Motive, Preparation and Previous or Subsequent Conduct (s. 6) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Motive, Preparation and Previous or Subsequent Conduct (s. 6)

A had lost his land to B in a court decree; soon after, A’s son killed B. Is the decree relevant? It is not a “judgment” the case turns on — it is the spark. The law lets it in as motive under s. 6. The most-repeated problem in the entire corpus lives in this section: A buys poison like the poison that killed B. That purchase proves nothing by itself — but it is preparation, and s. 6 makes it relevant.

Section 6 [IEA s. 8] is really three relevancy rules packed into one, plus two important Explanations. It lets in facts about why the crime was done, how the accused got ready, and how he behaved around it.

A. Motive

Motive is the reason that moves a person to act — greed, revenge, jealousy. Section 6(1) makes any fact relevant that shows or constitutes a motive for a fact in issue. The classic example: A obtains a decree dispossessing B’s family; B’s son kills A. The decree is relevant as motive (not as a “relevant judgment”). Note the weight: motive strengthens a case, especially a circumstantial one, but its absence is not fatal where there is direct evidence, and its presence alone never proves guilt.

B. Preparation

Preparation is what a person does to get ready to commit the act. Section 6(1) makes preparation relevant. The stock illustration (and stock problem): before B’s death, A procures poison similar to that administered to B — relevant as preparation, even though buying poison is not itself a crime and does not, by itself, prove the killing. Preparation is by the accused (distinguish s. 5’s “occasion”, which is often about the victim).

C. Previous or subsequent conduct

Section 6(2) makes relevant the conduct of a party (or of a person against whom an offence is the subject of proceedings), previous or subsequent, if that conduct influences or is influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact. Examples: the accused absconding after the crime, destroying evidence, or trying to bribe witnesses (subsequent conduct); the victim complaining soon after a rape (subsequent conduct of the victim). The vital caveat: conduct is relevant, never conclusive — an innocent explanation is always open, so an accused who absconded may prove he had urgent business elsewhere.

D. The two Explanations — where statements come in

Explanation 1. “Conduct” does not include statements, unless the statement accompanies and explains acts other than statements. So mere words are not “conduct”; words that explain a physical act may be.
Explanation 2. When a person’s conduct is relevant, any statement made to him, or in his presence and hearing, which affects that conduct, is relevant. This is the gateway for the “police are coming” problem: X’s words to A are admitted only to explain why A ran away — not as proof that A was in fact the murderer.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — preparation, and a statement explaining conduct

Facts. (1) Before B dies of poison, A buys the same poison. (2) During the investigation, X says in A’s presence, “the police are coming to arrest B’s murderer,” and A immediately runs away.

Rule. Section 6(1) makes preparation relevant; Explanation 2 admits a statement made in a person’s presence that affects his (relevant) conduct.

Apply. (1) A’s purchase of matching poison is preparation — relevant under s. 6, though not conclusive of the killing. (2) A’s flight is relevant conduct; X’s words are admitted under Explanation 2 only to explain that flight, not as proof of their contents.

Conclusion. Both facts are relevant under s. 6. But note the limit: X’s statement is not evidence that A killed B — it merely explains why A ran.

Decoy. Treating the poison purchase as “motive” (it is preparation) or X’s words as substantive proof of guilt (they only explain conduct) are the two planted traps.

Section 6, BSA 2023 (Explanation 1): “The word ‘conduct’ in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Adhiniyam.”

In Simple Terms: Actions speak; words usually do not count as “conduct”. A statement becomes relevant here only when it goes hand-in-hand with a physical act and explains it — otherwise you must find another section to let the words in.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Section 6 — motive, preparation, conduct"]:::root
    ROOT --> M["MOTIVE<br/>the reason (decree → son kills)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> P["PREPARATION<br/>getting ready (buying poison)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["CONDUCT (prev./subsequent)<br/>absconding, destroying evidence"]:::leaf
    C --> E1["Expl. 1: words are not conduct<br/>unless they explain an act"]:::diamond
    C --> E2["Expl. 2: a statement in one's presence<br/>affecting conduct is relevant"]:::diamond
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Nathuni Yadav vs State of Bihar (1997) — motive, though relevant and often important in a circumstantial case, is not indispensable where there is reliable direct evidence of guilt.
A.N. Venkatesh vs State of Karnataka (2005) — the subsequent conduct of the accused in leading the police to recover the body/weapon is relevant conduct under s. 8 IEA (now s. 6).
Anant Chintaman Lagu vs State of Bombay (1960) — the whole conduct of the accused, before and after the death, was a relevant chain of circumstances pointing to guilt in a poisoning case.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics