Section 8 IEA vs Section 6 BSA — Motive, Preparation and Previous or Subsequent Conduct

In India, the rule that makes motive, preparation and the conduct of parties relevant facts moved from Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) to Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) on 1 July 2024. The rule is unchanged in substance; it is split into two sub-sections and its illustrations are modernised.

At a glance

What changed

• Minor edit (numbering only) — sub-section (1). "Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact." The words are unchanged; the paragraph is now numbered (1).
• Minor edit — sub-section (2). The conduct paragraph is numbered (2), and a comma is added: IEA "the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding"; BSA "the conduct of any person**,** an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding". The rest is word for word the same, including "whether it was previous or subsequent thereto".
• Minor edit — Explanation 1. "…the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act" becomes "…of this Adhiniyam". Explanation 2 is unchanged.
• Minor edit — illustrations (b), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i). (b) is split into two sentences; (d) "vakils" becomes "advocates"; (f) "the man who robbed B" becomes "the person who robbed B"; (g) "rupees 10,000" and "10,000 rupees" both become "ten thousand rupees"; (h) "warning him" becomes "warning A"; (i) "he absconded" becomes "A absconded".
• Minor edit — illustration (j). IEA: "The question is, whether A was ravished. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint…". BSA: "whether A was raped. The fact that, shortly after the alleged rape, A made a complaint…". The second sentence changes "she said that she had been ravished" to "A said that A had been raped". The illustration no longer uses a gendered pronoun.
• Minor edit — cross-references in illustrations (j) and (k). "a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157" becomes "a dying declaration under clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160". In (k), "he made a complaint" becomes "A made a complaint", and "he said he had been robbed" becomes "A said he had been robbed".
• Identical — illustrations (a), (c) and (e) apart from layout.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract — Section 6(1) and (2), BSA:

(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.

Extract — Explanation 1 to Section 6, BSA:

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.

How it works — the four heads of relevance

Section 6 is a relevancy provision. It decides what facts may be proved; it does not say how much weight they carry. That is for the court (see the judgments below).

1. Motive (s.6(1)). A fact that shows or constitutes a reason for the act in issue is relevant. Illustration (a): on A's trial for murdering B, the facts that A murdered C, that B knew it, and that B tried to extort money from A by threatening to reveal it, are relevant as showing A's motive. Illustration (b) shows the same rule in a civil suit: B's need for money when a bond was allegedly made is relevant to whether he made it.
2. Preparation (s.6(1)). A fact showing preparation for the act is relevant. Illustration (c): before B's death, A procured poison similar to that given to B. Illustration (d): before an alleged will, A made inquiries about its subject matter, consulted advocates and had drafts prepared.
3. Conduct — previous or subsequent (s.6(2)). The conduct of a party, of his agent, or of the victim, is relevant if it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact. It may come before or after the event. Illustration (e) covers fabricating or destroying evidence and suborning witnesses. Illustration (i) covers absconding, possessing the proceeds of the crime, and concealing things used to commit it.
4. Statements that affect conduct (Explanations 1 and 2). A bare statement is not "conduct" (Explanation 1). But a statement made to a person, or in his presence and hearing, which affects his conduct is relevant (Explanation 2). Illustration (f): C says in A's presence that the police are coming for the robber, and A immediately runs away. Illustration (g): D warns C in A's hearing not to lend to A because he owes B ten thousand rupees, and A walks away without answering. Illustration (h): A absconds after receiving a letter warning him of an inquiry; the letter's contents are relevant.

The complaint illustrations. Illustrations (j) and (k) separate conduct from narrative. The prompt making of a complaint after an alleged rape or robbery, and its circumstances and terms, are relevant conduct. A statement that the offence happened, made without making a complaint, is not relevant under s.6. It may still be relevant as a dying declaration (s.26(a)) or as corroboration of the maker's evidence (s.160).

Neighbouring provisions: BSA s.5 (IEA s.7) makes relevant facts that are the occasion, cause or effect of relevant facts; BSA s.7 (IEA s.9) facts that explain or introduce them. BSA s.23 (IEA ss.25–27) bars proof of a confession to a police officer, subject to the discovery proviso to s.23(2). BNSS s.181 (CrPC s.162) restricts the use of statements made to the police during investigation.

