Law and You >Procedural Laws > Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 > Part II > Facts Bearing on Question Whether Act was Accidental or Intentional (S. 13 BSA)
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the existence of a state of mind, or of the body or bodily feelings, is addressed in Section 12 and Section 13. These sections allow for the admission of evidence regarding the state of mind or physical condition of a person to prove facts in a case. Section 13 BSA provides specifically for allowing evidence of similar occurrences, in each of which a person doing the act was concerned whenever there is a question whether an act is done with a particular knowledge or intention. In this article we shall discuss section 13 covering facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional.
Section 13
Facts Bearing on Question Whether Act was Accidental or Intentional:
When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.
ย Illustrations:
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance company, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is Aโs duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.
(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit currency. The question is, whether the delivery of the currency was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit currency to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.
Essential Ingredients of Section 13 BSA
- This Section lays down rules as to admissibility of evidence in cases where the question is whether a particular actย was accidentalย or was done with aย particularย intention or knowledge.
- This Section is anย exceptionย to the general rule that the evidence of similar facts is not relevant.
- This exception is necessary to overthrow the defence of accident in cases of habitual crimes by an offender.
- This Section deals with the facts admissible in proof of only two states of mind, that isย intention or knowledge.
- Under Section 13 BSA, the evidentiary fact must be such as formedย part of a series of similar occurrences,ย in each of which the person doing the act was concerned.
Accident as Exception to Criminal Liability:
According to Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Ingredients of Section 18 BNS:
The act done by the accused,
- must have been done without any criminal intention or knowledge;
- must be lawful;
- Must have been done in lawful manner;
- Must have been done in lawful means;
- There is no want of proper caution on part of accused
In R v. Gnango, (2011) UKSC 59 case, where a person intending to shoot and kill A, by mistake shoots and kills B. The Court held that the person is liable for murder of B though he did not intended to kill B. According to Doctrine of transfer of Malice, the personโs malice or mens rea towards A transferred to B as the act itself is an illegal act.
Thus, if the act itself is illegal, then the accused cannot take shelter of Section 18 of BNS. Just because an act is not intentional, it does not necessarily mean that the person is innocent; he could be negligent and be criminally and civilly liable. Similarly, an act is not accidental, it does not mean that it has got to be intentional; it could be negligent.
Comparison between Section 12 and Section 13 BSA:
Section 13 is a specific application of the principle of section 12. Compared with section 12, section 13 has, however, a narrower application. In the first place, while any state of mind brings section 12 into operation (apart from a state of body or bodily feeling), section 13 is confined to the specified states of mind. Secondly, any kind of evidence can become relevant under section 12, subject, of course, to the other requirements of section while section 13 concentrates on evidence of similar facts. The similarity makes the probability of an innocent explanation so remote that the law provides that the evidence ought to be received.
Doctrine of Signature Crime:
A signature crime isย a crime which exhibits characteristics idiosyncratic to specific criminals, known as signature aspects, signature behaviours or signature characteristics.
Some criminals specialize in the commission of particular crimes like bank robberies, house breakings, murders (serial killers), etc. Some criminals remains in particular areas or places like trains and buses only. Some criminals commit offence in a particular way or method. Thus signature crimes are those crimes which bear the mark of common pattern. These crimes are called signature crimes because the method of operation (modus operandi) is such that the method reveals the identity of criminal just as a signature or visiting card does. Similar facts evidence can be used to rebut the plea of accident or plea of innocent association. It can also be used to prove sexual intent.
โSimilar fact evidenceโ is the name given to the principle of law which allows evidence of a personโs propensity to commit similar acts to be brought before a court. It is a principle of law which applies to both civil and criminal cases.
Brides in the Bath Tub Case
In R v. George Joseph Smith, (1915) 11 Cr App R 2-9 case, where at the trial, evidence was led as to the deaths of Alice Burnham and Margaret Lofty. Both had married Smith (who used various names). Both had given or willed to Smith all their worldly wealth. Smith had also insured their lives. ย Smith would ensure that the rented rooms where the newly married couple spent their first night of connubial bliss contained a bath. He would then suggest that the bride takes a bath. In each case, the bride drowned in the bath. Evidence was also led that it was virtually impossible for a healthy person to accidentally drown in this manner, but that if suddenly forced under it would be almost impossible to resist.
Smith was convicted of the murder of Bessie Munday. His appeal failed despite the valiant efforts of his counsel.
Raman Raghav Case:
Raman Raghav also known as Sindhi Talwai, Anna, Thambi, and Veluswami was a serial killer active during the mid-1960s. He committed a series of killings in 1965-66 attacking around 19 people out of which 9 victims died. The police arrested him but due to insufficient evidence, they had to let him go. Before this Raghav also had a police record for robbery for which he had spent five years in jail. Another round of killing took place in August 1968 on the outskirts of Mumbai where slum dwellers were bludgeoned at night when they were sleeping. This time the police launched a manhunt for him and he was arrested in September 1968.
In his confession, Raghav admitted to killing around 40 people in 1966 along the Great Indian Peninsula (GIP as the Central Indian Railway was then known) railway and around a dozen in 1968 in the suburbs. However, there are possibilities of more murders than these. The weapon used by him was a hard blunt object.
Raman was held guilty by the Addition Sessions Judge, Mumbai, and was sentenced to death. Before confirming the sentence, the constitution of a Special Medical Board of three psychiatrists to determine whether the accused was of unsound mind and also whether due to unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of making his defence was ordered by the High Court of, Mumbai.
After interviewing Raman five times for about two hours each time, the Special Medical Board presented the following report. Though there are no details about childhood history available, no reliable history of mental illness family is obtainable and also the X-rays of the skull, blood examination, serological tests for syphilis, and cerebrospinal fluid examination including urine and stool examination were non-contributory. He was observed to have shown ideas of reference and fixed and systematized delusions of persecution and grandeur.
Observations demonstrated Ramanโs mental health and that he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and could not determine the difference between wrong and right and the nature and consequences of his acts. The High Court on 4 August 1987 reduced his punishment to life imprisonment and he was sent to Yerwada Central Jail, Pune, and was under treatment at the Central Institute of Mental Health and Research.
Conclusion:
The Section 13 is well illustrated by illustration (a) which refers to a series of earlier acts of the same person. In a later incident, the fact that in the earlier incident the same person was involved, may be relevant in pointing out whether the act was accidental or intentional. The evidence of similar facts is not admissible where its only effect is to show that a person is of general bad character or good character and therefore likely to have behaved in the way alleged. But such evidence is admissible to show his intention or knowledge, and the fact that it incidentally reveals good or bad character does not make it inadmissible. That is the general principle on which section 13 is based.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Click Here