Note: this post is a part of our important question answer
series on Evidence Law. You can read other questions by clicking
here.
Answer
Section
8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of motive,
preparation, and conduct of a person, which may include their previous or
subsequent conduct.
Join our Telegram or WhatsApp group and
never miss a single update.
1. Motive
Motive refers to the emotion or state of mind that drives a
person to perform a particular act. While motive, in itself, is not a crime, it
is of great importance in the context of a committed crime. Evidence of the
existence of a motive for the crime charged is admissible.
It's important to note that motive differs from intention,
as intention refers to immediate consequences, whereas motive refers to the
ultimate purpose behind an act. An act may be done with bad intention but a
good motive.
Illustration: Let's consider a scenario where A, the sole heir, kills his
father. The fact that A was in desperate need of money and had an eye on his
father's property becomes relevant as evidence of motive.
2. Preparation
Preparation involves the actions taken by a person before committing a
specific act, encompassing plans, steps, or arrangements made to carry out the
act. Evidence of preparation for a crime is relevant under the Indian Evidence
Act. When determining whether a person committed a particular act, evidence of
preparations made related to that act becomes relevant.
Illustration: Suppose A is on trial for poisoning B. The fact that A
procured poison similar to what was administered to B before B's death is
relevant evidence of preparation.
3. Conduct
The significance of conduct is emphasized in the second paragraph of
Section 8. Conduct here refers to the external behavior of a person, as opposed
to character, which relates to the impression about a person in the minds of
others. Conduct, to be relevant under Section 8, need not be simultaneous or
spontaneous with the incident in question. It can be either previous or
subsequent to the main fact in issue.
Illustration:
I.
Previous conduct: Complaints made by the
deceased two months before their death become admissible as evidence.
II.
Subsequent
conduct: Let's consider a scenario where the question is whether A robbed B.
The fact that, after B was robbed, C said in A's presence, "the police are
coming to look for the man who robbed B," and immediately afterward A ran
away becomes relevant evidence of subsequent conduct.
For conduct to be admissible, it must satisfy the following conditions:
I.
It must be in reference to the suit or
proceeding or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto.
II.
It must directly influence or be influenced by
any fact in issue or relevant fact.
Let’s
connect with the author on LinkedIn, (Opens in a new tab)
Hello readers!
Hope you are all having a good time here. We
are trying our best to keep you updated with available paid internship
opportunities, our thoughtfully curated question-answer
series for aspirants of judiciary as well as other competitive exams, the latest
legal developments and much more like this.
But here's the thing: we can't do it alone. We
need YOUR support to expand our endeavors, to create incentive based internship
opportunities for our community members, to bring more eminent scholars on the
board, and foster fruitful collaborations.
Here's how you can contribute:
1.
Share Your Knowledge: Publish Your Work With Us
2.
You
may also support us with any amount you like. Click here to directly pay with
your installed UPI app, or pay manually using UPI: 7297911597ss@paytm.
Every contribution toward a goal is valuable, regardless
of how small it may be. Thank You.
Note: the content available on this
site will remain always free.
#OneStepTowardsAddFreeWebsite
Read
important descriptive questions on Constitutional and Contract Law, Click here.
Read
Paid internship related posts, Click here.
Also Read:
Question:
Write a detailed note on Adultery.
0 Comments