Law of evidence
vaibhav jain
(Querist) 14 October 2012
This query is : Resolved
why evidence of similar facts cannot be given in sec.14 of evidence act in the light of Exp-1 & Exp-2 attached to sec. As person convicted for murder is arrested on the same charge again & judge will ordinary presume his conduct or doing again of same offense.I have read the sec. in the book but unable to find answers. please help me.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 15 October 2012
Dear Mr Vaibhav
I try to explain section 114 of the Evidence Act.
When the Court is to decide a question that what was the position about intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, ill will or good will of a person to other, the court can take evidence.
But the explanation 1 says that the evidence should be not such that one was doing so with every body or every time or with others or it was his general nature. It should be shown exactly about the person only who is in question.
Again there is an explanation 2. it is like an exception of explanation 1.
It says that when to decide said intention, knowledge ill will etc, the fact of his previous conviction is relevant then it is not necessary that the previous offense should be with the person who is in present question as per explanation 1.
If the previous conviction is for an offense against any other person it will be admissible and not be barred as per explanation 1.
I think it is clear.
advocatejk@yahoo.co.in
www.bar2bench.com
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 15 October 2012
1. Para (1) of S. 14 makes state of mind relevant. Thus, mens rea etc can be proved under this para.
2. Para.(2): Suppose the question is whether A intentionally shot at B, prosecution cannot show that A has shot at C,D or E on earlier occasions.A might have shot at others earlier but he may not have shot at B on this occasion intentionally.But prosecution can show that A shot at B on an earlier occasion to prove his specific mens rea.
3. Para (3): If A has shot at B on an earlier occasion, that would have been an offence. So the fact that A was convicted of attempting to murder B can be proved. But the fact that A was convicted of shooting at C or C cannot be proved.
4. Thus, proof of mens rea has to be case-specific and not general.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 15 October 2012
I agree with the views of Mr. Rao. They espouse the true purport of the Section more clearly.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 16 October 2012
Mr Vaibhav, if you want to have a closer idea of the section, you may go through my recent book on Indian Evidence Act (2012) published by Butterworths.