What this means in practice

For the prosecution. Lead motive and preparation evidence as separate relevant facts, but do not rest a case on them: Anwar Ali treats proved motive as one link in a chain. Where the accused pointed out a place or object, prove the act of pointing out through the witnesses who saw it; Narayan Yadav (para 31) faulted witnesses who did not depose to the exact statement said to have led to a discovery. Conduct evidence needs other evidence with it.

For the defence. Test whether the "conduct" is really a statement. A statement to the police during investigation is barred by s.181 BNSS, and a confession to the police by s.23 BSA; conduct is not (Prakash Chand). Offer an innocent explanation for absconding or silence; Matru and Sat Pal show that such conduct may carry little or no weight on the facts. In a circumstantial case, the absence of motive is a point in the accused's favour (Anwar Ali).

For the complainant or victim. A prompt complaint, and the circumstances and terms in which it was made, are relevant conduct under illustrations (j) and (k). Record when, to whom and in what words the complaint was first made.

For civil litigants. Section 6 is not confined to criminal cases. Illustrations (b) and (d) — a bond and a disputed will — apply it to suits: a party's need for money, or inquiries and drafts before a will, may be proved.

Judgments that still matter

BSA s.6 repeats the operative words of IEA s.8, so on a reading of the text judgments construing those words remain relevant. None of the judgments below construes s.6 by that number.

Matru alias Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1971] 3 S.C.R. 914 (1971 INSC 72) — 3 March 1971. I. D. Dua J. delivered the judgment of a two-Judge Bench in a murder case resting on circumstantial evidence. On abscondence, the Court held that "mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind", because even an innocent person may panic and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected. It called absconding "no doubt relevant", but courts normally treat it as "a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction" (report p. 928; no paragraph numbers). The motive shown raised at best a suspicion, and the conviction was set aside. Why it matters now: illustrations (h) and (i) to s.6 still make absconding relevant; Matru is about its weight.

Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 330 (1978 INSC 234) — 20 November 1978. O. Chinnappa Reddy J. delivered the judgment of a two-Judge Bench in a bribery trap case. The accused was stunned and silent when the Inspector challenged him. The Court distinguished conduct, admissible under s.8, from statements barred by s.162 CrPC: "What is excluded by Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code is the statement made to a Police Officer in the course of investigation and not the evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person (not amounting to a statement)" (report pp. 336–337). It added that evidence that an accused led a police officer to the place where stolen articles or weapons were hidden is admissible as conduct under s.8, whether or not his accompanying statement falls within s.27. The appeal was dismissed. Why it matters now: s.6(2) BSA repeats s.8, s.181 BNSS repeats the s.162 bar, and s.23(2) BSA carries the s.27 proviso.

Anwar Ali and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2020] 9 S.C.R. 878 (2020 INSC 563) — 25 September 2020. M. R. Shah J. delivered the judgment of a three-Judge Bench. Answering the argument that motive was not proved, the Court held that "the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case". Proved motive supplies a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, but in a case depending on circumstantial evidence its absence "is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused" (para 9). Finding the High Court unjustified in reversing the acquittal, it restored the trial court's order (paras 10–11). Why it matters now: motive is a relevant fact under s.6(1); this case governs how much it counts.

Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2025] 8 S.C.R. 568 (2025 INSC 927) — 5 August 2025. J. B. Pardiwala J. delivered the judgment of a two-Judge Bench (with R. Mahadevan J.). The accused's own FIR amounted to a confession and was inadmissible, except to show that he made a statement soon after the offence, "which is admissible as evidence of his conduct under Section 8" (para 24). The State relied on his conduct in lodging the FIR and pointing out the body and his clothes (para 30). The Court held: "While the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Act of 1872, it cannot, by itself, serve as the sole basis for conviction, especially in a grave charge such as murder." (para 36). The appellant was acquitted (paras 52–53). Why it matters now: it is a post-2024 statement on the limits of conduct evidence, on words s.6(2) BSA repeats.

