BSA S.6 makes three categories of facts relevant: motive (why the person acted), preparation (what steps were taken before the act), and previous or subsequent conduct (what the person did before or after). Together with res gestae (S.4), this section provides the circumstantial backbone of most criminal prosecutions.
BSA S.6 = IEA S.8. The text is substantially identical. Confidence: high.
BSA S.6: Structure
The section makes relevant:
- Facts showing or constituting a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
- Previous or subsequent conduct of any party or agent, in reference to the fact in issue or relevant fact.
- Statements accompanying and explaining any fact relevant under S.3 or S.4.
Motive
Motive is the reason or emotion that impels a person to act. It is the "why" behind the act.
| Principle | Content |
|---|---|
| Motive is relevant but not essential | The prosecution need not prove motive to convict. But proving motive strengthens the case |
| Absence of motive weakens the case | If the prosecution cannot suggest why the accused would commit the crime, the circumstantial chain is weaker |
| Motive is not the same as intention | Intention is the immediate purpose (to kill); motive is the underlying reason (jealousy, revenge, greed) |
| Proving motive | Through prior quarrels, threats, jealousy, financial gain, inheritance, land disputes |
Preparation
Preparation consists of acts done in advance to facilitate the commission of the offence.
| Example | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Purchasing poison before the victim's death | Shows preparation for poisoning |
| Buying a weapon days before the murder | Preparation for the attack |
| Studying the victim's routine | Preparation for kidnapping |
| Arranging a false alibi in advance | Preparation to avoid detection |
Preparation is not the same as attempt. Preparation is a relevant fact (admissible as evidence). Attempt is a substantive offence (punishable under BNS S.62). See CRIM-1.2 for the distinction.
Previous Conduct
Facts about what the accused or any party did before the event are relevant if they are connected to the fact in issue.
| Example | Why relevant |
|---|---|
| Prior threats against the victim | Shows motive and preparation |
| Prior similar acts (system or design) | Relevant under S.12 (BSA) to show intent or plan |
| Accused's behaviour towards the victim | Shows the state of the relationship |
Subsequent Conduct
Facts about what the accused did after the event are often the most powerful circumstantial evidence.
| Conduct | Inference |
|---|---|
| Flight from the scene | Consciousness of guilt |
| Concealment of the body or weapon | Knowledge of wrongdoing |
| False explanation or alibi | Consciousness of guilt |
| Destruction of evidence | Attempt to screen |
| Offering bribe to witnesses | Consciousness of guilt |
| Absconding | Guilt |
Facts: After the murder, the accused was found washing bloodstains from his clothes at a well.
Issue: Whether subsequent conduct (washing blood) was admissible.
Held: Admissible under S.8 IEA (now S.6 BSA). Subsequent conduct of the accused is relevant, and washing bloodstained clothes immediately after the incident is a strong circumstance pointing to guilt.
Relevance: Standard authority on the relevance of post-offence conduct as circumstantial evidence.
Limit on subsequent conduct: The conduct must be in reference to the fact in issue. Conduct unconnected to the offence (e.g. the accused went shopping the next day) is not relevant.
Statements Accompanying and Explaining Conduct
The third limb of S.6 makes admissible statements that accompany relevant conduct and explain it.
Example: A is seen running from the scene. A says to a passerby "I have just been attacked." The statement explains A's conduct (running) and is admissible under S.6 even though it is technically hearsay.
Limit: The statement must accompany the conduct (be contemporaneous with it) and must explain it. A narrative account given later is not within this provision.
Recall Check
- Is proof of motive necessary for conviction?
- Name four types of subsequent conduct that are relevant.
- What is the difference between preparation (relevant fact) and attempt (offence)?
- When is a statement accompanying conduct admissible under S.6?
Key Cases
State of UP v Deoman Upadhyaya (1960) State of UP v Deoman Upadhyaya 1960
Issue: Whether washing bloodstained clothes after the murder was admissible.
Rule: Subsequent conduct in reference to the fact in issue is relevant under S.6.
Held: Admissible as a strong circumstance of guilt.
Distinctions
| Basis | Motive (S.6) | Intention (BNS S.2/S.101) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | The underlying reason (jealousy, greed) | The immediate purpose (to kill, to steal) |
| Role in law | Relevant fact (evidence) | Element of the offence (must be proved) |
| Necessity | Not essential for conviction | Essential for conviction (for offences requiring specific intent) |
| Example | A hated B because B married A's former partner (motive) | A intended to kill B (intention) |
| Basis | Previous Conduct (S.6) | Similar Fact Evidence (S.12) |
|---|---|---|
| What it shows | Connection to this offence (motive, preparation, relationship) | A pattern or system showing the accused's method or intent |
| Relevance | Relevant to the specific fact in issue | Relevant to show design, plan, system, or absence of accident |
| Example | A threatened B before killing B | A has previously poisoned two other wives in the same way |
| Restriction | Must be connected to the instant case | Must be sufficiently similar to be probative rather than merely prejudicial |
| Basis | Res Gestae (S.4) | Subsequent Conduct (S.6) |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Contemporaneous with the event | After the event |
| Spontaneity | Required | Not required (conduct may be deliberate and calculated) |
| Example | A scream during the attack | Flight, washing blood, destroying evidence |
| Hearsay exception | Yes (statements during the event) | Not a hearsay issue (it is the accused's own conduct) |
Flashcards
What three categories of facts does BSA S.6 make relevant?
Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct.
Is proof of motive necessary for conviction?
No. Motive is relevant and strengthens the case, but its absence does not prevent conviction if other evidence is sufficient.
What is the most common type of relevant subsequent conduct?
Flight from the scene, concealment of evidence, false explanation, and destruction of evidence.
When is a statement accompanying conduct admissible?
When it accompanies (is contemporaneous with) relevant conduct and explains that conduct.
What did State of UP v Deoman Upadhyaya establish?
Subsequent conduct (washing bloodstained clothes after the murder) is admissible under S.6 as a strong circumstance pointing to guilt.
Exam Scenario
Problem: A is charged with poisoning B. The prosecution proves: (a) A had a bitter property dispute with B lasting two years (motive); (b) A purchased rat poison from a shop three days before B's death (preparation); (c) after B's death, A immediately transferred B's land to his own name using a pre-signed document (subsequent conduct); (d) when questioned by police, A said "I was in another city," which is demonstrably false (false alibi). The defence argues that none of these prove A administered the poison. Advise.
Step 1: Classify each item under S.6
| Item | Category under S.6 | Relevant? |
|---|---|---|
| (a) Property dispute for two years | Motive | Yes |
| (b) Purchase of rat poison three days before | Preparation | Yes |
| (c) Immediate land transfer using pre-signed document | Subsequent conduct + Preparation (pre-signed = prepared in advance) | Yes |
| (d) False alibi | Subsequent conduct (false explanation) | Yes |
Step 2: Address the defence argument
The defence is correct that none of these directly prove A administered the poison. All four are circumstantial evidence. But circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the chain is complete.
| Link | How it connects to the fact in issue |
|---|---|
| Motive | Explains why A would kill B |
| Preparation | Shows A obtained the means (rat poison) |
| Pre-signed document | Shows A planned to benefit from B's death before it occurred |
| False alibi | Shows consciousness of guilt: an innocent person does not lie about his whereabouts |
Step 3: Apply the complete chain test
- Circumstances proved? Yes (all four are independently established).
- Consistent only with guilt? On these facts, very strong.
- Inconsistent with any other hypothesis? The combination of motive + means + prior planning + false alibi is difficult to reconcile with innocence.
- Complete chain? Arguably yes, subject to excluding accidental consumption by B.
The prosecution's case is strong on circumstantial grounds.
Motive alone does not prove guilt. Many people have motives without acting on them. Motive becomes powerful only when combined with other circumstances (preparation, conduct, opportunity).
A false alibi is not conclusive. A person may lie for reasons other than guilt (embarrassment, fear of being wrongly implicated). But it is a relevant circumstance under S.6, and the court may draw an adverse inference.
Conclusion. All four items are relevant under S.6 (motive, preparation, subsequent conduct). Though none directly proves administration, the circumstantial chain formed by all four together may sustain a conviction if no alternative hypothesis explains them.
See Also
- Doctrine of Res Gestae : the contemporaneous counterpart to subsequent conduct.
- Fact, Fact in Issue and Relevant Facts : the framework within which motive and conduct are classified.
- CRIM-1.2 Stages of Crime : preparation as a stage of crime vs preparation as a relevant fact.