Law and You >Procedural Laws > Indian Evidence Act, 1872 > Facts Showing or Constituting Motive, Preparation and Conduct (S. 8 IEA)

Facts and proof are the two things that combine to form evidence, which the court may or may not accept as showing the merit or otherwise of a party’s case. Where the court believes the facts shown by a party in any proceeding exist or when it is convinced that a reasonable person would see them as existing, the fact is said to be proved. If the court is not satisfied that those facts exist or is convinced that a reasonable person would not see them as existing, the fact is said to be “disproved”. Thus ‘Facts’ are important in any case. In last article we have discussed ‘Facts in Issue’. In this article let us discuss Section 8 Indian Evidence Act about facts showing or constituting motive, preparation and conduct.

Defining Fact:

­According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ‘Fact’ means and includes:

1. anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
2. any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Relevant Facts:

According to Section 3 of the Indian evidence Act, one fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. ” The said provisions are contained in sections 5 to 55 of the Evidence Act.

Where in a case direct evidence is not available to prove a fact in issue then it may be proved by any circumstantial evidence and in such a case every piece of circumstantial evidence would be an instance of a “relevant fact”.

The relevant facts are different from the facts at issue. These are facts that are not in dispute/issue, but they are related to facts that are in dispute/issue. But the connection must be real or logical. In other words, not all connections make the facts meaningful. To be relevant, the facts in question must be logically connected to the facts at issue.

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).

Section 8 Indian Evidence Act:

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:

(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.

(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 or 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 B10,000 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 properly 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.

Comments:

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:

A motive is an emotion or desire which is the stimulus which causes or leads to such acts. Motive cannot be seen by eyes. If such motive is brought before the Court, and there is no direct evidence of the same, it has to be inferred by the court. Further, if such motive is proved, its adequacy shall be decided upon by the Court (there is no standard rule for adequacy). Absence of proving motive completely by the prosecution will lead to the accused not being convicted.

Understanding the motive behind a crime can be valuable for investigators, prosecutors, and the legal system in general. However, it’s important to note that the presence of a motive does not necessarily prove guilt, and the absence of a clear motive does not mean a person is innocent. Legal systems typically require evidence of the criminal act and the mental state of the accused to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to illustration (a) attached to Section 7 IEA, A has committed a murder of which B has knowledge and B tries to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public. A in consequence kills B also. B’s Knowledge of A’s earlier murder and threatening him are relevant to show the motive on the part of A for killing B.

• Example 1: 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.

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.

In 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.

• Example: A owes Rs one lakh to B. But starts putting pressure on A after the due date for his money. A decides to kill B with a motive to get rid of the pressure of demand for money. He invites B to his house and strikes him with a sword and kills him. There was a motive behind the act and at that time, the strike with a sword was with the intention to kill. Motive is reason which prompts the intention.

Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state of a person while doing any act, some intention is there. A mere intention to commit a crime is not punishable because it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty intention of a person and the court is also unwilling in punishing a person for mere guilty intention. In Indian criminal law also, a mere intention to commit a crime is not punishable except in following exceptional cases where the law takes notice of an intention to commit a crime as they have been considered to be the serious offences and mere preparation of it is punishable as it is to be checked or prevented at the earliest stage.

• ‘Waging War against the Government’ under Section 121 to 123 of the Indian Penal Code
• ‘Sedition’ under Section 124 A of Indian Penal Code,
• A mere ‘Assembly of Persons for Committing the Dacoity’ is punishable under Section 402 of Indian Penal Code.
• Under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, criminal liability can be imposed on the person dealing with selling, hiring, distributing the obscene books.
• The persons who have been engaged in the ‘Criminal Conspiracy’ specified under Section 120 A of Indian Penal Code shall be liable to be punished although he has not himself committed the impugned act.

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.

Difference between Intention and Motive:

Intention and motive are related concepts, but they have distinct meanings in the context of human behavior.

Intention	Motive
Intention refers to a person’s purpose or the planned course of action that they have in mind. Intention refers to the specific plan or goal a person has in mind when they take an action.	Motive refers to the underlying reason or driving force behind a person’s actions or behaviour. Motive refers to the underlying reason or drive behind the action.
It is more forward-looking and focuses on what someone intends to do in the future.	It is more retrospective and delves into the why or the reason behind a particular action or decision.
Intention is related to the desired outcome.	Motive is related to the person’s internal state or need.
Intention is conscious.	Motives can be both conscious and subconscious.
Intention is often used in legal contexts.	Motive is more often discussed in psychology or sociology.
Intention is specific and concrete. Intention can be influenced by external factors.	Motive is more general and abstract. Motives is more internal and self-driven
Intention can be verbalized or communicated.	Motives may not be easily verbalized or understood by others.
Intention can change over time.	Motives is more stable and long-lasting.
Intention can be used to infer responsibility and liability.	Motive is used to understand behaviour
Example: If someone says, “I intend to start exercising regularly,” their intention is to initiate a regular exercise routine.	Example: If someone exercises regularly because they want to improve their overall health, the motive behind their action is the desire for better health.

Preparation:

The concept of “preparation for crime” refers to activities or actions taken by individuals with the intent to commit a criminal act in the future. In many legal systems, the law may consider certain preparatory actions as criminal offenses, even if the actual crime has not been committed yet. The specific activities considered as preparation for a crime can vary depending on jurisdiction and the nature of the offense, but they generally include:

• Planning: Developing a detailed plan outlining the steps and logistics of the intended criminal act.
• Gathering Tools or Instruments: Acquiring or possessing tools, weapons, or instruments specifically designed or adapted for the commission of the planned crime.
• Surveillance: Monitoring and gathering information about the target, location, or potential obstacles to facilitate the commission of the crime.
• Casing or Reconnaissance: Conducting a preliminary examination of the target area or victim to assess vulnerabilities, security measures, and potential escape routes.
• Securing Access: Taking steps to gain unauthorized access to a location, system, or property in preparation for the commission of a crime.
• Assembling a Team: Recruiting or organizing a group of individuals to collaborate in the execution of the criminal plan.
• Communication: Exchanging information with co-conspirators, potential accomplices, or others involved in the criminal activity.
• Obtaining Information: Collecting information relevant to the planned crime, such as blueprints, security codes, or other details that could aid in its execution.
• Testing Security Measures: Conducting trial runs or tests to evaluate the effectiveness of security measures and identify potential weaknesses.

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:

Guilty mind begets guilty conduct. Conduct is taken as evidence because it is always guided, before or after, by what one has done. The conduct should be such which is affected by the facts or affects the facts. It doesn’t include statements until these statements are associated with conduct.

The term “conduct ” refers to the behavior and actions of individuals involved in criminal activities. It encompasses a range of actions, motivations, and circumstances related to the commission of a crime. Here are some key aspects of conduct in the context of a criminal act:

• Actus Reus: In criminal law, conduct is often a crucial element in establishing guilt. The term “actus reus” refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes the criminal offense. It is the external behaviour or actions that are prohibited by law.
• Intent (Mens Rea): Alongside the physical act, criminal liability often requires proving a guilty state of mind or intent (mens rea). The conduct, coupled with the requisite mental state, forms the basis for criminal charges.
• Culpability: The degree of an individual’s involvement or responsibility in the criminal act is a key consideration. Different individuals may have varying levels of culpability based on their roles in the offense.
• Accomplice or Accessories: Conduct may involve individuals who are accomplices or accessories to a crime. These are individuals who, in various degrees, aid, abet, or participate in the commission of a criminal act.
• Conspiracy: Conduct in the form of an agreement or conspiracy to commit a crime is also a criminal offense. The planning and coordination of criminal activities among multiple individuals can lead to charges even before the actual crime is committed.
• Attempt: Conduct that falls short of completing a crime but demonstrates a substantial step toward its commission can be charged as attempted criminal conduct. Attempted conduct is often considered a separate offense.
• Recklessness or Negligence: Conduct may be considered criminal if it involves recklessness or negligence. Reckless conduct refers to consciously disregarding a substantial risk, while negligent conduct involves a failure to exercise reasonable care.
• Defences: Conduct may be subject to legal defences, such as self-defence, necessity, or duress, depending on the circumstances. These defences may justify or excuse the conduct under certain conditions.
• Criminal Elements: Each criminal offense has specific elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conduct is a fundamental aspect of these elements and must be established during legal proceedings.
• Punishment and Sentencing: The nature and severity of the conduct often influence the sentencing or punishment imposed by the legal system. Courts consider factors such as the gravity of the offense, the degree of harm caused, and the individual’s criminal history.

Thus, conduct in a criminal act encompasses the actions, intentions, and responsibilities of individuals involved in the commission of a crime. It is a fundamental aspect of criminal law, and legal systems evaluate various factors related to conduct when determining guilt, culpability, and appropriate penalties. Facts constituting the Conduct are also relevant under Section 8 IEA.

It should be noted that the conduct of the party alone is admissible. The conduct of a person who is not a party to the suit or proceeding is not admissible. The conduct of a man is admissible only against him. The conduct of one accused is not admissible nor relevant against another co-accused.

The conduct of the party before or after the transaction is also very relevant as circumstantial evidence. To be relevant under S. 8, conduct must satisfy the following conditions:

1. The conduct must be of any party to any suit or proceeding, or of any agent to any party to any suit or proceeding, or of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding.
2. The conduct must be in reference to such suit or proceeding, or any fact in issue in such suit or proceeding, or a fact relevant to any fact in issue in such suit or proceeding.
3. The conduct must influence any fact in issue or relevant fact or be influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.
4. The conduct may be previous conduct, or concurrent conduct, or subsequent conduct. Thus, A conduct to be relevant under section 8 need not be contemporaneous. It may be antecedent or subsequent to the fact in issue or relevant fact, the conduct on an accused is relevant under section 8.

• Example 1: A is accused of a crime. The facts, 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, on 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.
• Example 2: 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.
• Example 3: S is suspected of having poisoned T. He tried in every way to prevent the body of T from being medically examined. This conduct of S in preventing the medical examination of the body of T is relevant.

In Queen-Empress v Abdullah, (1885) 7 All 385 case, Abdullah had murdered a prostitute, aged between 15 and 20 years. He had slit her throat with a razor but the girl helped identify him by her conduct which was her hand gestures agreeing to questions asked. The defendant pleaded that this amounted to a statement, but the learned judge held it to be subsequent conduct and prosecuted Abdullah for her murder.

According to explanation attached to Section 8 Indian Evidence Act, statements may be classified into two categories.

1. Mere statements, which do not do anything more than giving information of or narrating a fact.
2. Statements which are themselves an act.

Statements falling under the second category are relevant as conduct, inasmuch as they are themselves acts. As to the first category of the statements, Explanation 1 to Section 8 Indian Evidence Act provides that they are not relevant except under the following two circumstances:

1. The statement accompanies and explains acts other than statements.
2. The statement is relevant under any other section of this Act.

The statements do not stand alone but they either accompany or influence the conduct and hence must be contemporaneous to conduct.

Conclusion:

Section 8 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of motive, preparation, previous conduct and subsequent conduct. 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. 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. Preparation is a proof of motive. The conduct of the party before or after the transaction is also very relevant as circumstantial evidence.

For More Articles on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here