Which law applies to your case

Section 170(2) BSA provides that any application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before the Adhiniyam came into force is dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, "as if this Adhiniyam had not come into force". The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024 (S.O. 849(E), 23 February 2024). A trial pending on that date therefore applies IEA s.8; on a reading of s.170(2), a proceeding begun later applies BSA s.6. Because s.6 repeats s.8 in substance, the analysis is the same. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BSA equivalent of Section 8 of the Evidence Act? Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaces Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from 1 July 2024. Sub-section (1) makes relevant any fact showing or constituting a motive or preparation, and sub-section (2) makes relevant the previous or subsequent conduct of parties, their agents and any person an offence against whom is the subject of the proceeding. The changes are drafting and wording in the illustrations.

Is motive necessary to convict an accused? Section 6(1) BSA makes motive relevant; it does not make proof of motive a condition of conviction. In Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020 INSC 563, para 9) the Supreme Court held that proved motive supplies a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, that its absence is not a ground to reject the prosecution case, but that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence its absence weighs in favour of the accused.

Is absconding after a crime proof of guilt? Illustrations (h) and (i) to Section 6 BSA make absconding after the alleged crime a relevant fact. In Matru v. State of Uttar Pradesh ([1971] 3 S.C.R. 914) the Supreme Court held that absconding alone does not necessarily show a guilty mind, because even an innocent person may try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected, and that it is normally a very small item of evidence.

Can the conduct of an accused in front of the police be proved? Yes, if it is conduct and not a statement. In Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) ([1979] 2 S.C.R. 330) the Supreme Court held that Section 162 CrPC excludes statements made to a police officer during investigation, not evidence of an accused's conduct when confronted or questioned. Section 181 BNSS now carries the same exclusion of statements.

Can conduct alone support a conviction? In Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 927, para 36) the Supreme Court held that although the conduct of an accused may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, now Section 6 BSA, it cannot by itself be the sole basis for conviction, especially on a charge of murder. It is one circumstance to be considered with the other evidence.

Are statements covered by Section 6 BSA? Explanation 1 to Section 6 BSA says "conduct" does not include statements unless they accompany and explain acts other than statements, without affecting the relevancy of statements under other sections. Explanation 2 makes relevant a statement made to a person, or in his presence and hearing, which affects his conduct, as illustrations (f) and (g) show.

Is a rape victim's prompt complaint relevant under Section 6 BSA? Illustration (j) to Section 6 BSA makes relevant the fact that, shortly after the alleged rape, the victim made a complaint, and the circumstances and terms of that complaint. A statement that she had been raped, made without making a complaint, is not relevant as conduct under Section 6, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 26(a) or as corroboration under Section 160.

Which Act applies to a trial pending on 1 July 2024? Section 170(2) BSA provides that a trial or other proceeding pending immediately before the Adhiniyam came into force is dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act as if the BSA had not come into force, so it applies Section 8 IEA. Because Section 6 BSA repeats Section 8 in substance, the analysis is the same under either section.

Related

• Section 27 Evidence Act vs BSA — discovery statements
• Sections 24–26 Evidence Act vs BSA — confessions to police
• Section 32 Evidence Act vs Section 26 BSA — dying declarations
• Sections 145, 154 and 155 IEA vs Sections 148, 157 and 158 BSA — hostile witnesses
• Section 114 Evidence Act vs Section 119 BSA — court presumptions
• Evidence Act to BSA — full section mapping table
• Section 162 CrPC vs Section 181 BNSS — Statements to Police and Their Use at Trial
• Section 9 IEA vs Section 7 BSA — Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts

Sources

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 5, 6, 7, 23, 26(a), 160 and 170; commencement from footnote 1 to Section 1 of the official text.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (India Code text): Sections 7, 8 and 9.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Section 181.
• Judgments read in full text (Veritect Supreme Court corpus): Matru alias Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971_3_914_928_EN.md); Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979_2_330_337_EN.md); Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020_9_878_905_EN.md); Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025_8_568_598_EN.md); Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration (1976_2_11_31_EN.md, on the weight of silence as conduct).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.