law: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 
  14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body
  
  or bodily feeling
  Facts showing the
  
  existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith,
  
  negligence, rashness, I will or good-will or good-will 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.
   12  [ 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 of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused
  
  of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous
  
  conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.
  Illustrations
  (a) A is accused of
  
  receiving stolen goods knowing them to 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, as
  
  tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles off which he was in possession
  
  to be stolen.
   13  [(b) A is accused of
  
  fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin which, at the time
  
  when he delivered it, he know to be counterfeit.
  The fact that, at the
  
  time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of
  
  counterfeit is relevant.
  The fact that A had
  
  been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a
  
  counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.]
  (c) A sues B for
  
  damage done by a dog of B’s which 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 of exchange, knew that the name of the payee
  
  was fictitious.
  The fact that A had
  
  accepted other bills drawn in the same manner before they could have been
  
  transmitted to him by the payee if the payee, is relevant, as showing that a
  
  knew that the payee was a fictitious person.
  (e) A is accused of
  
  defaming B by publishing an 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 facts that there
  
  was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A repeated 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
  
  trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss.
  The fact that, at the
  
  time when A represented C to be solvent, C was supposed to be solvent by his
  
  neighbors and by persons dealing with him, is relevant, as 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,
  (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 in good faith that the real
  
  owner could not be found.
  The fact that public
  
  notice off 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 to it, is relevant,
  
  as showing the fact that A knew of the notice did not 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 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.
  (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 when an assurance on his life was
  
  effected.
  Statements made by A
  
  as to the state of his health at 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 to the defect of that 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.
  (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 disposition to commit crimes of that class is
  
  irrelevant.
  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.