Person Cannot Claim Insurance If Statements Made Are False | Section 14 of Evidence Act

State of mind, or of Body or Bodily Feelings:

This article discusses the explanation of  Section 14 of the Evidence Act, of 1872. 

Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The main part of Section 14 talks about two things:

The first part 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 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.

The second part of Section 14 says facts showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling are Relevant.

Illustrations related to the main part of Section 14 are as follows:

• A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. If he is found of other stolen goods in his possession. Here it shows his state of mind.
• Similarly, A is accused of delivering to others a counterfeit coin which, at the time of delivery, he knew it to be counterfeit. If he finds other counterfeit coins in his possession then, this shows the state of mind of A.

Two Explanations under Section 14:

Explanation-1: A fact is said to be relevant as showing the state of mind only when it shows the state of mind related to a particular matter (or person) and not a general matter.

Illustration related to fact showing state of mind related to a particular matter:

A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriages which he let to hire, is irrelevant. Here, it is a matter related to general things.

Similarly, A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. The fact that A, on other occasions shot at B is relevant, as showing his intention to shoot B. Which shows intention/state of mind towards particular matter.

The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them, is irrelevant. Which shows intention/state of mind towards general matter.

Explanation-2: Previous conviction of the person is also relevant under section 14. Read illustration:

A is accused of delivering to other a counterfeit coin which, at the time of delivery, he knew it to be counterfeit. If A was previously convicted of delivering counterfeit coins is relevant.

Case Laws:

• R vs. Prabhudas (1874): This case explains, Explanation-1 of Section 14. In this case, accused was found of documents apparently forged. It was held not relevant in prosecution for forging a promissory note as it shows the tendency of committing an offence of that class and not an intention to commit that particular offence (i.e., committing of forgery of the promissory note)  It was not found relevant under section 14.
• Aveson vs Kinnaird (English case): The Lady made the statement as to the state of her health to the insurance company that her health is good. However the Insurance company claimed that she made false statements to them as when the visitor visited her, she told him that she was in a bad state of health. These statements of the visitor were allowed by the court and held to be relevant as they show her state of mind (which includes intention, ill-will, good faith, etc.). This case is similar to Illustration (m).

Join us: