What Facts Are Relevant Under Indian Evidence Act

3/23/13

What Facts ar e r elevant under Indian Evi dence Act

Disclaimer  Information Inf ormation in this document i s being p rov rovided ided as-is without any warranty warranty/guarant /guarantee ee of a ny kind. We We have taken all reas onable m easu res to e nsure the quality, quality, reliability, reliability, and accuracy of the information in this document. However, However, we may hav have e mad e mis takes and we will not be respon sibl e for any loss or damage of  any kind aris ing becaus e of the usage of this information. Further, Further, upon dis cov covery ery of any error or omis sions , we m ay delete, add to, or amend informa tion on this webs ite without notice. notice. This docum ent is intended to provide provide in formation only. If you you are s eeking advice on any matters relating to information on this we bsite, you you s hould – where appropriate – contact us directly with your your s pecific query or  seek advice from from quali fied profess profess ional people.

Q. What facts are relevant under Indian Evidence Act? Sections 6 to 55  of Indian Evidence Act Sections Act describe the facts that are deem ed relevant. These are as follow follows s - [TrO [TrOcM cMII ConODC SA SABA BADOJOC] DOJOC] Section 6 - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction -  Fact  Facts s w hich, though though not in is sue, are s o connected with a fact in iss ue as to form form part of the the s ame transaction, are are relevant, relevant, whether they occurr occurred ed at the sam e time and place or a t different differ ent times and places . For For exampl exampl e - (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating beating him . Whatev Whatever er was sai d or done b y A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. Section 7 - Facts Facts w hich are the occasion, cause or effect of fac ts in issue -  Facts which a re the occasion, caus e or effect, effect, im med iate or otherwise, of relevant relevant facts, facts, or facts in is sue, or whi ch constitute the the s tat tate e of things un der which they happened, which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. For example - a) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his poss ess ion, and that he showed it or m entioned the fact fact that he had it, to to third persons , are relevant. relevant. Sect ion 8 - Motive, preparation Section prepara tion and previous previous or subsequent condu c onduct ct - Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact For exam exam ple - (a) A is tried trie d for the murder murde r of B - The facts facts that A m urdered C , that that B knew that A had m urdered C , and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant Section 9 - Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts -  Fact  Facts s necess ary to explain explain or in troduc troduce e a fact in is sue or relevant fact, fact, or which supp ort or rebut an inference sugg ested by a fact in is sue or relevant relevant fact, fact, or which es tablish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which s how the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are are relevant relevant in s o far as they are necess ary for for that purpose For exam exam ple, (a) The questio n is, is , whether a given given docum ent is the will wil l of A - The state of A's A's property prope rty and of his fam ily at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts facts Section 10 - Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design - Where there there is reasonable round to believe that that two or more p ersons hav have e conspi red together to to com mit an off offence ence or an actionable wrong, anything anything s aid, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their their comm on intention, after after the the time when s uch intention was first entertained entert ained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as agains t each of the persons believ believed ed to be s o cons piring, as w ell for the purpose of proving proving the existence of the the cons piracy as for the the purpos e of sh owing that any such person was a party to it Section 11 - When facts not otherwise otherwise relevant become become r elevan elevantt -  Facts not otherwis e relevant are relevant - (1) if they are incons is tent with any fact in is su sue e or relevant fact; (2) if by them se selves lves or in connection wi th other facts facts they m ake the existence ex istence or non-ex non-existence istence of any fact in is sue or relevant relevant fact highly probable or imp robable For exam exam ple, (a) The ques tion is whether A com com m itted a crime at a t Calcutta on a certain day - The fact that, on that that day, A was at Lahore is relev relevant ant Section 12 - In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine amount are relevant -  In suits in which dam ages are claimed , any fact which will e nable the Court to determine determine the amount of damage s w hich ought to be awarded, is relevant Section 13 - Facts relevant when right or custom is in question -  Where the question is as to the existence existence of any right or  custom, the following facts are relevant:(a) any transaction transaction by which the right or custom in question w as created, claimed, m odified, recognized, recognized, ass erted or denied, www.hanumant.com/LOE- U ni t3- WhatFactsAr eRelevant.html

