X is charged with shooting at Y with intent to kill him. The prosecution wants to lead evidence to show that X had previously shot at Y.

Question: X is charged with shooting at Y with intent to kill him. The prosecution wants to lead evidence to show that X had previously shot at Y. [U.P.A.P.O., 1996, HR.J.S. 1995]

State whether and why the evidence sought to be adduced in the circumstances given below is relevant or not? [U.P.C.J. 1992, 2000, U.P.H.J.S. 2014]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [X is charged with shooting at Y with intent to kill him. The prosecution wants to lead evidence to show that X had previously shot at Y.]

Answer

Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act says

“Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill will or goodwill towards any particular person or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling is relevant when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.”

Explanation 1 says that A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally but in reference to a particular matter in question. It makes it clear that state of mind, to be proved, must not be of a general tendency. Thus fact that a mean is generally dishonest generally malicious or criminal in his proceedings does not bear with sufficient directness on his conduct on any particular occasion or as to a particular matter.

The facts of the present case are borrowed from illustration (i) to section 14. In this case, A is charged with shooting at B with the intent to kill him. In order to show A’s intent the fact of A’s having previously shot at B may be proved. Whether a man has or has not the particular intention is a matter of fact to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and from the acts of the person concerned, therefore Section 14 of the Act says to prove mental and physical conditions, evidence may be given of all contemporaneous manifestations of the given condition, whether by conduct, conversation as part of res gestae.

Further, Section 15 of Indian Evidence Act states

“When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional or done with 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”.

Thus, Section 15 lays down the Rule as to the admissibility of evidence in cases where the question is whether a particular act was accidental or was done with a particular intention. To prove so, this section provides a method i.e. similar Act which entails that it is necessary that all the acts should form part of series of similar occurrences, the reason is that one instance may be accidental but repetition of the similar instances will be intentional and not accidental.

In the present case in hand when 'A’ is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him and in order to prove A’s intent prosecution wants to prove the fact that 'A’ has earlier shot on 'B’. Fact that A had earlier shot at B can be made admissible to prove A’s intention in reference to the case of B. Thus this fact is relevant.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X