Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or
bodily feeling is defined under Section
14 of Indian Evidence Act 1872.
this section is:
Section 14 of
"Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily
the existence of any state of mind, such as intention,
knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, I will or
good-will or good-will 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.
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.
(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 off which he was in
possession to be stolen.
13[(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another
person a counterfeit coin which, at the time when he
delivered it, he know to be counterfeit.
The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed
of a number of other pieces of counterfeit is relevant.
The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering
to another person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it
to be counterfeit is relevant.]
(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s which knew to
The facts 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, 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 neighbors 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,
(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 off 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 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 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.
(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 carriage
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 carriage, is relevant
The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriage
which he let to hire, is irrelevant.
(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting
(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.
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.
when facts not otherwise relevant become relevant? Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to
determine amount are relevant? What is Facts relevant when
right or custom is in question? Section 12 and 13 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or
bodily feeling? Section 14 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or
intentional? Section 15 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
Existence of course of business when relevant Admission
defined? Section 16 and 17 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
Admission- by party to proceeding or his agent? Section 18 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as
against party to suit Admissions by persons expressly
referred to by party to suit? Section 19 and 20 of Indian Evidence Act 1872