BSA Section 13 — Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional

Summary

When there is a question about whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that the act was part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was involved, is relevant. This means that a pattern of repeated similar conduct by the same person can be considered as evidence when deciding whether a specific act was accidental or deliberate.

Illustration (a): A is accused of burning down his house to get insurance money. The facts that A lived in several houses successively, insured each one, a fire occurred in each, and after each fire A received payment from a different insurance company, are relevant. These facts tend to show that the fires were not accidental.

Illustration (b): A is employed to collect money from B's debtors, and it is A's duty to record the amounts received in a book. A makes an entry showing he received less than he actually did. The question is whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are also false, and that each false entry favours A, are relevant.

Illustration (c): A is accused of fraudulently delivering counterfeit currency to B. The question is whether the delivery was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit currency to C, D, and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.

Official Text

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.

Illustrations.

(a) 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 company, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

(b) 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.

(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit currency. The question is, whether the delivery of the currency was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit currency to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.

Related Judgments

• S.P.Chandrasekar vs State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption — Madras High Court (Principal Bench, Chennai) (2024)
• The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR; and; The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.VENU vs B.G.Giri — Madras High Court (Principal Bench, Chennai) (2015)
• represented by its; Chairman cum Managing Director; N.Palaniswamy; 82, vs 1.The District Revenue Officer,, Chennai., 2.The Tahsildar,, Mylapore — Madras High Court (Principal Bench, Chennai) (2016)
• Easun Holdings Private Limited; Represented by its Director; M. Partha vs Standard Chartered Bank,, Commercial Building,, 19, Rajaji Salai, 4th — Madras High Court (Principal Bench, Chennai) (2020)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• IEA §15 — Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional