Section 8 Evidence Act: Motive, Preparation and Previous or Subsequent Conduct
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dealt with the relevance of motive, preparation and conduct before or after an event. For proceedings governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the corresponding provision is Section 6.
What does Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act provide?
Any fact showing or constituting a motive or preparation for a fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant. The conduct of a party or the party's agent, and the conduct of a person against whom an offence is alleged, may also be relevant when it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Such conduct may occur before or after the event.
Meaning of motive, preparation and conduct
Motive
Motive is a reason or incentive for acting. For example, a threat of exposure or financial gain may explain why an alleged offence occurred. Motive is a relevant circumstance but does not, by itself, establish guilt.
Preparation
Preparation concerns steps taken in advance of an act, such as obtaining a substance allegedly used to commit an offence or consulting professionals when preparing a disputed will. The relevance and weight depend on the facts and other evidence.
Previous and subsequent conduct
Conduct before, during or after the relevant occurrence may help explain a disputed fact. Concealment of evidence, an attempt to influence witnesses, flight, or the making of a prompt complaint may be relevant; none automatically proves the underlying allegation.
Two explanations to Section 8
Explanation 1: Statements alone do not constitute conduct for this section unless they accompany and explain acts other than statements. This does not prevent a statement from being relevant under another provision of evidence law.
Explanation 2: When a person's conduct is relevant, a statement made to that person or in that person's presence and hearing, which affects the conduct, is also relevant.
Statutory illustrations under the former Section 8
The following eleven illustrations from the uploaded former-law provision are retained in substance. References to older statutory provisions in illustrations should be read in their historical context.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 6 carries forward the rules on motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct, including the explanatory distinction between statements and conduct. When assessing admissibility, courts also apply other relevant provisions and procedural safeguards. The rule addresses relevance, not whether a disputed allegation has been conclusively proved.
Practical application
A court may consider whether the alleged conduct has a genuine connection with a fact in issue, whether the underlying circumstances have been established by admissible evidence, and whether an alternative explanation exists. Absconding, silence or failure to complain cannot be treated as automatic proof of wrongdoing. In sexual-offence matters, responses to trauma and delays in reporting require context-sensitive assessment.
Official legislation and further reading
Consult the India Code official legislation portal for the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the historical Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Ministry of Home Affairs publishes material on the new criminal laws. See also the Indian Evidence Act overview and the related Section 7 discussion of occasion, cause and effect.
Legal information for general reference. The applicable statute and procedural posture should be checked for each case.