1/6

3/23/13

What Facts are relevant under Indian Evidence Act

or which was inconsis tent with its existence: (b) particular ins tances in which the right or custom w as claim ed, recognized or exercised, or in which its e xercise was dis puted, asserted or departed from For examp le - The question is whether A has a right to a fishery - A deed conferring the fishery on A's ancestors, a m ortgage of the fishery by A's father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A's father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular  ins tances in which A's father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A's nei ghbors, are relevant facts Section 14 - Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body, of bodily feeling -  Facts show ing the existence of any state of mind, su ch as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashnes s, ill-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  mi nd or body or bodily feeling, is in is sue o r relevant For exampl e, (a) A is accused of receiving s tolen goods knowi ng them to be s tolen - It is proved that he was in p oss ess ion of a particular stolen article - The fact that, at the sam e time, he was in pos ses sion of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in pos ses sio n to be stolen Section 15 - Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional - When there is a ques tion whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of sim ilar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant For exampl e, (a) A is accused of burning down hi s ho use i n order to obtain money for which it is i nsured - The facts that A lived in s everal hous es succes sively each of which he ins ured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to s how that the fires w ere not accidental Section 16 - Existence of course of business when r elevant - When there is a ques tion whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of bus ines s, according to whi ch it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact For examp le, (a) The question is , whether a particular letter was di spatched - The facts that it was the ordinary course of  busi ness for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the pos t, and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant Sections 17 to 31 - Admission of facts by particular persons is relevant. Sections 32 and 33 - Statements by persons w ho cannot be called witness in specified circumstances are with definite conditions are relevant. Sections 34 to 38 - Statements made in an extra ordinary circumstance, any statement made on any law which is inserted in some books, is relevant. Sections 40-44 - Judgments of courts are re levant in certain situations. Sections 45-51 - Opinion of third person is relevant in certain situations. Sections 52-55 - Character of a person is relevant in certain situations.

Q. Are those facts also relevant which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue? Yes, facts be cause of which facts in is sue take birth, or facts which take birth because of facts is iss ue are als o conside red relevant fact. Evidence can be given for the set of circumstances under which the principle facts occurred. As per Section 7  Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, imm ediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in is sue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. Illustrations (a) The ques tion is , whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with mon ey in his poss ess ion, and that he showed i t or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third person s, are relevant. (b) The question is , whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the mu rder was comm itted, are relevant facts. (c) The question is, whether A poiso ned B. The state of B's health before the symptom s ascribed to poiso n, and habits of  B, known to A, which afforded an opportuni ty for the admin is tration of pois on, are relevant facts.

www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit3-WhatFactsAreRelevant.html

2/6

3/23/13

What Facts are relevant under Indian Evidence Act

This s ection include following types of facts 1. Occasion - Occasion m eans the circumstances i n which an event occurred. Evidence of such circums tance is eligibl e to given. For example, in the case of R vs Richardson, where a person w as charged w ith the rape and murder of a girl, the fact that the girl wa s alone in her cottage at the time of her m urder is relevant because it provided the occasion in w hich the crime happened. 2. Cause - Facts that form the caus e of facts in is sue are relevant. For exampl e, A is charged of criminal mi sappropriation of  funds from a bank. The fact that A was hugely in debt at the time of comm itting the crime is a relevant fact because it indicates a poss ible cause of the comm iss ion of the crime. This is sim ilar to mo tive as given in Section 8. However this ma y not always be the case. For exam ple, in the case of Indian Airlines vs Madhuri Chaudhury AIR 1965 , the report of an Inquiry Com mis sion relating to an air crash was held relevant under Section 7 as es tablishing the cause o f the accident. 3. Effects - Every act causes som e effect that leads to som e other happening. These effects not only record the happening of the main act but also throws light upon the nature of the act. For exampl e, where a person i s po isoned , the s ymptom s produced are effects of the fact in iss ue and s o are relevant. 4. Opportunity - Circum stances which provide an opportunity for the happening of a fact in iss ue are relevant. For exampl e, a break from the daily routine of a person m ay be the opportunity that is used the person to comm it the crime. For exampl e, in R vs Richardson, the fact that Richardson left his fellow w orkers at about the time of m urder under the pretense of going to a sm ith's shop is relevant because i t provided an opportunity for the fact in iss ue, namel y her rape and m urder, to happen. 5. State of Things - Facts which cons titute the state of things under which or in the background of which the principle facts happened are relevant. For example, in the fact ore Rattan vs Reginum, AIR 1971, a person s hot his wife and his plea was that it was an accident. The fact that he was unhappy with his wi fe and was having an affair with another woma n, was held to be a relevant fact.

