Two questions come up repeatedly in litigation: why did someone do the act in question, and how did they behave around it? Facts speaking to either — motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct — are among the most useful evidentiary material available. Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) admits them as directly relevant, with two Explanations that keep the reception disciplined.
6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. (1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
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.
Explanation 2.—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.
The BSA's changes: three modernisations in the illustrations
Section 6 corresponds to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records that the substantive rule and both Explanations are unchanged. The modifications are confined to the illustrations, where three vocabulary updates have been made: "vakils" is replaced by "advocates" (aligning with the Advocates Act, 1961); "man" is replaced by "person" (gender-neutral drafting); and "ravished" is replaced by "raped" (aligning with the terminology of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
| Feature | Section 8, IEA | Section 6, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Substantive rule and Explanations | Three limbs (motive, preparation, conduct) + two Explanations | Identical |
| Illustrations | "vakils"; "man"; "ravished" | "advocates"; "person"; "raped" |
The three limbs of admissibility
The two Explanations
Explanation 1 keeps the "conduct" limb from swallowing the ordinary rules on statements. Conduct, for Section 6 purposes, does not include statements — unless the statements accompany and explain acts other than statements. Statements standing alone remain subject to the ordinary admissibility rules elsewhere in the Act (Sections 15-26 on admissions/confessions/dying declarations, and so on); Section 6 does not open a back door for them.
Explanation 2 is the flip side. Where conduct is relevant, statements made to that person or in their presence and hearing, and which affect their conduct, are relevant too. This lets the court see the words that produced the conduct — a warning, an accusation, a demand — where they are what caused the conduct the court is examining.
The eleven illustrations at a glance
Section 6's eleven illustrations cover a wide practical range: (a) motive to murder arising from extortion pressure; (b) preparation-of-money for a bond; (c) procuring poison before the alleged poisoning; (d) preparation of a will — the "advocates" edit lives here; (e) fabrication of favourable evidence and destruction of unfavourable evidence — subsequent conduct; (f) running away after being told police are coming; (g) failure to respond to an accusation of debt made in one's presence; (h) absconding after receiving a warning letter; (i) absconding after crime, possession of stolen property, concealment of instruments; (j) rape-complaint conduct — the "raped" edit lives here; (k) robbery-complaint conduct. Each illustrates one of the three limbs and shows how the surrounding conduct sharpens the primary factual picture.
The rape/robbery complaint illustrations — a nuance worth catching
Illustrations (j) and (k) contain an important qualifier. Where an alleged victim's post-event complaint is tendered, the circumstances in which the complaint was made and its terms are relevant as conduct under Section 6. But the mere fact that the person said they were raped or robbed, without making a formal complaint, is not relevant as conduct under Section 6 — though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under clause (a) of Section 26 (if the person is now dead or otherwise unavailable), or as corroborative evidence under Section 160 (statements to fellow-witnesses). This shows how carefully Section 6 draws its line: the conduct limb captures the making of a complaint, not casual after-the-event verbal statements.
Placement in the general relevance block
| Section | Role |
|---|---|
| 4 (same transaction) | Facts forming part of the same transaction |
| 5 (occasion, cause, effect) | Facts that are the occasion, cause, or effect of relevant facts |
| 6 | Motive, preparation, previous or subsequent conduct |
| 7 (explanatory) | Explanatory or introductory facts, in so far as necessary |
Section 6 sits between the "same transaction" and "cause and effect" provisions on one side, and the "explanatory" provision on the other. Together, these five sections define the general relevance framework of Chapter II — every question of relevance in an ordinary case will usually be answered by one of them, before the more specialised provisions of Sections 8 to 15 come into view.
Key Takeaways
- Three limbs: motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct — all directly relevant to facts in issue and relevant facts.
- Explanation 1: "conduct" excludes stand-alone statements; statements must accompany and explain non-statement acts.
- Explanation 2: statements made to a person or in their presence, affecting their conduct, are relevant when the conduct is relevant.
- Three illustration modernisations: "vakils"→"advocates", "man"→"person", "ravished"→"raped".
- Complaint-vs-casual-mention nuance: illustrations (j) and (k) distinguish formal complaints (relevant as conduct) from casual mentions (not relevant as conduct, though possibly relevant elsewhere).
Conclusion
Section 6 is the workhorse of the general relevance framework. In almost every case that turns on why a party acted or how they behaved before and after the primary event, this section supplies the admissibility route. The BSA's three illustration modernisations — advocates in place of vakils, person in place of man, raped in place of ravished — bring the classic examples into contemporary usage without changing the doctrine that has grown up around Section 8 IEA over 150 years of case law. That case law applies directly to Section 6 BSA, and the section remains one of the most-invoked in Indian evidence practice.