Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Relevancy of Facts

Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Facts Showing State of Mind, Body or Bodily Feeling

Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes facts relevant when they show a particular state of mind, state of body or bodily feeling that is itself in issue or is otherwise relevant to the case. The provision covers matters such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will and good-will.

Legal position covered by this article:

This article explains the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as applicable immediately before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. It is intended for understanding the pre-BSA law and matters in which that legal framework is relevant.

Meaning and Scope of Section 14

Section 14 deals with facts from which a court may infer a relevant mental or physical condition. A person's intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will may not always be capable of direct proof. The section therefore permits proof of facts that tend to establish such a condition when that condition is in issue or relevant.

The rule is not a general permission to prove a person's character or disposition. Explanation 1 requires the fact relied upon to show the relevant state of mind in reference to the particular matter in question. This distinction between a specific state of mind and a merely general tendency is central to Section 14.

Section 14: Facts Showing Existence of State of Mind, Body or Bodily Feeling

Substantive rule: Facts showing the existence of a state of mind - including intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards a particular person - or showing a state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant when that state of mind, body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.

Explanation 1: A fact used to show a relevant state of mind must relate to the particular matter in question and not merely show that the person generally had such a state of mind.

Explanation 2: Where the previous commission of an offence by an accused is relevant under this section, the previous conviction for that offence is also a relevant fact.

The wording above is presented in explanatory form for readability. For authoritative statutory wording, refer to the official India Code text.

Key Legal Principles Under Section 14

1. The mental or physical condition must matter to the case

The provision operates only when the relevant state of mind, state of body or bodily feeling is itself in issue or is relevant under the law of evidence. The evidentiary fact must therefore have a legally meaningful connection with a disputed matter.

2. The state of mind must be specific, not merely general

Evidence that a person had a particular intention or knowledge concerning the transaction in question may be relevant. Evidence offered only to show a general disposition to act in a certain way is not made relevant merely by Section 14.

3. Previous acts may sometimes prove knowledge or intention

Previous acts can be relevant where they have a real connection with the specific knowledge, intention or other state of mind in issue. The statutory illustrations distinguish such evidence from proof of a general habit or propensity.

4. State of body and bodily feeling are also covered

The section is not confined to mental conditions. Statements and surrounding facts may be relevant to prove bodily condition or bodily feeling where that condition is in issue or relevant, as illustrated by evidence concerning symptoms or health.

Illustrations to Section 14

The statutory illustrations demonstrate how the section applies to knowledge, intention, good faith, negligence, ill-will and physical condition:

(a) Knowledge that goods were stolen: Where A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, A's simultaneous possession of many other stolen articles is relevant as tending to show knowledge that the articles in his possession were stolen.
(b) Knowledge of counterfeit coin: Where A is accused of fraudulently delivering counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit, possession of other counterfeit coins at the time is relevant. A previous conviction for knowingly delivering counterfeit coin as genuine is also relevant in the circumstances stated by the illustration.
(c) Knowledge of a dog's ferocity: In a claim for damage caused by B's dog, where B's knowledge of the dog's ferocity is material, earlier bites and complaints made to B are relevant.
(d) Knowledge that a payee was fictitious: Earlier acceptance of similarly drawn bills in circumstances showing that a real payee could not have transmitted them may be relevant to prove that A knew the named payee was fictitious.
(e) Intention in defamation: Earlier publications showing ill-will towards B may be relevant to A's intention to harm B's reputation. Conversely, absence of an earlier quarrel and repetition of the matter as heard may be relevant to show absence of such intention.
(f) Good faith in a representation of solvency: If A represented that C was solvent, the fact that C was then generally supposed to be solvent by neighbours and persons dealing with C is relevant to whether A acted in good faith.
(g) Good faith concerning a contractor: Where B claims payment from owner A for work ordered by contractor C, A's payment to C for the work may be relevant to show that A had in good faith entrusted management of the work to C and that C contracted on C's own account.
(h) Good faith after finding property: Public notice of lost property in the place where A was may be relevant to whether A honestly believed the owner could not be found. Facts showing that A believed the notice itself to be fraudulent may also be relevant to A's good faith.
(i) Intention to kill: Where A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill, A's having previously shot at B may be proved to show the specific intent in question.
(j) Intention behind threatening letters: Earlier threatening letters sent by A to B may be proved as showing the intention of the letters in question.
(k) Cruelty between spouses: Where the issue is whether A was cruel to B, his wife, expressions of their feelings towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are relevant.
(l) Symptoms in a poisoning question: Where the question is whether A's death was caused by poison, statements made by A during the illness about symptoms are relevant facts.
(m) State of health for life assurance: Statements made by A about A's health at or near the time when life assurance was effected are relevant to the state of health at that time.
(n) Negligence concerning a particular carriage: Prior occasions on which B's attention was drawn to a defect in the particular carriage are relevant. A general habit of negligence about carriages let for hire is irrelevant to the specific question described.
(o) Specific intention distinguished from general propensity: In a murder trial for intentionally shooting B, A's having shot at B on other occasions is relevant to the specific intention. A general habit of shooting at people with intent to murder is irrelevant.
(p) Intention to commit the particular crime: A statement indicating an intention to commit the particular crime is relevant, while a statement showing only a general disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.
Current-law note:

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. This page deliberately explains the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 position immediately before that commencement date. For present-day proceedings, the applicable enactment and transitional position should be checked separately.