Which of the following is incorrect under the Evidence Act?
-
In a case where ‘A’ is charged with receiving a particular stolen wristwatch knowing the same to be stolen, the fact that at the same time he was in possession of other such stolen articles is relevant.
-
In a case where ‘A’ is tried for the murder of ‘B’ by intentionally shooting him to death, the fact that ‘A’ was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is relevant.
-
In a case where ‘A’ is sued for damages for bite injury caused by his dog to ‘B’, ‘A’ having known the dog to be ferocious, the fact that the dog had previously bitten ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ is relevant.
-
In a case where ‘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.
Option B is the incorrect statement and thus the correct answer. Option A is correct law - Section 14 allows evidence of other stolen articles in possession when accused is charged with receiving stolen property, as it shows guilty knowledge. Option C is correct - previous bites by a known ferocious dog are relevant (Section 14, habit evidence). Option D is correct - previous publications showing ill-will toward B are relevant when A is accused of defaming B. However, Option B is INCORRECT - a habit of shooting at people with intent to murder is character evidence showing disposition, not admissible under Section 54 to prove conduct on a specific occasion. Character evidence is generally excluded unless falling under specific exceptions.