Question: A is accused of defaming B by publishing a statement. Whether the fact of previous publication of a similar statement by A against C is relevant? [U.P.A.P.O. 1988] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is accused of defaming B by publishing a statement. Whether the fact of previous publication of a… Read More »

Question: A is accused of defaming B by publishing a statement. Whether the fact of previous publication of a similar statement by A against C is relevant? [U.P.A.P.O. 1988] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is accused of defaming B by publishing a statement. Whether the fact of previous publication of a similar statement by A against C is relevant?] Answer Section 14 lays down the rule relating to evidence showing the existence of the state of minds such...

Question: A is accused of defaming B by publishing a statement. Whether the fact of previous publication of a similar statement by A against C is relevant? [U.P.A.P.O. 1988]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is accused of defaming B by publishing a statement. Whether the fact of previous publication of a similar statement by A against C is relevant?]

Answer

Section 14 lays down the rule relating to evidence showing the existence of the state of minds such as intention knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill will, or goodwill towards any particular person and Section 15 provides as to the relevancy of evidence in cases where the question is whether a particular act was accidental or was done with particular intention or knowledge.

Explanation 1 attached to Section 14 makes it clear that state of mind, to be proved, must not be of a general tendency. The explanation talks about facts showing the existence of the state of mind which includes intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will, or good-will towards a particular person are relevant.

Focus is given to a particular person, which means a state of mind is not towards a general person, but a particular person. Thus fact that a mean is generally dishonest generally malicious or criminal in his proceedings does not bear with sufficient directness on his conduct on any particular occasion or as to a particular matter.

In the present case at hand, 'A’ is charged with defaming B by publishing a statement. Here, the fact of previous publication of a similar statement by A against C is not relevant. Fact that A had earlier published a similar defamatory statement against C does not tend to prove A’s intention in reference to the case of B. Thus this fact is not relevant.

In the case of M.L. Prit Chand v. Emperor AIR 1923 Lahore 382, it was observed that under Section 15, as under Section 14 the prosecution cannot use the evidence as to the commission of other acts of similar nature to prove the existence of Acts charged with. But when the existence of the acts in issue has been established by other evidence and the only question which remains to be decided is whether they were done accidentally or intentionally then and then only the evidence of other similar acts is admissible to prove the state of mind.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-09-18T11:53:00+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story