Whether the motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct of the parties are relevant? Discuss giving illustrations.

Question: Whether the motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct of the parties are relevant? Discuss giving illustrations. [C.G.J. 2003, MPCJ.2003]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Whether the motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct of the parties are relevant? Discuss giving illustrations.]

Answer

Section 8 of the IEA deals with when motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct of the parties become relevant.

1. 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.

In R v. Palmer (1856, Cockel’s cases and statutes on evidence, p. 59), 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 concerning facts. In Murarilal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1997 SC 1593) it was 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.

2. Preparation

Preparation in itself is no crime, but when accompanied with an offence committed thereof, it becomes relevant. Illustration (c) to section 8 provides: “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 poison is no crime but when the poison is administered to murder B, it becomes relevant.

3. Conduct

A 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.

Considering the leading case of Queen-Empress v. Abdullah (1885 7 All 385 FB), the facts of which are: 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.

Subsequent conduct includes activities done after the incident whereas previous conduct includes actions before the crime/incident. In Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2006 12 SCC 306), it was held that if there is a nexus between conduct and crime, it doesn’t matter whether the conduct was subsequent or preceding, it will be 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