Relevancy of “CMP” under Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Relevancy of “CMP” under Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Relevancy of conduct, motive and preparation—[1]

• Section 8 of IEA provides that any fact is relevant which shows the CMP (i.e. conduct, motive & preparation) of a party to the proceedings.(UP Lower-2002). Section 8 is relevant in cases of circumstantial evidence.
• Conduct may be previous or subsequent.(CGJ-2007).

Illustrations—

• 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. (motive)
• A sues B for the payment of bond 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. (motive)
• 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.(Preparation) (CGJ-2003)
• 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. (Preparation)
• 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. (conduct)

 Explanation to Section 8: Relevancy of statement—It is to be noted that u/s 8, the conduct of the parties is relevant and not their statements. However, explanations to Section 8 deals with exceptions when statement may be admitted—

• Any statement which affects the conduct of a person is relevant. Queen Impress vs. Abdullah (1885:FB) is a leading case on this point. In this case the accused cut the throat of a girl and the victim was taken to a hospital. Attempts were made to know the name of the accused and she answered the same by sign of her hand. The court did not accept the relevancy of this fact.

Illustration: 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 fact showing conduct. The fact that, without making a complaint, she said that she had been ravished is not relevant as conduct under this section. (complaint) (MPJ-1999). However, it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32 (1) or as corroborative evidence under section 157.

Illustration: 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(1) or as corroborative evidence under section 157.(complaint) (JJ-2008)

• Statements accompany and explain acts other than statements.

Illustration—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. (statement affecting conduct)

Illustration: 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. (conduct)

Illustration: 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. (conduct) (MPJ-1993)

Illustration: 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. (conduct)

_____________________________________________

[1] . When and to what extent the motive, preparation and the conduct of a party to the proceeding is relevant?

__________________________________

Prepared by team LegalMines. Typographical error, if any, is inadvertent. The copyright as to contents and the style are with the LegalMines.