Motive, Preparation and Conduct under Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Previous and Subsequent Conduct, Absconding of Accused and Case Laws

Section 6 admits three distinct classes of fact: the motive that supplied the reason for an act, the preparation that preceded it, and the conduct of the parties before and after it. Together they cover the whole span of a case in time. The provision is heavily used in circumstantial prosecutions, and it carries two Explanations that mark the boundary between conduct, which the section admits, and statements, which it does not.

1. The Provision

Section 6, BSA — 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.

Section 6 corresponds to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The substance is unchanged, but the Adhiniyam has broken the provision into two numbered sub-sections, separating motive and preparation in sub-section (1) from conduct in sub-section (2). The Explanations and Illustrations are carried forward.

2. Motive

Motive is the emotion or reason that prompts a person to act. It is not the same as intention: intention is the state of mind that accompanies the act and is very often an ingredient of the offence, whereas motive is what supplied the reason for forming that intention and is never an ingredient.

	Motive	Intention
Meaning	The reason that prompted the act	The purpose with which the act was done
Ingredient of an offence	Never	Frequently — an ingredient of most serious offences
Relevance	Relevant under Section 6(1) as a fact from which the act may be inferred	A fact in issue wherever the substantive law makes it an ingredient
Effect of absence	Does not by itself defeat the prosecution	Fatal where it is an ingredient and is not established
How proved	By circumstances — enmity, financial gain, prior disputes, illicit relationships	By inference from the act, the weapon, the injuries and the surrounding circumstances, and by Section 13

2.1 The weight of motive

In a case of direct evidence, motive is of secondary importance. Where credible eyewitnesses establish the act, the absence of any proved motive does not weaken the case. The reason a person acted is locked in his own mind and is often incapable of proof.
In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes real significance. It supplies the reason for the inference of guilt, and its complete absence tells in favour of the accused, though it is not by itself decisive.
A proved motive does not establish the act. Many persons have a motive to commit an offence and do not commit it. Motive is a link in a chain, never a substitute for one.
Inadequacy of motive is immaterial. The law does not weigh the sufficiency of the reason; a trivial provocation may prompt a grave act.

📖 Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238

Held: Motive for the commission of an offence is not an indispensable requirement of the prosecution case. Motive is a matter which resides in the mind of the offender, and it is not always possible for the prosecution to unravel it by direct evidence. Where there is clear and reliable direct evidence of the occurrence, the absence of proof of motive does not detract from the prosecution case.

Ratio: Absence of proved motive is not fatal where the occurrence is otherwise established by direct evidence.

📖 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116

Held: In a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence the circumstances relied upon, including motive, must be fully established, must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and must form a chain so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.

Ratio: Motive is one of the circumstances that must itself be fully proved before it can operate as a link in the chain.

2.2 Illustrations of motive under Section 6

Illustration	Facts	Why relevant
(a)	A is tried for the murder of B. It is shown that A had murdered C; that B knew of it; and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public	The facts supply A with a motive to kill B, and are relevant under sub-section (1) although they disclose an unrelated offence
(b)	A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies making the bond	That at the time the bond was alleged to have been made B required money for a particular purpose is relevant, as showing a motive for the transaction

⚠ Illustration (a) and the bad character rule

Illustration (a) permits proof that the accused committed an entirely separate murder. That would ordinarily be excluded by Section 49, which makes the previous bad character of an accused irrelevant except in reply. It is admitted here because it is not tendered to show that the accused is the kind of person who kills, but because it is the very thing that gave him a reason to kill this victim. Evidence of a previous offence is admissible under Section 6 where it constitutes the motive, and not otherwise.

3. Preparation

Preparation consists of the arrangements made to carry out an act. Under the substantive criminal law, preparation is ordinarily not punishable, since it falls short of an attempt. Under the law of evidence it is fully relevant, because a person who arranges the means to do a thing is more likely to have done it.

Form of preparation	Typical evidence
Acquisition of the means	Purchase of a weapon, poison or inflammable material; withdrawal of funds
Reconnaissance	Prior visits to the place; enquiries about the movements or habits of the victim
Arrangement of assistance	Recruitment of accomplices; hiring of a vehicle; arrangement of a place of concealment
Removal of obstacles	Disabling a lock or an alarm; sending away servants or family members
Arrangement of an escape	Purchase of a ticket; arrangement of shelter; disposal of identity documents
Documentary preparation	Fabrication of a document; forging of a signature; creation of a false record

Illustration (c) to Section 6 is the standard example: A is tried for the murder of B by poison, and the fact that before the death A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B is relevant. The purchase is not an offence and it does not prove the murder. It is relevant because it shows that A had arranged the means.

