Code
Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge,
good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill 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.
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. 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) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit currency
which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit. The fact that, at the time
of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit currency is
relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as
genuine a counterfeit currency knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.
(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s, which B knew to be ferocious. The fact
that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are
relevant.
(d) The question is, whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that the name
of the payee was fictitious. 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.
(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the
reputation of B. The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-will on the
part of A towards B is relevant, as proving A’s 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 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. The fact that, at the time when
A represented C to be solvent, C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by
persons dealing with him, is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good
faith.
(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. The fact that A
paid C 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 C was in a position to contract with B on
C’s own account, and not as agent for A.
(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. 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 had 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) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show A’s intent,
the fact of A’s having previously shot at B may be proved.
(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters previously
sent by A to B may be proved, as showing the intention of the letters.
(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife.
Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are
relevant facts.
(l) The question is, whether A’s death was caused by poison. Statements made by A
during his illness as to his symptoms are relevant facts.
(m) The question is, what was the state of A’s health at the time when an assurance on
his life was effected. Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the time in
question are relevant facts.
(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a car for hire not reasonably fit for
use, whereby A was injured. The fact that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to the
defect of that particular car is relevant. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the
cars which he let to hire is irrelevant.
(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. The fact that A on
other occasions shot at B 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) A is tried for a crime. 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.
Explanation
This section is applied when someone’s internal state—such as their intention, knowledge, belief, negligence, or physical condition—is under legal scrutiny.
To determine these internal states, the court considers:
- What the person did in the past that shows their state of mind or body,
- Similar past actions, habits, or patterns that reflect the mindset or physical state at the time of the incident in question,
- Prior convictions if past actions are relevant.
These are often crucial in criminal trials to prove intent, recklessness, or good/bad faith.
Illustrations
A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing they were stolen.
Relevant: That A also possessed many other stolen items at the same time.
A is accused of passing counterfeit currency, knowing it was fake.
Relevant: A had more counterfeit currency at the time and had previously been convicted of similar conduct.
A sues B over being bitten by B’s dog.
Relevant: Prior complaints and bites by the dog proving B knew it was dangerous.The question is whether A knew a bill’s payee was fictitious.
Relevant: A had accepted other such bills drawn in the same way earlier.
A is accused of defaming B.
Relevant: Prior defamatory statements show ill-will; no previous quarrel may show absence of intent.
A sues B for misrepresenting C’s solvency.
Relevant: Public opinion at that time suggested C was solvent, supporting A’s good faith.
A is sued for payment for work done on a house by B, who claims C was just a contractor.
Relevant: A’s payment to C shows A genuinely believed C was handling the job.
A is accused of misappropriating property he found.
Relevant: Public notice about the lost item, or knowledge that the notice was fraudulent, affects A’s good faith.
A is charged with shooting B with intent to kill.
Relevant: A had previously shot at B.
A is charged with sending threatening letters to B.
Relevant: Earlier threats help prove intent.
A is accused of cruelty toward his wife B.
Relevant: Expressions of feelings around the time of cruelty can be shown.
A dies of suspected poisoning.
Relevant: His statements about symptoms are relevant to showing state of body.
A’s health is questioned in a life insurance case.
Relevant: His own statements near the time about his health are relevant.
A sues B over a defective rental car that caused injury.
Relevant: B being told of the defect before is relevant; B being generally careless about all cars is not.
A is charged with murder by shooting.
Relevant: A’s previous shooting at B is relevant; a general habit of violence is not.
A is charged with a crime.
Relevant: Specific intent-related statements are relevant; general criminal disposition is not.
Key Concepts
- “State of mind” includes mental elements like knowledge, intent, negligence, good/bad faith, etc.
- “State of body” refers to physical condition or symptoms.
- Prior behavior or actions are used to infer mental/physical condition during the incident.
- Specific, relevant conduct matters more than general tendencies or habits.
Related Areas
- Indian Penal Code (for mental element of offences)
- Criminal Procedure Code – evidence of intent & knowledge
- Former Indian Evidence Act – Sections 14 and 15 aligned with this provision
- Mens Rea (Legal Term) – Latin for “guilty mind,” key to understanding this section
