Indian Evidence Act Section 15: Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional

When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, ¹⁴[ or done with a particular knowledge or intention,] the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

Illustrations

1. A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.
   The facts that A lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
2. A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive.
   The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional.
   The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.
3. A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit rupee.
   The question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental.
   The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B, was not accidental.

Simplified Explanation

Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 addresses the relevancy of facts when there is a question about whether an act was done accidentally or intentionally. This section allows the court to consider evidence of similar occurrences or acts to determine whether the act in question was intentional or merely accidental.

Text of Section 15:

“When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.”

Explanation:

• Accidental vs. Intentional Acts: This section applies when the court needs to determine whether a specific act was done deliberately or if it was a mere accident. It acknowledges that sometimes, the context or pattern of behavior can shed light on the nature of an act.
• Series of Similar Occurrences: If the person accused of the act in question has been involved in a series of similar acts, these other incidents become relevant. Such a pattern can suggest whether the act was part of a deliberate plan or just a coincidence.
  • Example: If a person claims that a shooting was an accident, evidence that the person has “accidentally” shot others under similar circumstances might suggest the shooting was intentional.
• Particular Knowledge or Intention: The section also covers situations where the act in question was done with specific knowledge or intent. If similar acts were done by the person with a particular intention or knowledge, it could indicate that the current act was also done with the same mindset.

Example:

Imagine a case where a person, A, is accused of causing a fire in B’s house, but A claims that the fire was accidental.

• Fact in Issue: Whether the fire was caused accidentally or intentionally by A.
• Relevant Facts under Section 15:
  1. Previous Similar Incidents: If A has a history of being involved in similar fires under suspicious circumstances, these incidents would be relevant. For example, if A was previously associated with fires in other homes where A had a dispute with the owners, this pattern could suggest that the fire in B’s house was intentional rather than accidental.
  2. Intentional Pattern: Suppose A had an ongoing conflict with B and had made threats to “burn B’s house down.” If similar threats were made in previous cases where fires occurred, this would indicate an intentional pattern of behavior.
  3. Accidental Claim: If A had previously caused fires due to a consistent negligence, such as repeatedly leaving burning candles unattended, and these incidents were deemed accidents, this pattern could support A’s claim that the fire in B’s house was accidental.

Significance:

Section 15 is significant because it allows the court to consider the broader context in which an act occurred, particularly when determining whether an act was accidental or intentional. By looking at a series of similar incidents involving the same person, the court can identify patterns that suggest deliberate behavior or reinforce claims of accidental occurrence. This helps in reaching a more informed and fair conclusion about the nature of the act in question, ensuring that justice is served based on a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances.