Section 15 of Indian Evidence Act 1872: Facts Bearing on Whether an Act Was Accidental or Intentional
Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevance of a series of similar occurrences when the Court has to decide whether a particular act was accidental or intentional, or was done with particular knowledge or intention.
Meaning and scope of Section 15
The provision is a rule of relevancy. Where the character of an act is in issue - for example, whether an event happened by accident or was deliberately brought about - other similar occurrences involving the same person may become relevant if the act in question formed part of that series. The evidentiary significance comes from the similarity and pattern of the occurrences, not merely from a person's general character or disposition.
Section 15 - statutory provision
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.
Essential requirements
For Section 15 to operate, the Court must be considering whether the act was accidental or intentional, or whether it was accompanied by a particular knowledge or intention. The act relied upon should form part of a series of similar occurrences, and the person whose act is under examination must have been concerned in each occurrence. The surrounding series is relevant because it can help the Court assess whether the disputed occurrence is reasonably attributable to accident or instead forms part of a recurring pattern.
Illustrations under Section 15
Insurance and repeated fires
A is accused of burning down his house to obtain insurance money. Evidence that A successively lived in several insured houses, that each was affected by fire, and that A received insurance payments after the fires is relevant as tending to show that the fire in question was not accidental.
Repeated false entries
A, whose duty is to receive money from B's debtors and record the receipts, enters a smaller amount than he actually received. If the question is whether the false entry was accidental or intentional, other false entries made by A in the same book, each operating in A's favour, are relevant.
Delivery of counterfeit rupees
A is accused of fraudulently delivering a counterfeit rupee to B. If the issue is whether the delivery was accidental, evidence that A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E shortly before or shortly after the delivery to B is relevant as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.
Practical effect of the provision
Section 15 does not make every previous or subsequent act relevant. The statutory connection is a series of similar occurrences involving the person concerned. The Court must therefore consider the similarity and relationship of the occurrences to the specific issue of accident, intention, knowledge or intention in the disputed act.