Quick answer
Yes, a pattern can be relevant. Under Section 13 of the B.S.A., when the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that the act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant. Such evidence helps the court test a defence of accident, but it is not automatic proof of guilt: the occurrences must be genuinely similar and the person must be shown to be concerned in each of them.
The law: Section 13 B.S.A.
Section 13 makes relevant the fact that an act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, when there is a question whether the act was:
- accidental or intentional; or
- done with a particular knowledge or intention.
The section has three illustrations:
- Insured houses on fire: A is accused of burning down his house to obtain insurance money. That A lived in several houses one after another, insured each, each caught fire, and after each fire he was paid by a different insurance company, is relevant as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
- False account entries: A, who collects money for B, makes a false entry showing he received less than he did. That his other entries in the same book are false and each is in his favour is relevant to whether this entry was accidental or intentional.
- Counterfeit currency: A is accused of fraudulently delivering counterfeit currency to B. That soon before or after, A delivered counterfeit currency to C, D and E is relevant to show the delivery to B was not accidental.
Essential points and limits
- A question of accident or intention must arise. The section is about rebutting accident or proving knowledge or intention, not about proving that the person is generally a criminal.
- Similar occurrences. The other incidents must be truly similar to the act in question.
- The same person must be concerned in each. Without evidence connecting the person to every incident, the series proves nothing against him.
- Bad character is a separate rule. Under Section 49 B.S.A., in criminal proceedings the bad character of the accused is irrelevant unless evidence of good character has been given. Illustration (p) to Section 12 B.S.A. also makes a statement showing only a general disposition to commit crimes of a class irrelevant. Section 13 does not open the door to general propensity evidence.
- Relevance is not proof. The pattern is one circumstance to be weighed with the rest of the evidence.
Section 12 and Section 13 compared
| Point | Section 12 B.S.A. (state of mind) | Section 13 B.S.A. (series of similar acts) |
|---|---|---|
| What is relevant | Facts showing intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence and similar states of mind | The fact that the act was one of a series of similar occurrences |
| When | When the state of mind is in issue or relevant | When it is in question whether the act was accidental or intentional, or done with particular knowledge or intention |
| Old Evidence Act | Section 14 | Section 15 |
A related principle operates under old Section 14 (now Section 12 B.S.A.). In Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay (1957), relying on the English case Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales (1894), it held that the conduct of a co-conspirator, irrespective of the time to which it relates, may be relied on under old Section 14 to show the criminality of his intention and to rebut a defence that his proved participation was innocent.
Aadil insures a warehouse, it catches fire and he claims the insurance money, saying the fire was an electrical accident. The prosecution proves that two other warehouses insured by Aadil burned down in similar circumstances in the previous three years, and that he received insurance money after each fire. Under Section 13 these earlier fires are relevant to show that the latest fire was probably not accidental. If the prosecution cannot show that Aadil was concerned with the earlier warehouses, the earlier fires do not help it.
Current law note
Section 13 B.S.A. corresponds to Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (old law), and the rule is the same. Section 49 B.S.A. (bad character) corresponds to old Section 54.
Exam point
Section 13 B.S.A. (old Section 15): a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the accused was concerned, is relevant to rebut a defence of accident, but not to prove general bad character.