Q. "Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation and conduct of any fact in issue or relevant fact". Explain. This s tatemen t is taken from Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, which is as follows Section 8 - Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct -  Any fact is rel evant which s hows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in is sue or relevant fact. 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 is sue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person a n offence agains t whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in iss ue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or s ubseque nt thereto. Explanation 1 - The word "conduct" in this s ection does not include statements, unles s those s tatements accompany and explain a cts other than statements ; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of  this Act. Explanation 2 - When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement m ade to him or in his presence and h earing, which affects such conduct, is relevant. Illustrations (a) A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdere d C, that B knew that A had m urdered 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 bon d for the paymen t of money. B denies the making of the bond. The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be m ade, 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 adm inis tered to B, is relevant. (d) The question is , whether a certain docum ent is the wi ll of A. The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A ma de inquiry into matters to which the provisio ns of the alleged will relate, that he consu lted vakils in reference to making the will, and that he cause d 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 wou ld tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favorable to him self, or that he des troyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who m ight have been witnes ses , or suborned persons to give false evidence res pecting it, are relevant. (f) The ques tion is , whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed, C s aid in A's pres ence- "the police are com ing to look for the man who robbed B," and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant. (g) The question is , whether A owes B rupees 10,000. The facts that A asked C to lend him mon ey, and that D said to C in  A's pres ence and hea ring- "I advis e you not to trust A, for he owes B 10,000 rupees ," and that A went away without makin g any answer, are relevant facts. www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit3-WhatFactsAreRelevant.html

3/6

3/23/13

What Facts are relevant under Indian Evidence Act

(h) The ques tion is, w hether A comm itted a crime. The fact that A absconded after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being m ade for the criminal, and the contents of the letter, are relevant. (i) A is accus ed of a crime . The facts that, after the comm iss ion of the alleged crim e, he absconded, or was in pos ses sion o f  property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crim e, or attempted to conceal things which were or m ight have been used in com mitting it, are relevant. (j) The question is , whether A was ravish ed. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she m ade a com plaint relating to the crime, the circums tances under which, and the terms in which, the compla int was made , are relevant. The fact that, without making a com plaint, she s aid that she had been ravished is not relevant as conduct under this s ection, though it ma y be relevant as a dying declaration under s ection 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under s ection 157. (k) The question is , whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he m ade a complain t relating to the offence, the circums tances under which, and the terms in which, the compl aint was made , are relevant. The fact that he s aid he had b een robbed wi thout making any complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this s ection, though it m ay be relevant as a dying declaration under s ection 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under s ection 157. This section provides for the relevancy of three principal facts which are very important in connection with any case, namely, Motive, Preparation, and Co nduct. Motive - Motive is the power that impels one to do an act. It is a kind of inducement for doing the act. Motive by itself is not a crime but is helpful in es tablishing guilt. Evidence of motive helps the court connect the accused wi th the deed and i s s o very relevant. For exam ple, on the m urder of an old wid ow, the fact that the accused was to inherit her wealth was held as relevant as it s howed that the accused had the motive to kill her. In another case, a wom an who a good sw imm er had drown and the fact that the accused, her husband , was having an affair with another wom an was held relevant as it explained the mo tive behind the m urder. Preparation - The acts of preparation for a crime are relevant. Preparation by itself is not a crim e (except in certain offense s such a s waging a war agains t Govt. of India) but the facts that show the preparation tie the preparer to the actual crime and so are relevant. For exampl e, act of purchasing a pois on sh ows the preparation of the murder by adminis tering poison. Conduct - The state of mi nd of a person is often reflected in his conduct and so conduct of a person is a relevant fact. This section m akes the conduct of any party to a civil suite or their agents relevant. In a crimin al cas e, the conduct of the accused before, while, or after doing the act is deeme d relevant. However, two conditions m ust be fulfilled for the conduct to be relevant 1. The conduct mus t be in reference to the facts in is sue or the facts related to them . 2. The conduct is s uch as influences or is influenced by the facts in iss ue or relevant facts.

Q. When do facts not otherwise relevant become relevant?  A fact, which does not have any such relation as defined in Section 6 to 55 to the fact in is sue is not a relevant fact and ordinarily evidence cannot be given for such a fact. However, when an irrelevant fact is such that it makes the existence or  non-existence of a fact in iss ue highly probable or im probable, it becomes very im portant for the case becaus e it helps the court to determine the truth. Such a fact ought to be brought before the court. This is the concept embodied in Section 11. It says the following : Section 11 - Facts not otherwise relevant, are relevant. (1) if they are incons is tent with any fact in is su e or relevant fact; (2) if, by them selves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non -existence of any fact in iss ue or relevant fact highly probable or im probable. Illustrations (a) The question is , whether A comm itted a crim e at Calcutta on a certain day.  The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore, is relevant.  The fact that, near the time w hen the crime was comm itted, A was at a distance from the place where it was comm itted, which would render it highly improbable, though not imp oss ible, that he comm itted it, is relevant. (b) The question is , whether A comm itted a crime.  The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been com mitted by no one els e and that it was not comm itted by either B, C or D is relevant. As given in il lus trations above, an alibi i s a very comm on example of an irrelevant fact becoming relevant. Indeed, if a person is proved to be not at the location of the crim e at the time of the crime, he cannot have comm itted the crime. How ever, the burden of proof is on the accused and s trict evidence is required to establish such ple as For exampl e, in case of  Mithilesh Upadhyaya vs State of Bihar, 1997 , the accused s tated that he was in the hospital at the tim e of crime but did not give any supporting documents. His plea was not accepted. It must be noted that this section is quite wide in its s cope. It does not place any restriction upon the range of facts that can be adm itted as show ing incons istencies or probabilities. Any fact that makes the existence of a fact in iss ue highly probable or im probable is covered. JAMES FITZAMES STEPHEN, the author on Indian Evidence Act in his book Introduction To The Indian Evidence Act, observed that the facts relevant under S. 11 would, in most cases, be relevant under other sections. The www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit3-WhatFactsAreRelevant.html

4/6

3/23/13

What Facts are relevant under Indian Evidence Act

object of drawing the act in this m anner was that the general ground on which facts are relevant might be s tated in s o m any and popular forms as poss ible, so that if a fact is relevant its relevancy may be eas ily ascertained. However, man y facts can be connected to facts in iss ue or relevant facts through a l ong chain of ratiocination but that will unnecess arily comp licate the trial and w ill be detrimental to spee dy jus tice. Thus, to limi t the the facts which are covered in this s ection, we need to unde rstand which facts are not relevant. Irrelevant facts are the facts that come under the rules of  exclusion, nam ely - facts that come under hears ay and facts that come under the principle - a transaction between two parties ought not be operate to the dis advantage of the third. Exam ple of facts un der hearsay is , "Mr. X sa id that Mr. Y is corrupt" or "Everybody says a certain officer is corrupt." This fact is hearsay and is legally irrelevant. Examples of second type of facts include - s tatem ents m ade behind the back of a person agai nst whom they are sough t to be us ed as evidence, sim ilar unconnected transa ctions, and opinion of third parties . Rule in s ection 11 makes such facts relevant if they are inconsi stent with the facts in is sue or m ake their existence or non existence highly probable. Thus, the onl y criteria for giving evidence of fact under section 11 is that it should m ake the existence of a fact in iss ue highly probable or im probable. In Ram Kumar Panday vs State of MP, 1975,  it was held that important omis sion s woul d be relevant under this rule.

Q. How far is character relevant and admissible in evidence in civil and criminal cases?  A character of a person is a very vague and s ubjective aspect. It is at best imprecis e and at worst dang erous to draw an inference about the liability of a person from his character. Therefore, the general rule is that character of a perso n is not relevant for establis hing gui lt. However, there are certain exceptional s ituations where character of a pers on is imp ortant for  the case. Provisi ons regarding the relevancy of character are s pecified in Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55. There are di fferent rules about relevancy of character in civil and crim inal cas es. Relevancy in Civil Cases Section 52 lays down a general principle for civil suits that the evidence of a party's character cannot be given to show that the conduct attributed to the party is probable or im probable. This m eans that a defendant cannot show his good character  as evidence to prove that his would n ot have s aid defam atory things ab out the plaintiff and sim ilarly the plai ntiff cannot show previous bad character of the defendant as evidence to prove that the defendant must have said defamatory things about the plaintiff. This principle was laid down in a very old case of Attorney General vs Bowman, 1771 . In this case a m an was tried for a penal action, and not for a crimina l pros ecution, for carrying fals e weigh ts and offering to corrupt an officer. He called a witness to testify that he was a m an of good character and conduct. This was not admitted by the court. Further, as held in Hollington vs Hew thorn & Co ltd, 1943 , which is al so known as rule in Hollin gton vs H ewthron, previous criminal conviction cannot be given to s how the bad character of a person i n a civil suit. In this case, an action was brought against the defendant for dam ages caused b y the defendant's negli gent driving of a m otor car. The defendant had also been pros ecuted for the same accident and convicted. The plaintiff sought to give evidence of this conviction in proof of the fact that he was guilty of careless driving. However, the evidence was not accepted as adm iss ion on the ground that conviction by a crim inal court is at best an opinion of that court that the defendant was gui lty and s uch opinion is not admis sibl e.

