If someone runs away after a crime, that alone proves they're guilty.

Courts have clarified that flight or suspicious conduct is only supporting evidence — it must be considered along with other proof, not treated as automatic proof of guilt.

Anything a person says can be treated as 'conduct' under this section.

Explanation 1 makes clear that statements alone don't count as conduct unless they explain an action — though such statements might still be relevant under other evidence rules.

If a rape or robbery victim didn't immediately file a complaint, their claim is automatically less believable.

The law only says a prompt complaint is relevant as 'conduct'; the absence of one doesn't destroy the claim's credibility — it may still be relevant under other provisions like dying declarations or corroborative evidence rules.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 6

Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

(1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.§

(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Explanation 1.—The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Adhiniyam. Explanation 2.—When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant. Illustrations.§

(a) A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.§

(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond. The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.§

(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.§

(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A. The facts that, not long before, the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate; that he consulted advocates in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts of other wills to be prepared, of which he did not approve, are relevant.§

(e) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, either before, or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.§

(f) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A's presence— “the police are coming to look for the person who robbed B”, and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.§

(g) The question is, whether A owes B ten thousand rupees. The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C in A's presence and hearing—“I advise you not to trust A, for he owes B ten thousand rupees”, and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts.§

(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The fact that A absconded, after receiving a letter, warning A that inquiry was being made for the criminal, and the contents of the letter, are relevant.§

(i) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, A absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.§

(j) The question is, whether A was raped. The fact that, shortly after the alleged rape, A made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that, without making a complaint, A said that A had been raped is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160.§

(k) The question is, whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, A made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that A said he had been robbed, without making any complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under clause (a) of section 26, or as corroborative evidence under section 160.§

Why this exists

This provision continues a rule from the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 8), carried forward almost unchanged into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Courts often lack direct proof of what happened, so the law allows them to consider surrounding circumstances — why someone might have acted (motive), how they prepared, and how they behaved before or after the event. This helps judges build a fuller picture of guilt, innocence, or liability using circumstantial evidence, which is often the only kind available.

How courts read it

Indian courts have long held that motive alone cannot prove guilt but strengthens other evidence — absence of motive doesn't mean innocence if other proof is strong (as seen in numerous Supreme Court murder appeals). Courts have also emphasized that 'conduct' must be natural and voluntary, not induced by police pressure, and that flight or silence alone is weak evidence unless supported by other facts. The distinction between 'conduct' and 'statements' (Explanation 1) has been closely scrutinized — courts exclude self-serving statements from being smuggled in as 'conduct.' The illustrations on rape and robbery complaints reflect long-standing jurisprudence on the evidentiary value of promptness and consistency in victim complaints, distinguishing 'conduct' from substantive statements or dying declarations.

Common misconceptions

Myth: If someone runs away after a crime, that alone proves they're guilty.
Fact: Courts have clarified that flight or suspicious conduct is only supporting evidence — it must be considered along with other proof, not treated as automatic proof of guilt.
Myth: Anything a person says can be treated as 'conduct' under this section.
Fact: Explanation 1 makes clear that statements alone don't count as conduct unless they explain an action — though such statements might still be relevant under other evidence rules.
Myth: If a rape or robbery victim didn't immediately file a complaint, their claim is automatically less believable.
Fact: The law only says a prompt complaint is relevant as 'conduct'; the absence of one doesn't destroy the claim's credibility — it may still be relevant under other provisions like dying declarations or corroborative evidence rules.