Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(2) 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 any 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 Adhiniyam.
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.
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. The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.
(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 advocates 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.
(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 person who robbed B", and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B ten thousand rupees. 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 ten thousand 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 A 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, A 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.
(j) The question is, whether A was raped. The fact that, shortly after the alleged rape, A 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, A said that A had been raped is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160.
(k) The question is, whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, A 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 A 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 clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160.
Section 6, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 8 Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 8, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-8.pdf 2013-02-15. Crl A 221/2007. Patnaik/Prasad. DATE-CHECK flagged 2004-10-25 / 1997-06-08 FIR and HC fact dates (false positive); body is the named reportable ending 'New Delhi, February 15, 2013'. Motive is relevant under s.8 but absence of motive does not dislodge a complete circumstantial chain (Ujjagar Singh). Conduct of the accused is relevant under s.8 only if it has a nexus with the crime (Vikramjit Singh); general good behaviour without that nexus is irrelevant. Do not remap ipc 302 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IEA 8 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.975). The motive/conduct-nexus teaching carries to BSA 6.
-
Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs The State of Goa Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 8, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused raises a plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the test to be applied is legal insanity, not medical insanity. Legal insanity requires incapacity to know the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. The burden on the accused is to establish this on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The crucial point of time is the moment of commission of the offense. Evidence of conduct before, during, and after the offense, combined with medical evidence of mental disorder, is relevant in determining legal insanity. If credible medical evidence establishes mental disorder at the time of the offense, and the accused subsequently becomes fit to stand trial, this is indicative of prior insanity. The trial court and appellate court must apply a preponderance of probabilities standard and not reject the insanity defense merely because the nature of the act appears intentional or because some witnesses did not observe abnormality.
On this section: Relevant facts. The Court noted that Section 105 must be read along with Section 8, requiring examination of behavior and conduct before, during, and after the occurrence.
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 8, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Relevancy of conduct of persons accused or charged
-
Gudu Ram vs State of H. P
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 8, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Despite the sole eyewitness to the crime turning hostile, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of his testimony to the extent it is corroborated by other reliable evidence, including medical evidence, circumstantial evidence of the accused's conduct, and the absence of any plausible alternative explanation. However, the distinction between intention to cause death (murder under Section 302 IPC) and knowledge that one's actions are likely to cause death (culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC) is critical. Where the nature and location of injuries, the weapon used, and the manner of attack show that a reasonable person would know that such an attack could cause death, but the evidence does not establish the specific intention to cause death, conviction should be under Section 304, not Section 302. The conduct of the accused, including fleeing the scene, is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as consciousness of guilt, supporting but not substituting the other evidence.
On this section: The conduct of the appellant subsequent to the alleged crime is relevant to show consciousness of guilt. The Supreme Court relied on Gudu Ram's flight from the scene of crime and his presence in his village as relevant conduct that could be considered against him.
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 8, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused has an indefeasible right to fair trial and equal opportunity to prove his innocence. Electronically recorded conversations are admissible as documentary evidence under the amended Indian Evidence Act and Information Technology Act 2000 when: (1) the conversation is relevant to matters in issue; (2) the voice is properly identified; and (3) the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of tampering, erasure, addition or manipulation. Courts must exercise their powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act to examine witnesses and elicit evidence essential to just decision, taking a participatory role in trials to arrive at truth. When a witness has not been cross-examined on material evidence that subsequently emerges, courts should grant opportunity for re-examination to ensure fair trial.
On this section: Applied to establish that conduct of parties to a suit, if it influences or is influenced by any fact in issue, is relevant and admissible. Tape-recorded conversation treated as conduct relevant to the matter in issue.
-
State of Odisha vs Laba@kalia Manna
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 8, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, when the chain of circumstances is complete and unerringly points to the guilt of the accused, conviction can be sustained. However, allegations of sexual assault cannot be inferred from genital injuries alone without scientific corroboration such as semen or DNA evidence. Furthermore, in determining whether death sentence should be imposed, the court must apply the 'rarest of rare' doctrine by balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, with life imprisonment being the rule and death sentence being the exception. Death sentence should be imposed only when there is something uncommon about the crime rendering life imprisonment altogether inadequate, and when there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to mitigating circumstances. In cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the irrevocability of death sentence must be a definite factor at the sentencing stage.
On this section: Relevancy of conduct; court held that conduct of accused (blood-stained clothes, fleeing village) was relevant evidence
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 6
What have the courts held on Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan (15 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 8, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IEA 8 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.975). The motive/conduct-nexus teaching carries to BSA 6. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 6, section 6 BSA, section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan (15 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 26 (Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant), section 160 (Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IEA 8 (Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 6, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
- 119. Court may presume existence of certain facts673 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.