2013
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 came into force
on the first day of September,
1872.
Motive is a thing primarily known to the accused himself and it
may not the possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or
excited him to commit a particular crime.
Under Evidence
Act, 1872 this is well established that where there is an eyewitness account of
the incident, motive loses all its importance
Explanation of this section of Indian Evidence Act shall not enable a person
to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of
the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure.
What is required to be established for bringing
hearsay evidence within the ambit of Section 6 of
Indian Evidence Act that it must be almost
contemporaneous with the acts and there could not be an interval which would
allow fabrication.
When the conduct of any person is relevant, any
statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such
conduct, is relevant under section 8 of Indian
Evidence act.
Where the ocular evidence is very clear and
convincing and the role of the accused person in the crime stands clearly
established, establishment of motive is not a sine qua non for proving the
prosecution case.This is decided by the Supreme court in the case of Yunis alias
Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539.
Previous or subsequent conduct is relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act.
The question is, whether A poisoned B. The
state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison and habits of B,
known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are
relevant facts under Section 7 of Indian
Evidence Act.
The question is, whether A committed a crime. The
facts that, A absconded after receiving a letter warning that inquiry was being
made for the criminal, and the contents of the letter, are relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act.
Facts which, though not in issue are so
connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are
relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different
times and places under Section 6 of Indian
Evidence Act.
A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The
fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was
administered to B, is relevant under Section 8 of Indian
Evidence Act.
When the conduct of any person is relevant, any
statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such
conduct, is relevant as per the explanation of section 8 of
Indian Evidence act.
The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts
that, shortly before the robbery B went to a fair with money in his possession,
and that he showed it to third persons, are relevant facts under Section 7 of Indian Evidence Act.
The question is, whether certain goods ordered
from B were delivered to A. the goods were delivered to several intermediate
persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment