One fire in a house may be an accident. Two, three, or four fires in successive houses each insured by the same owner suggests something else entirely. Section 13 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) captures that intuition of pattern. Where the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional, the fact that the act formed part of a series of similar occurrences — each involving the same person — is relevant.
13. Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional. 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.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance company, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A's duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.
(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit currency. The question is, whether the delivery of the currency was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit currency to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.
The change: "rupee" becomes "currency"
Section 13 corresponds to Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records that the only change is in the illustrations, where the word "rupee" is replaced by "currency". The substantive rule and the pattern-based logic are unchanged.
| Feature | Section 15, IEA | Section 13, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Substantive rule | Similar-occurrences pattern relevant on accident vs intent | Identical |
| Illustration (c) | "Counterfeit rupee" | "Counterfeit currency" |
The logic of the "similar occurrences" test
The section rests on a classic evidentiary intuition: while any one event may be a coincidence, a pattern of the same event happening around the same person is not. The pattern-based reasoning is powerful because it does not depend on any particular occurrence being wrongful in itself — the person may have been an accident-prone unfortunate at each site. What the pattern establishes is that the probability of pure coincidence is low enough that the current occurrence deserves to be reassessed as intentional.
Three requirements the section imposes
The three illustrations, read together
The three illustrations map the section's operation across different subject-matter areas:
Illustration (a) — insurance fraud pattern. A's series of insured houses each catching fire, followed each time by an insurance payout, is relevant on whether the current fire was accidental or intentional. No single fire, standing alone, might be sufficient to shift the inference from accident to fraud. The pattern of them, together, changes the picture.
Illustration (b) — pattern of false accounting entries. A's false entry showing receipt of less money than actually received is in issue as accidental or intentional. Other false entries in the same book, each in A's favour, are relevant on the accident-vs-intent question. Again, one wrong entry is a mistake; several, all one-way, is a system.
Illustration (c) — pattern of counterfeit deliveries. A's delivery of counterfeit currency to B is in issue. Deliveries of counterfeit currency to C, D and E close in time are relevant. This is the illustration in which the BSA has replaced "rupee" with "currency" — the modernised term better fits contemporary counterfeit-money offences under the BNS.
Related to but distinct from Section 12
Section 13 is closely related to Section 12, which admits facts showing the existence of a state of mind, of body, or of bodily feeling. The two cover overlapping territory — both let evidence of pattern speak to intent — but each has its own frame. Section 12 focuses on the person's state of mind or body at a specific time in relation to the act; Section 13 focuses on the pattern of similar occurrences to test whether the current act was accidental or intentional. In practice, evidence often qualifies under both, and counsel typically invoke both provisions in parallel to strengthen the inference.
Modern applications
The section is regularly used in cases involving insurance fraud (repeated claim patterns), embezzlement (repeated shortfall entries), counterfeit currency and identity fraud (repeated deliveries or presentations), online fraud (repeated similar transactions from the same identifiable actor), and repeat traffic offences (repeated similar-crash patterns bearing on intent or knowledge). The digitisation of records has made building such patterns easier — bank transaction logs, e-commerce dispute histories, and centralised complaint databases each supply the kind of similar-occurrences series Section 13 makes relevant.
Key Takeaways
- Pattern is relevant on intent: a series of similar occurrences in each of which the person was concerned is relevant on accident-vs-intent.
- Three requirements: accident-or-intent question; series of similar occurrences; same person concerned in each.
- Change: illustration (c) modernised from "rupee" to "currency" — substantive rule unchanged.
- Not the same as bad-character rebuttal: Section 13 is a direct-relevance provision; Section 49 is a rebuttal provision triggered by the accused's good-character evidence.
- Works with Section 12: both admit pattern evidence on intent, but with different framings.
Conclusion
Section 13 preserves a compact and durable evidentiary rule. The pattern of similar occurrences is what turns "coincidence" arguments into "intent" findings, and the section makes that transformation legally available. The BSA's only edit — "rupee" to "currency" in illustration (c) — is a small modernisation that keeps the illustration aligned with today's counterfeit-money offences. The substantive doctrine, developed over a century and a half of practice under Section 15 IEA, applies to Section 13 BSA without any need for adjustment.