Www.hanumant.com LOE Unit3 FactsRelevancy

3/23/13

www.hanumant.com/LOE- U ni t3- FactsRel evancy.html

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. "Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts." Explain. To ensure that a judicial process does not linger on for too too long, courts courts cannot was te their tim tim e on things that are not im portant for for the case. While there can be m any things things for which evidence can be given but evidence evidence that does not bear on the case at hand, has no use for the the court. This is the concept behind Section 5 of 5  of Indian Ev Evidence idence Act, 1872, which sa say ys that in any suit or proceeding, evidence may be given of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts facts as are hereinafter declared declared to be relevant, relevant, and of no others. A person is not allowed to bring forward any evidence ev idence to prove prove or dis prov prove e a fact that that is neither a fact in iss ue or a fact that is relev relevant ant to the the facts in is sue. This statement refers to two kinds o f facts facts - facts in is sue and relevant fact facts. s. Let us see what they both mean -

Facts in Issue Section 3 defines fact Section facts s in is sue. According According to this section, a fact in is sue is a fact that directly directly or indirectly in connection with other facts, determines the existence, non-existence, nature, or extent of any right or liability that is asserted or denied in any sui t or proceeding. In In other words, facts in contention in a cas e are facts in is sue. For exampl exampl e, A is accused of m urder or B. In this this cas e, the the following are facts facts in is sue 1. 2. 3. 4.

A caus ed B's B's death. A had intention to kill kill B. A was insane. A received grave grave and sudden su dden provocation from B.

 All the above are facts  All facts in is s ue becaus e they are in contention an d they determ ine the liability liab ility of A. A. Their Their truth increas es or  decreases the probability that that A murdered B. Prosecution will hav have e to es tablish the facts facts that prove prove that A murdered B before  A can be convicted. At the the sam s am e time, time , the the pros ecution als o has to dis prove that that any of the exceptions exceptions do not apply to to A. A. A fact in is sue i s als o known by its latin term - factum factum probandum , which means fact to be proved. proved.  A fact wil willl be cons idered as a s fact in iss ue only if the fact is s uch that by itse itself lf or in connection to other facts facts it is crucial crucia l to the the ques tion of a right or liability liability.. To To be a fact in iss ue, a fact fact mus t satisfy two requirements - the fact fact mus t be in dis pute between the parties and the fact mus t touch the question of right or li ability ability.. The extent extent of rights rights and liab ilities of parties depend on the ingredients of an offence. offence. In In criminal matters, the allegations in the charge s heet constitute constitute the facts facts in is sue, while in a civil civil case, it depends on the provisio provisio ns of the sub stantiv stantive e law.

Relev ant Facts ( Q. What do you

understand by relevancy of facts?)

The word relevancy as such is not defined in Indian Evidence Act, 1872, however, the meaning of the word is quite clear. The word "relevancy" means the property of a thing that makes it connected to the matter at hand. A thing is relevant to other  when i t has a relation to the other thing that tells som ething appropriate about the other thing. Relevancy Relevancy of a Fact means that the fact has a significant relation to another fact that is under consideration. When two facts have a direct relation, they are relevant to each other. For relevancy relevancy it is neces s ary that if we take take one fact, the the other wil l be relev rele vant only if there is a certain cert ain type type of relation between them, which i s pertinent in the given given circums tances.  A relevant fact fact is als o known by its its latin la tin term - factum factum probans p robans , which means me ans a fact that proves. Thus, if facts-in facts-in -is -iss s ue are the facts to be proved or disproved in a trial, relevant facts are the facts that help prove or disprove facts-in-issue. A fact is relevant if belief in that fact helps the conclusion of the existence or non-existence of another. Section 3 specifies 3  specifies that a Relevant fact is a fact is relevant to another when it is connected to the other in any of the ways referred referr ed to in the provisi provisi ons contained in the act. Section Sections s 6 to 55  contains provisi provisi ons that define the relations relations hips that make a fact legally relev relevant ant or not relevant relevant to another. The relationship m akes o ne fact more probable or i mprobabl e becaus e of  www.hanumant.com/LOE- U ni t3- FactsRel evancy.html

1/3

3/23/13

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

the other. For example, Fact A is that a person was given certain m edication and he died. Fact B is that the person was suffering from TB. Here, fact B is relevant to fact A because it throws light on the pos sibl e cause s of his d eath. Fact B makes is probable that he might have died because of TB instead of the given medication. In DPP vs Kilbourne, 1973, Lord Simon of Glaisdale h as said , "Evidence is relevant if it is logi cally probative or dis probative of som e m atter which requires proof. A relevant evidence is evidence that makes the matter which requires proof more or  less probable."  As is evident from Section 5 stated above, only those facts that are related to the facts in is sue through relationships defined in Section 6 to 55 are legally relevant and evidence can be given only for those facts in a trial. It must be noted, however, that a relevant fact may not necess arily be adm iss ible. Section 11 would be im portant to m ention here. As per Section 11, in certain s ituations facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. This happens if they are incons istent with any fact in is sue or relevant fact or if by thems elves or in connection wi th other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. For  example, (a) The ques tion is whether A comm itted a crime at Calcutta on a certain day - The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. (b) The question is , whether A comm itted a crim e. The circums tances are s uch that the crime mu st have been com mi tted either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crim e could have been comm itted by no one els e and that it was not comm itted by either B, C or D i s relevant. As is show n by these illus trations , an alibi i s a very comm on example of an irrelevant fact becoming relevant.

Q. Explain the doctrine of Res Gestae. Do you agree with the view that this doctrine is not only useless but is also harmful? / When does relevancy of facts form part of the same transaction? Doctrine of Res Gestae In a nutshell, Res Gestae m eans facts forming part of a transaction. This i ncludes things done and things s aid in the course of a transa ction. Acts and declarations accom panying a transaction are treated as Res Gestae and are adm iss ible in evidence. As di scus sed above, a Court is interested only in such evidence that is bearing on a fact in is sue or a relevant fact. This is im portant in limiting the s cope of the trial to facts that are indeed im portant for the case s o that justice can be done swiftly. However, in narrowing the s cope of things that can be brought before the court, injustice s hould not be don e. The things that are reasonabl y connected to the facts in is sue are usuall y very im portant for a case and s uch facts m ust be allow ed to be brought before the court whether they fall into any of the sections that categorize the facts as relevant or not. This concept is espoused by Section 6. It says: Section 6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction  - Facts w hich, though not in is sue a re so connected with a fact in is sue as to form part of the s ame transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the sam e time and place or a t different times and places. What it means is that a fact in iss ue does not happen in is olation. It always h as a factual s tory behind it. A fact in is sue l ies in a pool of other facts that gives birth to it. This s ection makes all s uch facts relevant. The im portant thing to unders tand here is the meaning of the term "transaction". To be eligible under this section the fact mus t have occurred in the sam e transaction in which the fact in is sue occurred. "Occurring in the sam e transaction" is a wide term that includes s everal kinds of things s uch as things that happened at the vicinity of the facts in i ss ue, things that were done by the accused right after or  before the facts i n is sue, things that lead to facts i n is sue, and s o on. The following illus trations explain the kind of facts that are contemplated under this section: Illustrations (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or  so shortly before or after is as to from part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. (b) A is accused of wagi ng war again st the Government of India by taking part in an arm ed ins urrection in w hich property is destroyed, troops are attacked and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as formin g part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them. (c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters b etween the parties relating to the subj ect out of which the libel arose, and form ing part of the correspon dence in whi ch it is contained, are relevant facts, www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit3-FactsRelevancy.html

