Sec 12 BSA
Sec 12
• Facts showing the existence of any state of mind such as
intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or
good-will towards any particular person, or showing the
existence of any state of body or bodily feeling are relevant,
when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily
feeling, is in issue or relevant.
• Explanation 1.-- 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
the particular matter in question
• Explanation 2.-- But where, upon the trial of a person
accused of an offence, the previous commission by the
accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of
this section, the previous conviction of such person
shall also be a relevant fact.
• The subject of law of evidence is equally applicable to
both civil and criminal cases. law of evidence governs civil
proceedings too.
• All crimes have two components, mens rea and actus
reus.
• Mens rea is a guilty mind. However, state of mind could
be guilty or it can remain under various degree of
guiltiness.
Sec 12. Facts showing existence of
state of mind, or of body or bodily
feeling
• The court allows producing the facts which shows the
existence of any state of mind, such as Intention, Knowledge,
Good faith, Negligence, Rashness, Ill-will or Good-will.
• However, generally accused is negligent or rash cannot be
proved. It has to be established towards any particular
person, or any state of body or bodily feeling.
Illustration
• If a ‘A’ picks up a book from his friend’s house, to establish ill-
will, the fact that could be proved would be, he did not
inform friend’s mother, who was present in the house.
• At the same time, it could also be established that, he had
taken books earlier also, without any express consent from
anyone from the friend’s house. This fact establishes good-
will.
• The fact that after reading the book, ‘A’ came back to friend’s
house to return the book establishes good faith.
• Under sec 12all the above facts become relevant to prove the state of
mind.
• The sec 12 is supported by two explanations.
• The object behind the explanation is to clarify the nature of the facts
that are allowed under this section.
• As mentioned above facts proving and drawing inference as to
general nature of the persons are not allowed. It has to be in
reference to the particular matter in question.
• Additionally it is also held that the previous conviction of such person
shall also be a relevant fact.
State of mind, body or bodily feeling – Section 12 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872:
Facts showing —
(a) The existence of any state of mind, such as:
•intention [Illustration. (e), (i), (j)],
•knowledge [Illustration. (a), (b), (c), (d)],
•good faith [Illustration. (f), (g), (h)],
•negligence [Illustration. (n)],
•rashness [Illustration. (к), (I), (m)],
•ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person; or
(b) The existence of any state of body or bodily feeling,— are relevant, —
when the existence of any such state of mind, or body, or bodily feeling, is in
issue or is relevant.
Illustrations
(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be
stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular
stolen article.
(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another a counterfeit
coin which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew to be
counterfeit.
(c) A sues В for damage done by a dog of В which knew to be
ferocious.
(d) The question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange,
knew that the name of the payee was fictitious.
(e) A is accused of defaming В by publishing an imputation
intended to harm the reputation of B.
(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was
solvent, whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent,
suffered loss.
(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house
of which A is owner, by the order of C, a contractor. A’s defence is
that B’s contract was with C.
(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property
which he had found, and the question is whether, when he
appropriated it, he believed in good faith that the real owner
could not be found.
(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him.
(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B.
(k) The question is whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards
B, his wife.
(l) The question is, whether A’s death was caused by poison.
(m) The question is what was the state of A’s health at the time
an assurance on his life was affected.
(n) A sues В for negligence in providing him with a carriage for
hire not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured.
(o) A is tried for the murder of В by intentionally shooting him
dead.
(p) A is tried for a crime.
What Facts Become Relevant?
• (a) The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other
stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all
of the articles of which he was in possession to be stolen.
• (b) The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a
number of other pieces of counterfeit coin is relevant. The fact that A
had been previously convicted of delivering to another as genuine, a
counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit, is also relevant.
• c) The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that they
had made complaints to B, are relevant.
• (d) The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner
before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the
payee had been a real person, is relevant as showing that A knew that
the payee was a fictitious person.(based on the English case, Gibson v.
Hunter.)
(e) The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing
ill- will on the part of A towards В is relevant, as proving /Vs
intention to harm B’s reputation by the particular publication in
question.
The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B,
and that A repeated the matter complained of as he heard it, are
relevant, as showing that A did not intend to harm B’s reputation.
(f) The fact that, at the time when A represented С to be solvent,
С was supposed to be solvent by his neighbour and by persons
dealing with him, is relevant, as showing that A made the
representation in good faith.(Sheen v. Bumpstead)
(g) The fact that A paid С for the work in question is relevant, as
proving that A did, in good faith, make over to C, the
management of the work in question, so that С was in a position
to contract with В on C’s own account, and not as agent for A.
(Gerish v. Charlier)
(h). The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been
given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not
in good faith, believe that the real owner of the property could not be
found.
The fact that A knew, or has reason to believe, that the notice was
given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and
wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant, as showing that the fact
that A knew of the notice did not disprove A’s good faith.
(i) In order to show A’s intent, the fact of A’s having previously shot at В
may be proved.
(j) Threatening letters previously sent by A to В may be proved,
as showing the intention of the letters.