4. Conduct

4.1 Whose conduct is relevant

Person	Scope
Any party to a suit or proceeding	Conduct in reference to the suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact
Any agent of a party	The same, within the scope of the agency
Any person against whom an offence is the subject of the proceeding	The conduct of the victim, which is why the conduct of a complainant in making a prompt complaint is relevant

⚠ Whose conduct is not covered

Section 6(2) does not extend to the conduct of a stranger to the proceeding. The conduct of a witness, of a relative who is not a party, or of a bystander does not become relevant under this section merely because it bears on the case. Such conduct must be brought in, if at all, under Section 4 as part of the transaction, under Section 5 as an effect or a state of things, or under Section 7 as explanatory.

4.2 The two-way test

Conduct is relevant only if it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact. The test runs in both directions and is what keeps the section within bounds. Conduct that has no connection with the matter in issue is not relevant merely because it is discreditable.

	Conduct which influences a fact in issue	Conduct which is influenced by a fact in issue
Timing	Ordinarily previous	Ordinarily subsequent
Direction of the connection	The conduct operates on the fact in issue and helps bring it about	The fact in issue operates on the conduct and produces it
Examples	Prior threats; a previous assault; a demand for money; an attempt to procure a false document	Abscondence; concealment of the body or the weapon; a false explanation; an attempt to buy off a witness; sudden and unexplained affluence

4.3 Previous conduct

Threats and prior quarrels between the accused and the deceased, whether shortly before the occurrence or over a period.
Earlier attempts to commit the same act.
Demands — for dowry, for money, for the transfer of property — made before the occurrence.
Conduct in reference to the proceeding itself, such as the fabrication of a document intended to be used in it.

4.4 Subsequent conduct

Abscondence after the offence, or after learning that an enquiry is being made.
Concealment or destruction of the body, the weapon, the clothing, or any article used in committing the offence.
Possession of the proceeds of the offence, or sudden affluence for which no explanation is offered.
A false explanation offered when the accused is called upon to account for a circumstance within his special knowledge.
Attempts to influence the course of the proceeding — tampering with witnesses, offering a bribe, procuring a false document, or fabricating an alibi.
Refusal to participate in an identification parade or to furnish a specimen, from which an adverse inference may be drawn.
A prompt complaint by the victim, which is relevant as the conduct of the person against whom the offence was committed.

📖 A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714

Held: Where the accused, pursuant to information given by them, led the police and the witnesses to the place where the dead body was concealed and pointed it out, the conduct of the accused in doing so falls within Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, now Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, and is admissible irrespective of whether the statement accompanying it satisfies the requirements of the discovery provision. Even if the information given does not amount to a statement leading to discovery, the conduct of pointing out is relevant as conduct.

Ratio: The act of leading the police to a concealed object is admissible as conduct under Section 6, independently of the proviso to Section 23(2).

📖 Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 3 SCC 90

Held: There is a clear distinction between the conduct of a person against whom an offence is alleged, which is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act if it is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and a statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation. The evidence of the conduct of the accused in taking the officer to a place and pointing out an article is admissible as conduct; the bar on the use of statements made to the police does not extend to conduct.

Ratio: Conduct and statement are separate matters, and the statutory bar on police statements does not exclude evidence of conduct.

5. Absconding as Relevant Conduct

Illustration (i) to Section 6 provides that where A is accused of a crime, the facts that after its commission he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant. Illustration (h) supplements it: where A absconds after receiving a letter warning him that enquiry was being made for the criminal, both the abscondence and the contents of the letter are relevant, the latter by force of Explanation 2.

5.1 The evidentiary value of abscondence

Proposition	Effect
Abscondence is relevant conduct under Section 6(2)	Evidence of it may be given
Abscondence is not conclusive of guilt	It is a link in a chain, and a weak one taken alone
An innocent person may abscond	Fear of the police, of implication, of social consequence or of violence at the hands of the victim's relatives are all common and innocent explanations
Mere absence is not abscondence	The prosecution must show that the accused concealed himself or evaded arrest, not merely that he was not found at home
Abscondence cannot supply a missing link	Where the remaining circumstances do not establish the chain, the fact of flight does not complete it
Delay in surrender is a matter of explanation	The accused may explain his absence, and a reasonable explanation removes the force of the circumstance

📖 Matru alias Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75

Held: Mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of a guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime, such is the instinct of self-preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant, but its value depends on the circumstances of each case, and it is ordinarily a very small item in the evidence for sustaining a conviction.

Ratio: The leading statement on abscondence. It is relevant conduct but of limited weight, and cannot supply the want of proof.

⚠ Abscondence and the proclamation provisions

Abscondence carries consequences beyond the law of evidence. Where a person against whom a warrant has been issued absconds or conceals himself, the court may publish a proclamation under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and may proceed to attach his property. The Explanation to Section 24 of the Adhiniyam further provides that a trial of more persons than one, held in the absence of an accused who has absconded or who has failed to comply with such a proclamation, is deemed to be a joint trial. Abscondence is therefore relevant conduct under Section 6, a trigger for coercive process under the BNSS, and a condition for the operation of Section 24.

6. The Two Explanations

6.1 Explanation 1 — statements are not conduct

The word 'conduct' does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements. Without this limitation the section would swallow the rule against hearsay, since every out-of-court assertion could be tendered as the conduct of the maker.

Material	Conduct under Section 6?	Reason
The accused runs away on seeing the police	Yes	An act, not a statement
The accused leads the police to a concealed weapon and points it out	Yes	An act; the pointing out is conduct — A.N. Venkatesh
The accused says, 'I have hidden the weapon in the well'	No	A pure statement; admissible only under Sections 22 to 24 or the proviso to Section 23(2)
The accused hands over a bundle saying, 'this is what I took from the house'	Yes, as to the act; the words are admitted because they accompany and explain it	The statement accompanies and explains an act other than a statement
The victim makes a prompt complaint to the police	Yes, as to the fact and circumstances of the complaint	Illustrations (j) and (k); the making of the complaint is conduct
The victim merely says she was assaulted, without making a complaint	No	Illustrations (j) and (k) state expressly that this is not relevant as conduct, though it may be relevant under Section 26 or as corroboration under Section 160

The closing words of Explanation 1 preserve the position under other provisions. A statement excluded as conduct may still be relevant as an admission under Sections 15 to 21, as a confession under Sections 22 to 24, as a dying declaration under Section 26, as part of the transaction under Section 4, or as corroboration under Section 160.

6.2 Explanation 2 — statements that affect conduct

Where the conduct of a person is relevant, any statement made to him, or in his presence and hearing, which affects that conduct is itself relevant. The statement is not admitted for the truth of what it asserts, but to explain why the person behaved as he did.

Illustration (h) is the model. A absconds after receiving a letter warning him that enquiry is being made for the criminal. The abscondence is relevant conduct; the letter is admitted under Explanation 2 to explain it. Whether the contents of the letter were true is beside the point.

7. Section 6 Distinguished from Its Neighbours

	Section 4 — same transaction	Section 6 — motive, preparation and conduct	Sections 15 to 25 — admissions and confessions
What is admitted	Facts and statements forming part of the transaction	Motive, preparation, and the conduct of a party or of the victim	Statements suggesting an inference as to a fact in issue
Timing	Part of the transaction; substantially contemporaneous	May be well before or well after	Any time
Statements	Admitted where spontaneous and part of the transaction	Excluded by Explanation 1 unless they accompany and explain acts	The subject matter of the provisions
Whose	Anyone present at the transaction	A party, his agent, or the victim	A party, or a person within Sections 16 to 18
Example	The victim's cry at the moment of the attack	Abscondence after the offence	A confession made to a Magistrate

8. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic or provision	Connection
Occasion, Cause and Effect of Facts — Section 5	The preceding head of relevancy
Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts — Section 7	The following head, which admits facts explanatory of conduct
Direct Evidence vs Circumstantial Evidence	The standard applied to motive, preparation and conduct as circumstances
Proviso to Section 23(2), BSA	Discovery of a fact on information from an accused, distinguished from conduct in A.N. Venkatesh
Section 24, BSA	The Explanation deeming a trial held in the absence of an absconding accused to be a joint trial
Section 26, BSA	Dying declarations, the alternative route for statements excluded as conduct
Section 49, BSA	Previous bad character of an accused, and the exception where the earlier offence constitutes the motive
Section 84, BNSS, 2023	Proclamation for a person absconding, and attachment of property