This article is written by MUSKAN KUNWAR, TRINITY COLLEGE OF LAW, PUNE, SY B.A. LL.B. during her internship at LeDroit India.
Scope of the Article
Meaning and legal foundation of motive, preparation and conduct; Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; role of motive in direct and circumstantial evidence; relevancy of preparation; previous and subsequent conduct; judicial safeguards; leading and recent case law.
Abstract
Criminal cases are not always proved through direct evidence. At times, the Court has to examine the circumstances surrounding an alleged offence to determine whether they connect the accused with the crime. Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) makes facts showing or constituting motive or preparation relevant and also recognises the relevance of previous or subsequent conduct. Motive may indicate why an offence was allegedly committed, preparation may point towards steps taken before its commission, and conduct may provide a connection with the fact in issue.
However, relevance is not the same as proof. The Supreme Court has held that absence of motive does not outweigh reliable direct evidence, although motive may assume greater importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Conduct may support other evidence, but it cannot by itself eliminate reasonable doubt. This article examines these principles with reference to leading Supreme Court decisions, including the recent decision in Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Keywords: Motive; Preparation; Conduct; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; Circumstantial Evidence; Criminal Trial
Introduction
Criminal evidence does not always begin and end with the act alleged to constitute an offence. Events before and after an incident may also help the Court understand what happened. A dispute before the incident may point towards motive; obtaining an object connected with the offence may indicate preparation; and conduct after the incident may provide a relevant link.
The present statutory provision is Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024 and replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, subject to its savings clause. Section 6 substantially corresponds to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 170(2) provides that where an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal was pending immediately before the BSA came into force, it continues under the old Evidence Act. Therefore, the applicable statute depends on the transitional position of the case.
What Does Section 6 Provide?
Section 6(1) makes relevant any fact that shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for a fact in issue or relevant fact. Section 6(2) deals with conduct connected with a suit, proceeding or offence where that conduct influences or is influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact, whether the conduct occurred before or after it.
The provision also places limits on the meaning of “conduct.” Statements are not included in conduct unless they accompany and explain an act other than a statement. This does not affect the relevance of statements under other provisions of the BSA.
- Motive: Why Might the Offence Have Been Committed?
Motive is the reason or impulse that may explain why a person is alleged to have committed an offence. It may arise from revenge, a property dispute, financial gain, hostility or other circumstances. Motive can therefore help the Court understand the background of an alleged offence.
However, motive is not the same as proof of guilt. The prosecution is not required to establish a motive in every criminal case. In Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219, the Supreme Court held that where reliable ocular evidence inspires confidence, the absence of a proved motive does not make that evidence unreliable.
Motive may assume greater importance in a circumstantial case. In Khurshid Ahmed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2018) 7 SCC 429, the Supreme Court explained that motive is an important circumstance where the prosecution case rests on circumstances, while its absence is less significant where reliable direct evidence is available.
The same principle was reflected in Chandan v. The State (Delhi Administration), 2024 INSC 271. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction on the basis of reliable eyewitness and supporting evidence, observing that the absence of a proved motive was of little significance in those circumstances.
Still, motive cannot replace proof. A person may have a reason to commit a crime without actually being the person who committed it.
- Preparation: Steps Taken Before the Offence
Preparation must be distinguished from mere intention. Thinking about committing an offence is different from taking steps towards carrying it out. Section 6 makes facts showing or constituting preparation relevant; it does not make preparation itself proof of guilt.
The statutory illustration gives a simple example: if A is tried for poisoning B and, before B’s death, A purchases poison similar to that used in the offence, the purchase is relevant as preparation. Its significance comes from its connection with the alleged offence.
The Court must therefore look at the surrounding circumstances. Buying an ordinary object, visiting a place or behaving unusually does not automatically amount to relevant preparation. There must be a reasonable connection between the act relied upon and the fact in issue.
Preparation can be useful in a circumstantial case, but it is only one possible link. Even strong evidence of preparation cannot, by itself, establish that the accused committed the offence.