Exceptions 1. When character appears from other relevant evidence - Second part of Section 52 provides that if a fact is otherwise relevant to the case then the conclusion about a party's character may be drawn from such fact. An otherwise relevant fact cannot be excluded from evidence merely because it incidentally throws light upon a party's character. For example, a  journalis t is des cribed as an exploiter and he su es for dam ages for defamation and the defendant takes the defens e that whatever the defendant has said is true. Now, the defendant will have to give evidence to prove the exploitation which the plaintiff has been practicing. Such evidence wil l als o bring to light the real character of the plaintiff and the court can take note of this. 2. When charac ter itself is in issue - Section 54  sa ys that previous bad character is not relevant, except in reply. However, Explanation 1 to this section s pecifies that this rule do es not apply when character itself is a fact in iss ue. For examp le, in a divorce case on the ground of cruelty, the cruel character of the defendant is a fact in issue and evidence can be given in support of that previous bad character. 3. Determ ination of damages - Section 55  allows the character of the plaintiff to be consid ered as relevant for determining the amoun t of damages that he ought to receive. An early Englis h cas e on this aspect is of Scott vs Sampson, 1882 . In this case a journalis t was suing the defendant for libel. The defendant tried to s how the character of the plaintiff but the trial judge refused to adm it it. Upon appeal for retrial, J Cave, held that the evidence should have been al lowed to be a dmitted. He www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit3-WhatFactsAreRelevant.html

5/6

3/23/13

What Facts are relevant under Indian Evidence Act

remarked that if the plaintiff claims an injury to his reputation, the jury shoul d know whether he i s a m an of reputation or not before awarding any dam ages. If evidence about the character of the plaintiff is not allow ed then there will be no difference between an honorable person and a cheat. A virtuous wom an will be kept at the sam e level with a prostitute. To enable a jury to estim ate the quantum of injury sustained, the knowledge of party's character is relevant.

Relevancy in Criminal Cases Section 53 lays dow n the general principle that in criminal proceedings the fact that the perso n accused is of a good character is relevant and Section 54 l ays down that the fact that the accused i s of a bad character is irrelevant in crim inal proceedings. Thus, every accused is at a liberty to show that he is a person of good character. As J Cockburn has obs erved, the fact that a man has unblem ishe d reputation leads to a presumption that he is incapable of comm itting the crime for  which he i s being tried. On the other hand, the prosecution cannot subm it evidence to sho w bad character of the accused. However, as per Section 54, if a person gi ves evidence of his good character then the oppos ite party is allowed to give evidence of his bad character as a reply. Opposite party cannot give evidence of bad character in its original case. It can do so only as a reply. Exceptions 1. Evidence for bad character can b e given by the pros ecution but only as a repl y to the evidence of good character. 2. When character itself is in is sue, evidence of bad character may be given. 3. When a fact is otherwise relevant, it can be submitted even if incidentally reveals the character of the accused. 4. The prosecution is allowed to cite a previous conviction as evidence of bad character of the accused. Regarding this provision, Lord Denning has observed in the case of Goody vs Oldham Pres s Ltd, 1967 , that previous convictions are a class in itsel f. They are the raw m aterial upon which bad reputation is built up. They have taken place in an open court and are of public knowledge. They are very different from previous misconducts that are not tried in a court and which therefore mi ght lead to dispute. But previous convictions offer not poss ibility of such dis putes and s o are relevant and admi ss ible.

www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit3-WhatFactsAreRelevant.html

6/6