Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 13
Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional
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.
Why this exists
This rule descends from Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, itself shaped by English common-law thinking on 'similar fact evidence.' Courts recognized that a single suspicious act, viewed alone, can often be explained away as coincidence or accident. But when the same kind of act repeats across different times, places, or victims, the pattern itself becomes evidence of intention or guilty knowledge, ruling out innocent explanation. The provision balances fairness (it doesn't say the person is guilty) with practical proof (patterns matter) in cases like insurance fraud, repeated false accounting, or circulating fake currency.
How courts read it
This provision continues the doctrine long recognized in Indian courts under Section 15 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which itself echoed the reasoning in the English case Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales (1894), where repeated similar conduct was held relevant to disprove accident or coincidence. Indian courts have applied this 'doctrine of chances' cautiously, warning that such evidence shows probability, not certainty — it helps rule out accident but must still be weighed with all other evidence, not treated as automatic proof of guilt.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Showing a pattern of similar acts automatically proves the person is guilty this time.
Fact: The law only makes such patterns 'relevant' — meaning the court may consider them. Guilt still must be proved with all the evidence together, not decided by pattern alone. - Myth: This rule lets courts punish someone for past unrelated bad behavior.
Fact: The past acts must be genuinely similar in nature and connected to the same kind of question (accident vs. intention), not just any past wrongdoing brought in to smear the person.