- Previous Conduct: What Happened Before the Alleged Crime?
Previous conduct may be relevant when it has the connection required by Section 6. It may include conduct showing an attempt to create an opportunity for the offence, threats or other acts closely connected with the fact in issue.
The important point is that the entire past conduct of an accused does not become relevant simply because he or she is on trial. The Court must identify a connection between the conduct and the fact in issue or relevant fact. General character or personality cannot, by itself, establish guilt.
- Subsequent Conduct: What Happened After the Alleged Crime?
Conduct after an alleged offence may also be relevant if it was influenced by, or influenced, a fact in issue or relevant fact. Attempts to conceal evidence or conduct connected with the discovery of material facts may therefore be considered by the Court.
In Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 3 SCC 90, the Supreme Court considered the relevance of conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The decision is important because it distinguishes relevant conduct from statements made to a police officer during investigation.
Similarly, in A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714, the Supreme Court held that the accused’s act of pointing out the place where the kidnapped boy’s body was found could be relevant conduct under Section 8, independently of whether the accompanying statement was admissible under Section 27. The case demonstrates that conduct and the admissibility of an accompanying statement are separate evidentiary questions.
A recent illustration is Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 INSC 162. The accused had led the police to locations from which human remains were recovered. The Supreme Court held that, although Section 27 of the old Evidence Act was not attracted, the conduct could still be considered under Section 8. Importantly, the Court treated this as weak corroborative evidence and not as evidence sufficient by itself to convict. The Court ultimately set aside the conviction and gave the accused the benefit of doubt.
- Relevance Is Not the Same as Proof
This distinction is central to the law of evidence. A fact can be relevant without being sufficient to prove guilt.
Suppose A and B have a dispute and A purchases a substance capable of causing death shortly before B dies. The dispute may be relevant to motive and the purchase may be relevant to preparation. But these facts do not automatically prove that A killed B. The Court must consider whether there is reliable evidence connecting A with the actual offence.
The same caution applies to subsequent conduct. Nervousness, leaving a place, giving an explanation or behaving unusually may have more than one possible meaning. Such conduct must be proved and assessed in its proper context. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
- Motive, Preparation and Conduct in Circumstantial Evidence
These concepts are particularly important in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is no reliable direct evidence, the prosecution may rely on a combination of circumstances, including motive, preparation and conduct.
The classic principles were summarised by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. The Court held that the circumstances relied upon must be firmly established and must form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused, while excluding reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.
Therefore, the Court cannot simply reason that there was a motive, there was preparation and the accused behaved suspiciously, and then conclude that guilt is proved. Each circumstance must be established through admissible evidence, and the circumstances must be considered cumulatively.
Judicial Balance and the Presumption of Innocence
The relevance of motive, preparation and conduct must always be considered alongside the presumption of innocence. Section 6 does not shift the prosecution’s fundamental burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Rohit Jangde provides a clear recent example. The Supreme Court accepted that the accused’s conduct relating to the recovery of human remains could be relevant under Section 8, but also held that this was weak evidence and could only provide corroboration. Since the remaining circumstances did not complete the chain of proof, the Court set aside the conviction and gave the accused the benefit of doubt.
This approach is important because relevance is only the first step. The Court must still examine the quality, reliability and cumulative effect of the evidence before reaching a finding of guilt.
Conclusion
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 allows the Court to consider facts surrounding an alleged offence. Motive may explain a possible reason, preparation may show steps taken towards the offence, and previous or subsequent conduct may provide a relevant connection.
But none of these concepts is a shortcut to conviction. Motive cannot substitute proof; preparation must have a meaningful connection with the fact in issue; and conduct must be assessed in its proper context. The decisions in Shivaji Genu Mohite, Khurshid Ahmed, Prakash Chand, A.N. Venkatesh, Chandan and Rohit Jangde illustrate the same basic principle: relevant circumstances can assist the Court, but guilt must ultimately be established by admissible evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
