Evidence Law: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)
State of Mind, State of Body and Bodily Feeling under Section 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Intention, Knowledge, Good Faith, Negligence, Rashness and Ill-will
A mental state cannot be perceived by anyone except the person who holds it, yet the substantive law makes mental states ingredients of almost every serious offence and of a great many civil wrongs. Section 12 resolves the difficulty by making relevant the facts from which a state of mind may be inferred, subject to one strict condition contained in its first Explanation: the fact must show that the state of mind existed in reference to the particular matter in question, and not merely as a general disposition.
1. The Provision
Section 12, BSA — Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant. Explanation 1. — A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question. Explanation 2. — But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact. |
Section 12 corresponds to Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act and is carried forward unchanged, including both Explanations. It is a provision of very general application, since a state of mind is in issue in every offence requiring mens rea and in every civil claim founded on fraud, negligence, malice or good faith.
2. The States of Mind Enumerated
The list in the section is illustrative and not exhaustive. The words 'such as' show that any state of mind is within it, provided the existence of that state is in issue or relevant.
State of mind | Meaning | Where ordinarily in issue |
|---|---|---|
Intention | The purpose with which an act was done — the object the actor set out to achieve | Most serious offences; the distinction between culpable homicide and murder; attempt; forgery; theft |
Knowledge | Awareness of a fact or of the likely consequence of an act | Receiving stolen property; offences requiring knowledge that an act is likely to cause death; possession of contraband |
Good faith | Acting with due care and attention, and honestly | General exceptions; transactions between persons in a relation of active confidence; defences to defamation; the conduct of a public servant |
Negligence | Failure to take the care which a reasonable person would take in the circumstances | Civil actions in tort; offences of causing death or injury by negligence; professional liability |
Rashness | Acting in conscious disregard of a known risk, hoping the consequence will not follow | Offences of rash driving or rash acts endangering life |
Ill-will | Malice or hostility towards a particular person | Motive in offences against the person; malice in defamation and malicious prosecution |
Goodwill | Benevolence or friendly disposition towards a particular person | Rebutting an allegation of malice or motive; establishing the character of a transaction as a gift |
⚠ Motive, intention and knowledge are three different things Motive is the reason that prompted the act, and is relevant under Section 6(1). It is never an ingredient of an offence. Intention is the purpose with which the act was done, and knowledge is awareness of a fact or of a likely consequence; both are frequently ingredients, and facts showing their existence are relevant under Section 12. A person may act with a good motive and a criminal intention, and the law is concerned with the second. |
3. State of Body and Bodily Feeling
The second half of the section admits facts showing the existence of a state of body or bodily feeling. This limb is used less often but is of real importance in three fields.
Context | State of body or bodily feeling in issue | Facts admitted |
|---|---|---|
Personal injury and compensation claims | Pain, suffering, disability, loss of amenity | Medical records; expressions of pain contemporaneous with the injury; the claimant's condition observed by witnesses; the course of treatment |
Offences against the person | The nature and extent of hurt; whether an injury was grievous; the condition of the victim | Medical opinion under Section 39; the injury report; contemporaneous complaints of pain |
Health and capacity | Illness, incapacity, unsoundness of mind, physical condition at a material time | Prescriptions and hospital records; observations of witnesses; expert opinion |
Poisoning and administration of substances | Symptoms and their progression | The state of health before and after; the symptoms described by attendants; the post-mortem findings |
A contemporaneous expression of physical pain occupies a special position. It is admitted because it is the immediate manifestation of the bodily feeling rather than a considered account of it. Where the statement goes beyond an expression of the feeling and becomes a narrative of how the injury was caused, it falls outside Section 12 and must be brought within Section 4 as part of the transaction or Section 26 as a statement by a person who cannot be called as a witness.
4. Explanation 1 — The Particular Matter in Question
Explanation 1 contains the controlling limitation of the section and is the ground on which most material tendered under it is rejected. A fact is relevant only if it shows that the state of mind existed in reference to the particular matter in question, and not that the person is generally of that disposition.
Material | Relevant under Section 12? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
That the accused said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime | Yes | It shows the state of mind in reference to the matter in question |
That the accused said something indicating a general disposition to commit crimes of that class | No | Explanation 1 excludes evidence of a general state of mind; it would also offend Section 49 |
That the accused, charged with receiving a particular stolen article, was at the same time in possession of other stolen articles | Yes | It bears on his knowledge that the article in question was stolen |
That the accused has previously been convicted of dishonesty generally | No, unless Explanation 2 applies | It shows only a general disposition |
That a person accused of libel had, in other publications, expressed hostility towards the same complainant | Yes | It shows ill-will towards a particular person |
That the person is generally of a quarrelsome temperament | No | A general disposition, not a state of mind referable to the matter in question |
The reason for the limitation is the same as the reason for excluding evidence of bad character. Proof that a person is of a particular disposition invites the tribunal to reason from character to conduct, which is both unreliable and prejudicial. Proof that he held a particular state of mind towards a particular matter or a particular person invites no such leap.
5. Explanation 2 — Previous Conviction
Explanation 2 operates as a narrow and conditional exception to the ordinary exclusion of a previous conviction. Where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by him of an offence is relevant within the meaning of Section 12, the previous conviction is also a relevant fact.
Step | Requirement |
|---|---|
1 | The proceeding must be a trial of a person accused of an offence |
2 | The previous commission of an offence by the accused must be relevant within the meaning of Section 12 — that is, it must show a state of mind in reference to the particular matter in question, and not a general disposition |
3 | Only then does the previous conviction for that offence become relevant |
⚠ The order of operations cannot be inverted Explanation 2 does not make previous convictions relevant. It provides that where the previous commission of an offence is already relevant under the section, the fact of conviction for it may also be proved — which spares the prosecution from proving the earlier offence over again. A previous conviction which does not satisfy the first requirement remains inadmissible, and is excluded by Section 49 as evidence of previous bad character. The Explanation is a convenience of proof, not an enlargement of relevancy. |
The Explanation is separate from the provisions under which a previous conviction becomes relevant for other reasons — where the accused has given evidence of his own good character and the prosecution replies under Section 47 and Section 49, or where a previous conviction is itself a fact in issue because the substantive law provides for an enhanced punishment on a second conviction.
6. The Illustrations
Section 12 carries an unusually long series of Illustrations, and they fall into recognisable groups. The most important are set out below.
Group | Substance of the Illustration | State of mind shown |
|---|---|---|
Receiving stolen property | A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. The fact that at the same time he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant | Knowledge that the article in question was stolen |
Counterfeit currency | A is accused of fraudulently delivering counterfeit currency. The fact that at the time of delivery he was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit currency is relevant | Knowledge of the counterfeit character |
Defamation and malice | A is sued for libel. The fact that A published other libels against the same plaintiff, or expressed hostility towards him, is relevant as showing ill-will | Ill-will towards a particular person |
Good faith in a transaction | The question is whether A acted in good faith in a particular transaction. Facts showing the circumstances known to him, the enquiries he made and the care he took are relevant | Good faith, or its absence |
Bodily feeling | The question is whether A was suffering from a particular bodily condition at a given time. Contemporaneous expressions of pain and the observations of those attending on him are relevant | State of body or bodily feeling |
Intention as to a particular crime | The fact that A said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant; the fact that he said something indicating a general disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant | Intention, subject to Explanation 1 |
The last group is the direct statutory expression of Explanation 1 and is the clearest guide to the operation of the section. The two propositions are placed side by side in the Illustration precisely so that the distinction cannot be missed.
7. Proof of a State of Mind
A mental state is proved by inference from external facts. The Adhiniyam supplies several routes, and in practice they are used together.
Route | Provision | What it contributes |
|---|---|---|
Facts showing the state of mind | Section 12 | The primary provision — prior dealings, contemporaneous circumstances, related possessions, expressions of hostility |
Motive and preparation | Section 6(1) | The reason for forming the intention, and the arrangements made to give effect to it |
Conduct | Section 6(2) | Previous and subsequent conduct from which the state of mind may be inferred |
Series of similar occurrences | Section 13 | Where the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional, its place in a series of similar occurrences |
Course of business | Section 14 | Where the question is whether a particular act was done, the existence of a course of business according to which it naturally would have been done |
Admissions and confessions | Sections 15 to 24 | Statements of the accused bearing on his own state of mind |
Presumptions | Section 119 | The court may presume the existence of a fact having regard to the common course of human conduct |
⚠ The nature of the act is itself evidence of the state of mind In practice the most compelling evidence of intention is the act itself — the weapon used, the part of the body chosen, the number and severity of the blows, the force applied, and the conduct immediately before and after. A court is entitled to infer intention from these, applying the ordinary presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. Section 12 supplements this reasoning; it does not displace it. |
8. Limits of Section 12
- Explanation 1 is a hard limit. Evidence of a general disposition is excluded, however probative it might appear. The fact must be referable to the particular matter in question.
- The state of mind must be in issue or relevant. Where the substantive law does not make the mental state an ingredient, and it is not otherwise relevant, Section 12 is not attracted.
- It does not override Section 49. Evidence of previous bad character remains inadmissible except in reply, and Explanation 2 operates only within the narrow conditions it states.
- It confers relevance, not admissibility. Documents, electronic records and expert opinion tendered under it must be proved in the ordinary way.
- It does not admit statements at large. A statement is admitted only where it manifests the state of mind or bodily feeling. A considered account of past events is not within the section and must be brought within Sections 4, 15 to 24, or 26.
9. Related Topics and Provisions
Topic or provision | Connection |
|---|---|
Existence of Right or Custom — Section 11 | The preceding head of relevancy |
Similar Occurrences — Section 13 | The following head, dealing with whether an act was accidental or intentional |
Motive, Preparation and Conduct — Section 6 | The distinction between motive, intention and knowledge, and the proof of each |
Section 14, BSA | Existence of a course of business, where the question is whether a particular act was done |
Sections 46 to 50, BSA | Character evidence, and the exclusion of previous bad character by Section 49 |
Section 39, BSA | Expert opinion, by which a state of body or bodily feeling is ordinarily proved |
Section 119, BSA | The general presumption from the common course of human conduct |
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Supplies the offences of which a state of mind is an ingredient |