Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional.

What this section does

When the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that the act formed part of a series of similar occurrences in each of which the same person was concerned is relevant. This section admits evidence of system or pattern to rebut a claim of accident or mistake.

AI-generated plain-language summary. For the binding statutory text, see India Code (official).

The rule in one line

A series of similar occurrences involving the same person is relevant to show that a particular act was intentional rather than accidental.

When it applies

• A accused of burning his insured house: evidence that he previously insured and collected on fires at several other houses he occupied is relevant to show the fires were not accidental.
• A accused of fraudulently delivering counterfeit currency to B: deliveries of counterfeit currency to C, D, and E shortly before or after are relevant to show the delivery to B was not accidental.

Derived from IEA s.15.