transaction — § 6 reaches further out in time.

§ 26(a) · § 160

Where bare statements go

The doors the Act itself names in illustrations (j) and (k) for statements that are not conduct.

lineage

IEA 1872, § 8

This provision carries forward section 8 of the repealed Evidence Act.