2/3

3/23/13

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

though they do not contain the libel itself. (d) The question is whether certain goods ordered from B were del ivered to A. the goods w ere delivered to s everal intermediate pers ons succes sively. Each delivery is a relevant fact. The principle that is highl ighted by the above illustrations is that whenever "transaction" such as a contract or a crime, is a fact in issue, then evidence can be given of every fact which forms part of the same transaction. According to Stephen, a transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a s ingle nam e, as a crime, a contract, a wrong, or any other subject of inquiry which may be in iss ue. Although Section 6 does not use the words Res Gestae, the concept behind this section is often referred to by this term. This pool of facts in which facts in is sue happened is the "Res Gestae" of  the facts in is sue. Res Gestae is the surrounding circums tances of the event to be proved. Res Gestae and Hearsay Evidence Res Gestae also refers to secondhand s tatem ents conside red trustworthy for the purpose of adm iss ion as evidence in a laws uit when repeated by a witness because they were m ade s pontaneously and concurrently with an event. Under the hearsay rule (Section 60 - Oral evidence m ust be di rect), a court norma lly refuses to admit as evidence s tatem ents that a witness says he or she hea rd another person s ay. Traditionally, two reasons have ma de hearsay inadmis sibl e: unfairness and pos sibl e inaccuracy. Allowing a witnes s to repeat hearsay does not provide the accused with an opportunity to question the speaker of the original statement, and the witness ma y have m isun derstood or m isi nterpreted the statement. Thus, in a trial, couns el can object to a witnes s's testimony as hea rsay. The doctrine of Res Gestae is one of the man y exceptions to this rule. Since certain statements are m ade naturally, spontaneous ly, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they carry a high degree of credibility and leave little room for mis understanding or m isi nterpretation. The doctrine h eld that such s tatem ents are more trustworthy than other secondhand s tatemen ts and therefore should be a dmi ss ible as evidence. To be adm iss ible, the s tatements mus t relate, explain, or characterize an event or transaction. They mu st be natural statements growing out of the event, as oppos ed to a narrative of a past, comple ted affair. Additionally, the statements mus t be s pontaneous, evoked by the event itself, and not the res ult of premedi tation. Finally, the original s peaker m ust have participated in the transaction or witnes sed the event in ques tion. Thus, for exam ple, a witness mig ht testify that during a bank robbery, she or he heard another pers on s hout, "That person is robbing the bank!" and the statement could be adm itted as an exception to the ban on hears ay. Illustration (a) above is an exam ple of s uch statement.

Usefulness of Res Gestae  As per Phillip's Treatise on Evidence , the reason why the term Res Gestae has been avoided from Section 6 is because this doctrine has been productive of confusion. There can be num erous facts that surround the facts in is sue. They can all be s ome how linked with the sa me transaction. There is no clearcut rule that can demarcate a transaction. So it is en tirely left to the experience and intuition of the Judges to determine whether a particular fact can be in cluded in R es Gestae or not. This is evident from the following two cases . In the case of R vs Foster 1843 , accused was charged with mansla ughter in killing a person by driving over him. A witness saw the vehicle driven fast but did not s ee the accident. Immed iately after, on hearing the victim groan, he went up to him a nd as ked him what happened. The deceased then ma de a s tatemen t as to the cause of the injury. The court held that what the deceased s aid at the ins tant, as to the caus e of the accident is clearly admissible.  As a contras t, in the case of R vs Beddingfield 1879 , a wom an, with her throat cut, came sudde nly out of a room, in which she had been inju red. Shortly before she died, s he sa id, "Oh dear Aunt, see what Beddingfield has done to me." This statement was not accepted as Res Gestae. According to CJ Cockburn, anything uttered while the crime was being done would be adm iss ible but here, what she sai d was s aid after the crime was a ll over. Thus, it can be seen that the doctrine of Res Ges tae does not produce s ame results in very sim ilar si tuations. This certainly causes confusion in the mind s of novice lawyers and judge s. My belief is that this principle s hould be applied w hen comm on s ense dictates s o. Like any other principle, this principle is also not a precise ins trument to meas ure relevancy. It is only a guide that can help decide whether a fact is s ufficiently relevant to a fact in is sue. The final decis ion res ts with the Judge, who should decide depen ding on the peculiarities of the case. I do not agree that this doctrine is harm ful for the sim ple reas on that this doctrine is not a rigid rule of law. It shou ld be applied only when suitable.

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

3/3