Conduct according to Section 8 of Evidence Act.
Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2012 by Addlin
Conduct according to Section 8 of Evidence Act.
In
every conviction of any criminal offense the conduct of the accused must be
proved. Conduct must arise from intention, motive and preparation towards the
conduct but in this discussion I will not explain further about intention,
motive and preparation and the heart of this discussion only will concentrate
on the conduct of crime. Conduct generally can be defined as act that
reflecting state of mind of person, it also includes the undone act which
better known as omission to act. The degree of certain conduct can portray the
real intention of the doer, sometimes the degree can be considered through the
type of weapon use by the person, the severely of injury in the victim and act
of the person after the crime. Previous and subsequent conducts must be taken
into consideration and in order to strength the admissibility of the conduct it
must be in reference to the facts in issue and relevant facts and the conduct
also must influences or influenced by those facts.
Section
8 (2) provide that:
“the
conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding
in reference to that suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue
therein relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom
is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant if the conduct influences or is
influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous
or subsequent thereto”
From
the virtue of sub-section (2) of section 8, it mentions that the conducts that
are relevant under the law of evidence are as the following below:
- Conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party
- to any suit or proceeding in reference to that suit or proceeding;
- in reference to any fact in issue or relevant facts
In
this part we will discuss on the first part of this sub-section which is the
conduct done by any party or of any agent to any party. The admissibility of
conduct is different in every case and it is determined by digging into the
facts of the case and the surrounding of the case. For example, a robbery had
happened, the search police later found the robbery property in the possession
of the accused which is in a bag pack in his car. Then after aware that the
police had found the bag the accused absconding from that place and the police
chase him. This hypothetical situation which is the conduct of the accused
running away from the police was admissible and relevant evidence.
As
in the case of Lee Lee Chong, the court held that the evidence of the accused absconding
from the scene of the crime was relevant under section 8(2) of Evidence Act. Same
thing had happened in the case of Malkhan Singh, in the facts of the
case, the accused had ran away from the scene and the court held that the
conduct by ran away from the crime scene was relevant as a evidence. But the
conduct of absconding from the crime scene is not conclusive evidence that show
that the accused was guilty of that offence. The conduct must also be valued by
the facts of the case in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Not all conducts relating to absconding from
the scene show that the accused was guilty because if the conviction only based
on the conduct of absconding of the accused, it may lead to injustice.
Different
with the case of Chandra Sekaran, the appellant had been charged and convicted
for an offence. The issue raised on the appeal was on the admissibility of the
accused subsequent conduct. He had volunteered statements that he had won money
at the races and that he had bought his wife a diamond ring from his winnings. However
at the trial, the appellant could not even remember the name of the horse that
brought him the windfall. The court admitted the evidence of his statements
under S.8 on the basis that the appellant was trying to present facts in
benefit of himself.
In
addition, the conduct of the accused when confronted with police also will lead
to the admissible evidence. For instant, the act of crying trembling and being
frightened also can lead to admissibility. For example in the case of PP v
Viyaja Raj, when it stated that:
“But the most
glaring contradiction to this defence of inability to account due to lapse of
time came from the evidence of PW19, the Government Auditor for Negeri Sembilan
and Malacca, who testified that in 1971, ie the year in which the alleged
offence occurred, he had attempted to audit the accounts, that the respondent
started to cry when asked to produce his account books. This goes to show that
the respondent was aware throughout from October 1971 until 1973, when he was
charged, of the need to account for his payments.”
From
the above case we can see that the act of crying by the accused shows that he
had the knowledge about the alleged offense and at the same time it reflect the
guilty mind of the accused.
Then
we move on to the second type of conduct in this sub-section which is the
conduct of the victim. The conduct of the victim usually will be the
corroboration evidence in the case such as in the case of R v Chauhan, the accused
was left alone in an office with complainant. The complainant was seen by a
colleague running out of the office to the toilet, crying and in an upset condition.
The complainant makes an immediate complaint to the colleague that she had been
molested by the accused. The accused gave evidence that nothing happened in the
office and that that when the complainant left the office, she appeared normal.
The prosecution thought that there was no corroboration but the recorder
disagreed, and directed the jury that the distressed state of the complainant
could amount to corroboration if they thought that the distress was not feigned
and that the complainant was not imagining things. The Court of Appeal held
that the recorder was right. From this case we can conclude that the conduct of
the victim by make a complaint and being in distressed state was strong
corroboration evidence that the accused has molested her.
Other
than that, the conduct of a victim by making a complaint will also lead to an
evidence but there are certain condition that must be fulfill in order to
classify the type of report because it can be a complaint or just a mere
statement and the strength of each of this conduct is different. The distinction
between this type of conduct will be discussed in the next publish. Hence as
the conclusion every crime offence only will be convict if there are attempt
and most importantly when there is CONDUCT of the accused but it may
vary in each of the case.
WILL BE CONTINUED…:)
WILL BE CONTINUED…:)
NEXT
PUBLISH WILL BE ON DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPLAINT AND STATEMENT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 Response to "Conduct according to Section 8 of Evidence Act. "
-
Esther Tan Says....Thanks Addlin! I thought conduct is always related to the accused's conduct alone, not the victim's conduct!
It is true that victim's conduct are also relevant and admissible to corroborate other evidence and at the same time, strengthen the prosecution's case in prosecuting the accused. Victim's conduct such as trauma, crying, in upset condition and etc etc especially woman victim is very relevant and admissible to corroborate other evidence in showing that what they are going through is real (such as rape/molest/robbery/grievous hurt and etc)...
-
Addlin Says....Wow!! glad to get positive credit from u
i hope this article will benefit us and also public, at first i also thought that conduct only revolve around the act of the accused but after doing some readings, i finally realized that the conduct of the victim also play a big impact in determining the weigh of evidence in the whole case..
Thanks Esther, really appreciated it :)
Leave A Reply