Code
When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or 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.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is
insured. The facts that A lived in several 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 company, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not
accidental.
(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. 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) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit currency. The question
is, whether the delivery of the currency was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon
after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit currency to C, D and E are relevant, as
showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.
Explanation
This section deals with how a pattern of similar past incidents can be used to determine the nature of a present act.
It is especially useful when there’s doubt about whether a certain action was:
- Done intentionally or accidentally,
- Performed with specific knowledge or purpose,
- Repeated over time in a way that shows a consistent pattern.
The law allows previous, similar acts involving the same person to be used as evidence that the act in question likely follows the same intention or pattern—whether honest or fraudulent.
Illustrations (as per statute)
A is accused of burning down his house to claim insurance money.
Relevant: A had lived in several homes previously, each of which caught fire after being insured, and A received insurance money every time. This pattern suggests the fires weren’t accidental.
A is tasked with collecting money and recording it in a book. On one occasion, A falsely records a lesser amount.
Relevant: If A made similar false entries before, each benefitting him, it suggests the current false entry was intentional, not accidental.
A is accused of passing counterfeit currency to B.
Relevant: A also delivered counterfeit notes to C, D, and E around the same time, indicating a pattern—suggesting the delivery to B was intentional and not a mistake.
Key Concepts
- A single occurrence may be explained away as an accident—but a repeated series of similar incidents often points toward a deliberate act.
- This section helps establish “intent” or “knowledge” by linking present conduct to prior similar behavior.
- It is often used in criminal cases such as arson, fraud, forgery, and misappropriation.