(k) Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before
or after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts.
(l) Statements made by A during his illness as to his symptoms
are relevant facts.
(m) Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near
the time in question are relevant facts.(Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird)
.
It is also provided 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 the particular matter in question. (S. 14,
Expln. 1)
(n) The fact that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to the
defect of that particular carriage is relevant.
The fact that В was habitually negligent about the carriage which he let
to hire is irrelevant.
(o) The fact that A on other occasions shot at В is relevant as
showing his intention to shoot B.
The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent
to murder them is irrelevant.
(p) The fact that he said something indicating an intention to
commit that particular crime is relevant.
The fact that he said something indicating a general disposition
to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.
Res Inter Alios Асtаtе:
• This maxim implies that inferences are not to be drawn from one
transaction to another which is not specifically connected with it, merely
because the two resemble each other as a matter of fact. They must be
linked together by the chain of cause and effect in some reasonable
manner before an inference may be drawn.
• A fact in issue cannot be proved by showing that facts similar to it, but
not part of the same transaction, have occurred at other times. Thus,
when the question is whether a person has committed a crime, the fact
that he had committed a similar crime some time ago is irrelevant.
• In R. v. Shellaker it was held that to prove the occurrence of sexual
intercourse on a given occasion, prior and subsequent acts between
the same parties are admissible.
Previous conviction of accused (S. 12 Expln. 2):
• When the previous commission by the accused of an offence is
relevant, the previous conviction of such person is also a relevant
fact.
Relevancy of previous convictions (Ss. 12 and 11):
• A previous conviction may be relevant under Sec 6 as showing
motive.
• It may be relevant under S. 12 (Expln. 2) when the existence of any
state of mind or bodily feelings is relevant. It may also be relevant
under S. 43. [See Illustration (e) and (f) to S. 43]
• A previous conviction is not admissible in evidence
against the accused, except where he is liable to
enhanced punishment under S. 75 of the Indian Penal
Code on account of a previous conviction, or unless
evidence of good character be given, in which case, the
fact that the accused has been previously convicted of
an offence is admissible evidence of bad character.
R vs. Prabhudas (1874):
• This case explains, Explanation-1 of Section 12.
• In this case, accused was found of documents
apparently forged. It was held not relevant in
prosecution for forging a promissory note as it shows
tendency of committing a offence of that class and not
an intention to commit that particular offence (i.e.,
committing of forgery of promissory note) It was not
found relevant under section 14.
Aveson vs Kinnaird (English
case):
• Lady made statement as to state of her health to the
insurance company that her health is good. But
Insurance company claimed that she made false
statement to them as when visitor visited her, she told
him that she was in bad state of health.
• These statement of visitor were allowed by the court
and held to be relevant as it shows her state of mind
(Which includes intention, ill-will, good faith etc.). This
case similar to Illustration (m).
Section 12 BSA:
• i. Facts which show the state of mind, such as, the intention,
knowledge, negligence, ill-will, good faith, rashness or bodily feelings
are relevant when such state of mind or bodily feeling is in issue or
relevant.
ii. The state of mind of a person or accused can be proven in the following way:
. a. It may be proved by way of a statement by the person whose mental
condition is in dispute (which is unreliable in most cases).
b. The mental and physical conditions of the person may be proved by the
evidence of other person who is well aware of the mental conditions or bodily
feelings by conduct or correspondence. (physical and psychological facts)
c. By way of evidence of all simultaneous manifestations of the given condition,
by conduct, conversation or correspondence as part of the res gestae.
d. By way of any collateral evidence to prove the state of mind of the person in
question.
e. By way of similar acts done in the past the state of mind may be proved
which is admissible however the similar acts to prove the facts in issue or
relevant fact is inadmissible.
f. Both previous and subsequent events are admissible to prove the
state of mind. However, previous events are of importance as they
show the influences on the state of mind in the investigation at present.
g. Mens rea required to be proved in certain circumstances as
stipulated by the IPC may be proved by way of circumstantial evidence.
h. Any fact that proves guilty knowledge may be proved and will be
relevant.
i. Statement by an accomplice may be admissible only if it is used to
corroborate direct or indirect evidence connecting the accused with the
crime.
.
Examples:
• receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen;
• fraudulently delivering them to another person;
• dishonest misappropriation of property;
• shooting a person with intent to kill him.
• A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. The letters sent by A
may be proved as showing the intention in the letters.
• Explanation 1: the relevant state of mind should be shown not to exist
. generally but with respect to the fact in issue and relevant facts.
• Explanation 2: in the trial of the accused where the previous
commission of an offence is relevant, the previous convictions of the
accused person shall also be relevant.
• For example, A is tried for the murder for intentionally shooting B. In
this case intention would be material. If A shot B accidently, some
minor offence would be said to have been committed.
• The fact that on other occasions as well, A tried shooting at B and kill
him thereby would prove murder. If A was in a habit of shooting
people will not prove his intention to kill B. He must have shot others
intentionally, however shooting B may have been accidental.
