Consider the following statements regarding relevancy of motive and preparation under Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Statement 1: The fact that an accused required money for a particular purpose at the time a loan document was allegedly forged is relevant as showing motive for the forgery. Statement 2: When the question is whether a document is a genuine will, the fact that the testator consulted advocates regarding will-making is relevant only if the advocates testify in court. Statement 3: A statement made in the presence and hearing of an accused, which affects the accused's conduct, is relevant if the conduct is already established as relevant. Statement 4: The fact that an accused absconded after committing an alleged crime is relevant only if the accused had prior knowledge that police were investigating. Which statements are correct?

Section 6(1) provides that facts showing motive or preparation are relevant. Illustration (b) states that when a bond is alleged to be forged, the fact that B needed money for a purpose is relevant as showing motive, making Statement 1 correct. Illustration (d) confirms that facts such as consultation with advocates regarding will-making are relevant without requiring their testimony, making Statement 2 incorrect. Section 6(2), Explanation 2 states that "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," making Statement 3 correct—the statement's relevance depends on conduct being relevant, per Explanation 2. Statement 4 is incorrect because illustration (i) to Section 6 shows that absconding after commission of crime is relevant regardless of whether the accused knew police were investigating.