Accidental or Intentional Acts – Indian Evidence Acts, 1872

When the question is whether an act was —

(i) Accidental, or.

Image Source: cdn.abclocal.go.com

ii) Intentional, or

(iii) Done with a 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.

Illustration:

Facts in Issue:

(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.

(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion, he received less than he really did receive.

The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional.

(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to В a counterfeit rupee.

The question is whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental.

What Facts Become Relevant (S. 15)?

(a) The fact that A lived in houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires, A received pay­ment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fire was not accidental.

(b) The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.

(c) The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to В was not accidental.

Principle Underlying S. 15:

Where it is uncertain whether an act was done with a guilty knowledge or intention or whether it was innocent or accidental, proof that It formed one of a series of similar acts raises the presumption that the act in question and the others, together forming a series, were done systematically, and were, therefore, not innocent or accidental.

This section is an application of the general rule laid down in S. 14, and the words of the section, as well as of Illustration (a), show that it is not necessary that all acts should form parts of one transaction, but that they should be parts of a series of similar occurrences. For example, in Illustration. (a), the fact that the houses of the same person insured against fire were successively burnt down on different occasions is relevant to prove that the incidents were not accidental, but part of a design.

In one English case, a man was charged for indecent exposure to a woman with intent to insult her. It was held that the fact that he had, on previous occasions, thus exposed himself to her, would be relevant to show that the exposure was intentional, and not accidental. (Perkins v. Jeffery (1915) 2 K.B. 702)

Problem:

X, a clerk in charge of renewal of licences for hand­carts, was charged with cheating A, В and C, three hand-cart owners by receiving from them Rs. 2.50 for each such renewal, instead of the prescribed fee of Rs. 2. Evidence led at the trial showing that he had taken fifty paise excess from persons other than A, В and C. State, giving reasons, whether the evidence is admissible.

Ans:

The evidence is admissible under S. 15 of the Evidence Act, as tending to establish a systematic course of conduct on the part of the accused and negativing any reasonable or honest motive. (Rex v. Wyatt)

Emp. v. Panchu Das [(1920) 47 Cal. 671, F.B.], P introduced himself as a Raja’s son to a prostitute who passed into his keeping. He then introduced G as his door-keeper and both visited her house till the night of December 9, 1914, when she was found next morning to have been murdered and robbed. The accused were tried on charges of murder, conspiracy to rob, theft, and abetment of each other in the commission of the theft and murder.

It was held that evidence that P had similarly introduced himself as a wealthy man, in 1915 and 1918, to three other prostitutes, each of whom became his mistress, that he then introduced G as his door­keeper, that both visited the women, and suddenly disappeared, and that their disappearance was followed by discovery by the women, in each case, of the loss of their money or ornaments was not admissible under S. 9, 14 or 15.

Section 9 did not apply for the purpose of proving identity, as the murder and theft took place in December 1914, and the subsequent incidents in 1915 and 1918. Section 14 was not applicable, as the evidence of the subsequent occurrence did not show the state of mind of the accused towards the murdered woman.

The first explanation and Illustration (i), (j) and (o) to that section excluded such evidence. Section 15 was not applicable, as there was no question of the acts of murder and theft being accidental or intentional or done with a particular knowledge or intent, but they were plainly intentional. Evidence of the subsequent incidents was also not admissible under S. 11.

Problem:

A is charged under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, for falsely representing to B, that he was the Manager of a Mercantile Firm, and that he would employ В as a cashier, if he deposited with them Rs. 1,000, and thereby obtaining Rs., 1,000 from B. At the trial, evidence is led to show that A had made similar representations to С and D, and obtained from them Rs. 1,000. Is the evidence admissible?

Ans:

The evidence is admissible. All facts are relevant which go to show a state of mind or body or bodily feeling, when the existence of any such state is in issue or relevant in the case. The principle is that facts which tend to prove the existence or non-existence of a mental state are presumptive evidence of the existence or non-existence of that mental state.

In this case, the evidence is led to show that A was in the habit of falsely representing to others even prior to the representation to B.

But it must be noted that the evidence admissible is in proof of only a mental fact, and is not admissible to prove other ingredients of the right or liability.