Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. 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 Act.
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 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.
(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 man who robbed B,” and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 8, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 6 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
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: s.8 makes motive and previous/subsequent conduct relevant only with a nexus to the fact in issue; absence of proved motive does not break an otherwise complete circumstantial chain (Vivek Kalra, following Ujjagar Singh / Vikramjit Singh).
-
Gudu Ram vs State of H. P
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.
-
Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs The State of Goa Home Department Secretary
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
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
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
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
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The counsel has further argued that falsity of defence or giving a false explanation does not provide an additional link and cannot be made a ground for conviction. In the present case, it is not the falsity of defence which is being considered and, therefore, we have referred to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused had prepared a good ground and given false explanation or rather made up a new story at the threshold i.e. even prior to investigation, at the time of investigation and, therefore, his conduct indicates the act of guilty mind." 8. On the second aspect, the High Court …
-
… They opened the sump tank <span id="page-3-0"></span><sup>6</sup> We shall be subsequently referring to the admissible portions of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and also to a limited extent in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. and took out Rajini @ Rajinikanth's body, which was in a decomposed state. They had cut Rajini @ Rajinikanth's body into two pieces and put it in two sack bags. The knife and rope were put in another sack bag. The three sack bags were taken by them from Chinna Vaikkal Street, and …
-
… Though the extra-judicial confession of the accused-Digambar cannot be taken into consideration, however, his conduct of going to the Police Station and surrendering before the Police can certainly be taken into consideration in view of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "the Indian Evidence Act") 18. It could thus be seen that the prosecution has established that the deceased and the accused persons left the house of P.W.5-Shankar together and soon thereafter the death of the deceased person had occurred. As such, …
Questions about Section 8
What have the courts held on Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan (15 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.8 makes motive and previous/subsequent conduct relevant only with a nexus to the fact in issue; absence of proved motive does not break an otherwise complete circumstantial chain (Vivek Kalra, following Ujjagar Singh / Vikramjit Singh). 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 8 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 8, section 8 IEA, section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 32 (Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant), section 157 (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. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 6 (Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 8, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
- 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts654 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.