27. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body, or bodily feeling. acts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.

Explanation 1.‑‑A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.

Explanation 2.‑‑But where, upon the trial f. a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by this accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this Article, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.

Illustrations

.         (a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them so be stolen. It

is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article.

The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, is tending to show that he knows each and all of the articles of which be was in possession to be stolen.

(b) As is accused of fraudulently delivering in another person a counter . felt coin which, at the time when he delivered it, he known to be counterfeit.

The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit coin is relevant.

The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person so genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.

(c) A sues B for damage done by a dong of B's which B knew to be ferocious.

The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.

(d) The question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill or exchange, knew that the name of the payee was fictitious.

The fact that A had accepted other bills drowning the same manner before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the payee had been a real person, is relevant as showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person.

            (e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing as imputation intended to

harm the reputation of B.

The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-will on the part of A towards B is relevant, as proving A's intention to harm B's reputation by the particular publication in question.

The fact that there was no previous quarrels between A and B, and that A repealed the matter complained of as he heard it, are relevant, as showing that A did not intend to harm the reputation of B.

(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent whereby B, being induced to truth C, who was insolvent, suffered loss.

The fact that the time when A represented C to be solvent, C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by person delaying with him, s relevant, is showing that A made the representation in good faith.

(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which A is owner, by the order of C, a contractor.

A's defence is that B's contract was with C.

The fact that a .paid C for the work in question is relevant, as proving that A did, in good faith, make to C the management of the work to question, so that C was in a position to contract with B on C's own accounts, and not a agent for A.

(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which he had found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated it, he believed to good faith that the real owner could not be found.

The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the property could not be found.

The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim Lo it, is relevant, as showing that the fact that A knew of the notice did to disprove A's good faith-

(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him, in order to show A's intent the fact of A's having previously shot at B may be proved.

(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved; as showing the intention of the letters.

(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife. .

Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts.

(l) The question is whether A's death was caused by poison. Statements made by A during his illness as to his symptoms are relevant facts.

(m) The question is, what was the state of A's health _at the time an assurance on his life was effected.

Statement made by A as to the state of his health as or near the time in question are relevant facts.

(n) 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's attention was drawn on other occasions the defect of the particular carriage is relevant.

The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriage which he let to hire is irrelevant.

(o) 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.

The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is irrelevant.

(p) A is tried for a crime.

The fact that he said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant.

The fact that he said something indicating a general deposition to commit crimes of that class is relevant.

28. Faces 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 occurrence, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.

The facts that A lived a 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 different insurance offences, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accident.

(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 occasions be 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 a in such case in favour of A, are relevant.

(c) As is accused of fraudulently delivering to B's counterfeit rupee.

The facts that soon before or soon after the delivery to B. A delivered counterfeit rupees to f:, d and E are relevant as showing that. the delivery to B was not accidental.

29. Existence of course of business when relevant. When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.

illustrations

(a) The questions is, whether a particular letter was despatched.

The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A.

The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Dead Letter Office, are relevant.

.