Logically Relevant Facts u/s — 5 to 9 and 11 of IEA, 1872

Question: What is the significance of Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, and how do relevancy and admissibility of facts differ?

Answer:

Introduction:

Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lays the foundation for the types of facts that can be introduced as evidence in legal proceedings. It delineates what facts are considered in issues and what other facts are deemed relevant. Understanding the distinction between relevancy and admissibility is crucial for proper application in legal contexts.

Section 5:

Section 5 — Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts:

Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.

Explanation:

This Section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure. A person disentitled to provide evidence cannot give evidence merely with the help of this Section.

Relevant Provisions:

• Section 3: Defines relevancy. One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.

Case Law:

In the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors. (21 April, 1998), Hon’ble Justice Syed Shah Quadri clarified, “More often the expressions ‘relevancy and admissibility’ are used as synonyms but their legal implications are distinct and different for more often than not facts which are relevant are not admissible; so also facts which are admissible may not be relevant.”

Relevancy and Admissibility:

Relevancy:

• Relevancy is determined according to Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• All relevant facts are not necessarily admissible.
• For example, privileged communications (e.g., between husband and wife or advocate and client) are relevant but protected under Sections 122 and 126, respectively.

Conclusion on Relevancy: Generally, relevant facts are admissible, but there are exceptions where relevant facts may not be admissible.

Admissibility:

• Admissibility is decided by the judge.
• Generally, a relevant fact is admissible.
• However, certain situations allow for the admissibility of facts that are not declared relevant according to Sections 5 to 55.

Example of Admissibility:

• Questions allowed in cross-examination to test the veracity of a witness (Section 146(1)) or to impeach the credit of a witness (Section 155), though not relevant, are admissible.

Conclusion on Admissibility: Generally, admissible facts are relevant, but not all admissible facts are relevant.

Question:

Who decides the relevancy and admissibility of a fact?

Answer:

The judge decides the admissibility of a fact according to Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Conclusion:

Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act is fundamental in guiding what evidence can be presented in court. While relevancy and admissibility are often confused, they have distinct roles in the legal process. The judge plays a crucial role in determining the admissibility of facts, ensuring that the evidence presented is both relevant and permissible under the law.

Question: What are the differences between relevancy and admissibility in the context of evidence law?

Answer:

Differences Between Relevancy and Admissibility

Relevancy and admissibility are distinct concepts in the law of evidence, and understanding their differences is crucial for legal practitioners. Here are the key differences between them:

Here’s an explanation of relevancy and admissibility in pointers:

1. Relevancy:

• Governed by Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act
• Based on logic and probability
• Determines which facts are pertinent to a case
• Acts as a preliminary filter for information

2. Admissibility:

• Determined by judges under Section 136
• Operates as a legal gatekeeper
• Decides which relevant evidence can be presented in court
• Based on strict rules of law, not just logic

3. General Rule:

• Most relevant facts are admissible
• Most admissible facts are relevant

4. Exceptions:

• Some relevant facts are not admissible (e.g., privileged communications)
• Some admissible facts may not be directly relevant (e.g., facts to impeach witness credibility)

5. Purpose:

• Relevancy: Declares what is logically connected to the case
• Admissibility: Determines whether certain types of relevant evidence should be included or excluded

6. Relationship:

• Relevancy is the first hurdle evidence must clear
• Admissibility is the second hurdle, applied to relevant evidence

7. Legal Implications:

• Relevancy ensures logical coherence in evidence
• Admissibility maintains legal standards and fairness in proceedings

8. Judicial Role:

• Judges apply both concepts to balance probative value against potential prejudice
• This dual system helps maintain integrity in the legal process

9. Practical Application:

• Lawyers must consider both relevancy and admissibility when preparing evidence
• Understanding both concepts is crucial for effective case presentation and objections

10. Overall Function:

• Together, relevancy and admissibility form a comprehensive framework for evidence evaluation in legal proceedings

Case Law:

In the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors. (21 April, 1998), it was noted that “the expressions ‘relevancy and admissibility’ are often used as synonyms but their legal implications are distinct and different.” This case highlights that relevant facts might not always be admissible, and admissible facts might not always be relevant.

Explanation:

• Relevancy: Relevancy is determined based on logic and probability and is described in Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act. It determines what facts are pertinent to the issues at hand.
• Admissibility: Admissibility, on the other hand, is a stricter concept based on specific legal rules beyond mere logical relevance. It is governed by provisions that come after Section 55 and is determined by the judge as per Section 136.

Example:

• Relevancy: Privileged communications between a husband and wife or between a client and advocate are relevant to a case but may not be admissible in court due to legal protections under Sections 122 and 126.
• Admissibility: Questions allowed in cross-examination to test the veracity of a witness (Section 146) or to impeach the credit of a witness (Section 155) may be admissible even if they are not directly relevant to the main issues of the case.

Conclusion:

Relevancy and admissibility are fundamental concepts in evidence law, each serving different purposes. Relevancy is based on the logical connection to the issues in a case, while admissibility is governed by strict legal rules. The judge plays a crucial role in determining the admissibility of evidence to ensure that only permissible and relevant facts are considered in legal proceedings.

Question: What are the different kinds of relevancy in the context of evidence law, and how do they differ?

Answer:

Introduction

Relevancy in the context of evidence law can be classified into two main types: Logical Relevancy and Legal Relevancy. Understanding the distinctions between these two types is crucial for applying the principles of evidence in legal proceedings effectively.

Kinds of Relevancy

Relevancy is fundamentally based on logic and probability. However, not all logically relevant facts are admissible in court. The law recognizes and permits only certain relevant facts to be presented as evidence. Here are the two kinds of relevancy:

1. Logical Relevancy
2. Legal Relevancy

Comparison Between Logical Relevancy and Legal Relevancy

Similarity:
- Both logical relevancy and legal relevancy are based on logic and probability.

Genus and Species:
- Logical relevancy is the genus (broader category).
- Legal relevancy is the species (specific subset).

Place in Law:
- Logical relevancy:
 • Has no specific place in law.
- Legal relevancy:
 • Covered by Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Inclusiveness:
- Logical relevancy:
 • Not all logically relevant facts are necessarily legally relevant.
- Legal relevancy:
 • All legally relevant facts are also logically relevant.

Scope:
- Logical relevancy:
 • Broader concept based on general reasoning.
- Legal relevancy:
 • Narrower concept defined by legal statutes and precedents.

Application in Court:
- Logical relevancy:
 • May not always be sufficient for admissibility in court.
- Legal relevancy:
 • Generally accepted as admissible evidence in court proceedings.

Determination:
- Logical relevancy:
 • Often determined by common sense and general reasoning.
- Legal relevancy:
 • Determined by specific legal criteria and judicial interpretation.

Flexibility:
- Logical relevancy:
 • More flexible and can evolve with changing societal norms.
- Legal relevancy:
 • More rigid, bound by legal definitions and precedents.

Examples Illustrating the Difference

Example (i):

• Logical Relevancy: A statement made by Shyam to the police, “I have kept in the field the knife with which I killed Ram,” is logically relevant in its entirety because it connects Shyam to the crime.
• Legal Relevancy: According to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the part “I have kept in the field the knife” is legally relevant and admissible, while “I killed Ram” is not admissible.

Example (ii):

• Logical Relevancy: A confession made to the police is logically relevant as it might be true and voluntary.
• Legal Relevancy: Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, such a confession is not legally relevant and is inadmissible in court.

Conclusion

Understanding the distinction between logical relevancy and legal relevancy is vital in the legal context. While logical relevancy encompasses any fact that logically connects to the issue, legal relevancy is restricted to those facts that the law explicitly deems admissible. This distinction ensures that only pertinent and permissible evidence is considered in legal proceedings, maintaining the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.

Question: What is the concept of Res Gestae in the context of the Indian Evidence Act, and how is it applied under Section 6?

Answer:

Introduction

The concept of Res Gestae plays a crucial role in the realm of evidence law. It refers to the idea that certain statements or facts are so closely related to a particular event or transaction that they form part of the same occurrence and are thus admissible as evidence, even if they are hearsay.

Section 6 — Relevancy of Facts Forming Part of Same Transaction

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act states:

“Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.”

Illustrations:

1. Beating: A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A, B, or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
2. Waging War: A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection. The occurrences of property destruction, troop attacks, and jail breaks are relevant as they form part of the general transaction.
3. Defamation: A sues B for a libel contained in a letter. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose are relevant, even if they do not contain the libel itself.
4. Delivery of Goods: The question is whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. Each delivery to intermediate persons is a relevant fact.

Meaning of Res Gestae

Res Gestae is a Latin phrase that translates to “things done.” In the legal context, it refers to “things said and done in the course of a transaction.”

Statutory Provisions

The term “Res Gestae” itself is not used in the Indian Evidence Act due to its controversial nature. However, Section 6 is recognized as encapsulating this principle. The Supreme Court in Bhairon Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) observed that a fact so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” becomes relevant by itself, provided the utterances are simultaneous with or substantially contemporaneous with the incident.

Res Gestae as an Exception to Hearsay Evidence

Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. However, Res Gestae serves as an exception. In Sukhar vs. State of U.P. (1999), the Supreme Court stated that Section 6 allows hearsay evidence to be admissible when it forms part of the same transaction.

Conditions for Application of Section 6

For hearsay evidence to be admissible under Section 6, it must meet two conditions as established in Sukhar v. State of U.P. (1999):

1. The evidence must be almost contemporaneous with the acts.
2. There should not be an interval that would allow for fabrication.

The test for applying the rule of Res Gestae, as noted in Javed Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. (2009), is that the statement should be spontaneous and form part of the same transaction, excluding any possibility of concoction.

Whose Statement is Relevant Under Section 6

Statements related to the following individuals are relevant if they form part of the same transaction:

• Accused
• Victim
• Third person (e.g., bystanders)

Conclusion

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, embodying the principle of Res Gestae, allows certain facts and statements closely linked to an event to be admitted as evidence, even if they are hearsay. This section ensures that the entirety of a transaction is considered, providing a more comprehensive view of the circumstances surrounding the fact in issue.

Question: What is the scope and significance of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly concerning the timing of the relevant facts?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act introduces the concept of Res Gestae, allowing certain facts that form part of the same transaction to be admitted as evidence. This principle is vital in ensuring that the context and surrounding circumstances of an event are fully considered, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the incident in question.

Section 6 — Relevancy of Facts Forming Part of Same Transaction

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act states:

“Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.”

Illustration (a):

A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by:

• A (Accused)
• B (Victim)
• By-standers (Third Party)

at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

Timing Consideration in Section 6

The timing of when the relevant facts occurred is crucial under Section 6. The facts must be so closely connected to the main event that they form part of the same transaction. This can include actions or statements made:

• At the Time of the Incident: Anything said or done by the accused, victim, or bystanders during the actual event is directly relevant.
• Shortly Before the Incident: Any actions or statements made just before the incident that can be seen as leading up to it or forming part of the build-up are considered relevant.
• Shortly After the Incident: Actions or statements made immediately following the incident can also be relevant if they are seen as part of the reaction to or aftermath of the event.

Significance of Section 6

Section 6 helps to capture the complete context of an incident by including facts that, while not in issue themselves, provide a fuller picture of the main fact in issue. This broader view is essential for a fair and comprehensive assessment of the case.

Conclusion

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act ensures that the context surrounding a fact in issue is fully considered by admitting facts that form part of the same transaction. This includes actions or statements made by the accused, victim, or third parties at the time of the incident or shortly before or after it. By capturing the entirety of the transaction, Section 6 allows for a more thorough and just evaluation of the evidence.

Question: What are the significant English and Indian case laws that illustrate the application of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, dealing with Res Gestae, permits the inclusion of certain facts as evidence that form part of the same transaction as the fact in issue. This section helps in understanding the entire context of the incident by including statements and actions that are contemporaneous with the main event.

English Case Law

Thompson v. Trevanion (1695)

In this case, Chief Justice Holt stated, “What the wife said immediately upon hurt being received and before that she had time to devise or contrive anything for her own advantage, might be given in evidence.”

Regina v. Bedingfield (1879)

A woman, with her throat cut, emerged from a room where she had been injured and shortly before she died, said: “Oh dear Aunt, see what Bedingfield has done to me.” Chief Justice Cockburn ruled this statement inadmissible, stating it was made after the completion of all acts. This judgment was heavily criticized for its narrow interpretation.

Rattan v. The Queen (1971)

A few minutes before being shot dead, a woman made a hysterical phone call to the operator, asking for the police and giving her address before the call abruptly ended. Lord Wilberforce held that the phone call and the words spoken were parts of the same transaction, as the statement was made under the overwhelming pressure of contemporary events. The husband’s argument that the shooting was accidental was rejected.

Indian Case Law

R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1972)

Justice Ajit Nath Ray stated, “A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae.”

Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974)

The appellant and his family were involved in the murder of Chanda Devi. Immediately after taking her inside a room, cries of “Bachao” were heard, followed by silence. The Supreme Court accepted the cries as part of the same transaction.

Shayam Nandan Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar (1991)

In this case, the deceased Surji Devi was attacked, and her mother witnessed the event. The mother narrated the occurrence to the police and others immediately after the event. The Supreme Court held that the FIR lodged based on the mother’s narration was part of the same transaction and thus relevant under Section 6.

Conclusion

The application of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act is well illustrated by both English and Indian case laws. These cases highlight the importance of considering the timing and context of statements and actions related to the main event. Section 6 ensures that the surrounding circumstances of an incident are included to provide a complete understanding of the event, reinforcing the principle of Res Gestae in legal proceedings.

Question: What does Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act state, and how does it relate to the relevancy of facts in legal cases?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of facts that constitute the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue. It helps in understanding the circumstances surrounding the fact in issue by considering facts that are connected to it either as its cause, effect, or an opportunity for its occurrence.

Section 7: Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue

Section 7 states: “Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.”

Illustrations

1. Robbery

• Fact in Issue: Whether A robbed B.
• Relevant Facts: The facts that shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it or mentioned having it to third persons.

2. Murder

• Fact in Issue: Whether A murdered B.
• Relevant Facts: Marks on the ground produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed.

3. Administration of Poison

• Fact in Issue: Whether A poisoned B.
• Relevant Facts: The state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison.

Relevancy of Facts in Various Contexts under Section 7

1. Occasion

• Facts that provide the occasion for the fact in issue are relevant. For example, if a robbery occurred at a fair, the fact that the victim had money and showed it around at the fair becomes relevant as it provided the occasion for the robbery.

2. Cause

• Facts that cause the fact in issue are relevant. For instance, in a murder case, any animosity or motive that could have led to the murder is considered relevant.

3. Effect

• Immediate or otherwise, effects of the fact in issue are relevant. For example, marks of a struggle at the crime scene in a murder case indicate a fight and are relevant to the investigation.

4. State of Things

• The surrounding circumstances under which the facts in issue occurred are relevant. For example, the general state of the place where the crime occurred or the usual behavior of the individuals involved.

5. Opportunity

• Any facts that afforded an opportunity for the occurrence of the fact in issue are relevant. For instance, in a poisoning case, the fact that the accused knew about the victim’s habit of drinking a specific beverage can be relevant if poison was administered through that beverage.

Case Example

Question:

State the provisions of law and give reasons as to the relevancy of the facts: In charge of murder by the domestic help of an elderly couple, evidence is given by the prosecution that they received money sent by their son from the USA on the same day.

Answer:

The problem in this question is based on Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act.

• Opportunity: The elderly couple receiving money sent by their son from the USA on the same day could provide the domestic help an opportunity to commit the murder to rob them.
• Cause: The cause for the murder could be the motive to rob the money sent from the USA.

Conclusion

Section 7 broadens the scope of relevant evidence by including facts that constitute the occasion, cause, or effect of the fact in issue. It allows the court to consider the surrounding circumstances to have a comprehensive understanding of the case.

Question: What does Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act state, and how does it relate to the relevancy of facts in legal cases?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the relevancy of facts that show or constitute a motive, preparation, or previous or subsequent conduct of any party involved in a suit or proceeding. It also explains how such facts are connected to the facts in issue or relevant facts in a case.

Section 8: Motive, Preparation, and Previous or Subsequent Conduct

Section 8 states: “Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue 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 issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.”

Explanation 1: The word “conduct” in this Section does not include statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation does not affect the relevancy of statements under any other Section of this Act.

Explanation 2: 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.

Key Elements of Section 8

1. Motive

• Criminal Law: The reason behind committing an offence. For example, if a person is accused of murder, evidence showing they had a motive to kill the victim (e.g., financial gain, revenge) is relevant.
• Civil Law: The underlying reason for an action related to the case. For example, in a contract dispute, the motive for entering into the contract can be relevant.

2. Preparation

• Criminal Cases: Actions taken by the accused to prepare for committing the offence. For example, buying poison before a poisoning incident.
• Civil Cases: Steps taken to prepare for an event that led to a dispute. For example, preparing documents before entering into a contract.

3. Previous or Subsequent Conduct

• Illustration (a): A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact that before B’s death, A procured poison similar to that administered to B is relevant.
• Illustration (b): The question is whether a certain document is the will of A. The facts that A made inquiries related to the will, consulted lawyers, and prepared drafts are relevant.
• Illustration (c): A is accused of a crime. The facts that A destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented witnesses from being present, are relevant.
• Illustration (d): The question is whether A robbed B. The fact that A ran away when C mentioned the police coming is relevant.
• Illustration (e): The question is whether A owes B money. The fact that A asked C for money and D advised against it, with A remaining silent, is relevant.
• Illustration (f): The question is whether A committed a crime. The fact that A absconded after receiving a warning letter is relevant.
• Illustration (g): The question is whether A committed a crime. The facts that A absconded, possessed proceeds of the crime, or attempted to conceal things used in the crime are relevant.
• Illustration (h): The question is whether A was ravished. The facts that shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint, and the circumstances of the complaint are relevant.
• Illustration (i): The question is whether A was robbed. The fact that shortly after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint is relevant.

Difference between Statement and Complaint

• Statement: Relevant when it accompanies and explains conduct.
• Complaint: Can be relevant under Section 8 if it is made shortly after an incident and explains the conduct.

Conclusion

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act expands the scope of relevant evidence by including facts related to the motive, preparation, and conduct of the parties involved. These elements help in establishing the context and circumstances surrounding the facts in issue, thereby aiding in the comprehensive adjudication of legal cases.

Question: What does Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act cover, and how does it relate to the explanation or introduction of relevant facts in legal cases?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with facts that are necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts or facts in issue. This section helps in clarifying and establishing the context of the facts involved in a case, thereby aiding in the proper understanding and interpretation of the evidence presented.

Section 9: Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts

Section 9 states: “Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.”

Key Elements of Section 9

1. Necessary to Explain or Introduce

• Facts that provide clarity or context to the facts in issue or relevant facts are considered relevant. This includes facts that help introduce the main facts or explain their background.

2. Support or Rebut an Inference

• Facts that either support or contradict an inference drawn from a fact in issue or relevant fact are relevant. These facts help in either substantiating or challenging the conclusions derived from the evidence.

3. Establish Identity

• Facts that establish the identity of any person or thing whose identity is relevant to the case are considered necessary. This is crucial in cases where identifying the involved parties or objects is essential for the proceedings.

4. Fix Time or Place

• Facts that determine the time or place of the occurrence of any fact in issue or relevant fact are relevant. This helps in setting the chronological and geographical context of the events in question.

5. Show Relation of Parties

• Facts that demonstrate the relationship between the parties involved in the transaction of the fact in issue or relevant fact are relevant. Understanding these relationships can provide insights into the motivations and actions of the parties.

Illustrations of Section 9

• Illustration (a): The question is whether a given document is the will of A. The state of A’s property and family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.
• Illustration (b): A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.
• Illustration (c): A is accused of a crime. The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant under Section 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue. The fact that, at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly. The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.
• Illustration (d): A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A. C, on leaving A’s service, says to A — “I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer.” This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C’s conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.
• Illustration (e): A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A’s wife. B says as he delivers it — “A says you are to hide this.” B’s statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.
• Illustration (f): A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.

Conclusion

Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act plays a vital role in the legal process by allowing the inclusion of facts necessary to explain, introduce, or establish the context of relevant facts or facts in issue. This section ensures that all pertinent information that can aid in the understanding and interpretation of evidence is considered, thereby facilitating a more comprehensive and accurate adjudication of legal cases.

Question: What is the legal significance of Test Identification Parades (TIPs) in the Indian judicial system, and how has the Supreme Court of India interpreted their role in criminal investigations and trials?

Answer:

Introduction

Test Identification Parades (TIPs) play a crucial role in the Indian criminal justice system. They are conducted to ascertain whether a witness can correctly identify the accused as the perpetrator of a crime. While TIPs are an essential part of the investigative process, their evidentiary value has been the subject of significant judicial scrutiny.

Legal Significance of TIPs

1. Non-Substantive Evidence The Supreme Court has consistently held that TIPs do not constitute substantive evidence. Instead, they serve as an investigative tool to provide assurance that the investigation is proceeding correctly.

• Matru Alias Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971) The Supreme Court observed, “Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. Such tests are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on right lines.”

2. Corroborative Purpose The primary use of TIPs is to corroborate statements made in court. The identification during the parade can bolster the credibility of the witness’s testimony during the trial.

• Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Anr. (1973) The Court stated that the identification in TIPs can only be used as corroborative evidence of the statement made in court.

3. Judicial Conduct of TIPs The procedure of TIPs involves conducting the parade in a manner that minimizes the risk of wrongful identification. This is typically overseen by a judicial magistrate to ensure fairness.

• Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar (1996) In this case, a TIP conducted by a judicial magistrate was pivotal in the conviction of the accused. Although the victim later retracted identification out of fear, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of TIPs in the investigative process but did not clearly declare them as substantive evidence.

4. Investigation Tool The TIPs are meant to help both the witnesses and the investigating authorities in identifying the accused correctly.

• Mulla & Another v. State Of U.P. (2010) The Supreme Court elaborated on the two-fold purpose of TIPs: enabling witnesses to confirm their suspicions and helping investigating authorities validate the suspect’s involvement in the crime.

5. Principles of TIPs The Court laid down essential principles regarding the conduct of TIPs:

• They should be conducted as soon as possible to avoid mistakes.
• Any delay must be justified.
• Authorities must ensure that the delay does not lead to the exposure of the accused, which could result in identification errors.

6. No Right to TIPs There is no statutory obligation on the investigating agency to conduct TIPs, nor does the accused have a right to demand one.

• Raju Majhi v. State of Bihar (2018) Justice N.V. Ramana observed that TIPs are primarily for the investigation stage and are governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Failure to conduct a TIP does not invalidate the prosecution case, and the weight of such evidence is left to the discretion of the court.

Conclusion

Test Identification Parades, while not constituting substantive evidence, are vital in the investigation of crimes. They help corroborate the statements made by witnesses and guide the investigation process. The Supreme Court of India has clarified that TIPs are not mandatory, and their primary purpose is to aid the investigation rather than to serve as standalone evidence in court. The courts retain the discretion to determine the weight and relevance of TIPs during the trial, ensuring that the identification process remains fair and just.

Question: How does Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act address the relevance of facts not otherwise relevant, and what are its principles and applications?

Answer:

Introduction

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with facts that are not directly relevant but can become relevant under certain circumstances. This section helps in determining the admissibility of facts that, while not directly addressing the facts in issue, can affect the likelihood or improbability of those facts.

Principles Under Section 11

1. Principle of Inconsistency (Section 11(1)) Facts that are inconsistent with a fact in issue or a relevant fact are considered relevant under this principle. This principle helps in establishing whether the facts presented are contradictory to the central issue or support an alternate perspective.

2. Principle of Probability (Section 11(2)) Facts that make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue highly probable or improbable are relevant. This principle is used to assess whether certain facts make the occurrence or non-occurrence of the central fact more or less likely.

Illustrations

Illustration (a)

• Scenario: The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.
• Fact: If A was at Lahore on that day, this fact is relevant. The geographical distance makes it highly improbable, though not impossible, that A committed the crime in Calcutta.
• Principle of Inconsistency: The alibi that A was in Lahore is inconsistent with the fact that A committed the crime in Calcutta.
• Principle of Probability: The distance between Lahore and Calcutta makes it highly improbable that A committed the crime.

Illustration (b)

• Scenario: The question is whether A committed a crime, with the suspects being A, B, C, or D.
• Fact: Any fact showing that the crime could not have been committed by B, C, or D is relevant. This helps in making the existence of A’s involvement more probable.
• Principle of Probability: Facts proving the exclusion of other suspects increase the probability of A’s involvement.

Applications

1. Alibi The plea of alibi, which asserts that the accused was elsewhere when the crime was committed, is a common application of Section 11(1). It is used to disprove the involvement of the accused based on their absence from the crime scene.

• Dudh Nath Pandey v. The State of U.P. (1981) The Supreme Court held that an alibi is a defense that is considered under Section 11, as it is inconsistent with the prosecution’s claim.
• Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002) The Court reiterated that the plea of alibi should be proven to the satisfaction of the court and is relevant under Section 11 when it conflicts with the prosecution’s evidence.

2. Absence of Husband (Non-access — Section 112) If a woman claims that her husband did not have access to her during the time of conception, this fact is relevant under Section 11(1) to prove or disprove paternity.

3. Survival of Deceased Facts showing the survival of the deceased, contrary to claims of death, are relevant as they challenge the factual basis of death.

4. Self-infliction of Harm Facts demonstrating that harm was self-inflicted rather than inflicted by another party are relevant as they contradict claims of external aggression.

Conclusion

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the admissibility of facts that are not directly relevant but can influence the outcome of a case by demonstrating inconsistencies or affecting probabilities. The principles of inconsistency and probability guide the use of such facts to either support or refute the central facts in issue. The application of these principles is crucial in evaluating evidence and ensuring a fair and just determination of cases.

Question: How have the Indian courts interpreted and applied the plea of alibi under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, with reference to notable cases?

Answer:

Introduction

The plea of alibi is a defense strategy used by an accused to prove that they were elsewhere when the alleged crime occurred. This plea is significant under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with facts that are not otherwise relevant but become relevant due to their inconsistency with the facts in issue. Various judicial decisions have interpreted and applied the plea of alibi to establish its role and impact in criminal proceedings.

Case Analysis

1. Dudh Nath Pandey v. The State of U.P. (1981)

• Facts: The Supreme Court observed that the plea of alibi requires demonstrating the physical impossibility of the accused being at the crime scene due to their presence at another location. For the plea to succeed, it must be shown that the accused was at such a distance from the crime scene that their presence there was physically impossible.
• Ratio: The Court emphasized that the alibi plea is valid only if it conclusively proves that the accused could not have been present at the scene of the crime due to their location being too far away.

2. Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002)

• Facts: In this case, the accused, Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai, claimed he was in Ahmedabad attending an official hearing and could not have participated in the crime in Singpur. The prosecution had to prove that the accused’s presence at the crime scene was improbable given the evidence provided.
• Ratio: The Supreme Court highlighted that the plea of alibi is a rule of evidence under Section 11 and is not an exception in penal law. The burden of proof lies on the accused to establish the alibi convincingly. The Court held that once the prosecution’s burden is satisfied, the accused must prove their alibi beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence creates reasonable doubt about the accused’s presence at the crime scene, the prosecution fails.

3. Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2017)

• Facts: The Delhi Gang Rape Case involved a plea of alibi among other issues. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles regarding the plea of alibi, referencing earlier judgments to underline the burden of proof on the accused.
• Ratio: The Court reiterated that the plea of alibi is not a statutory exception but a rule of evidence. It affirmed that while the prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must prove their alibi with certainty once the prosecution has discharged its burden. The plea must exclude the possibility of the accused’s presence at the scene, and the burden of proof lies heavily on the accused.

Commentary on Section 11 and Alibi

Principle of Inconsistency

• The plea of alibi demonstrates inconsistency with the prosecution’s claim that the accused was at the crime scene.

Principle of Probability

• The evidence provided to support an alibi must make it highly improbable that the accused was at the crime scene.

Burden of Proof

• Under Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof for the alibi lies on the accused. They must prove their alibi convincingly if the prosecution has already established the accused’s involvement in the crime.

Conclusion

The plea of alibi, while crucial in proving the innocence of the accused, requires a high standard of proof. The Indian judiciary has consistently upheld that the accused must prove their alibi convincingly, while the prosecution must first establish the accused’s presence at the crime scene. The decisions in cases such as Dudh Nath Pandey v. The State of U.P., Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat, and Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. illustrate the application and interpretation of this plea, highlighting its role as a rule of evidence rather than an exception in law.

Question: What are the key takeaways from the case of Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat regarding the plea of alibi under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Answer:

Introduction

The case of Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002) is a leading example in the interpretation of the plea of alibi under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case provides significant insights into the application of the plea of alibi and its implications for both the prosecution and the defense.

Case Background

• Facts: On July 6, 1989, Singha Magan, the first accused, went to the house of Lalji Rajia and had a confrontation with his family. Later that evening, he returned with other accused individuals, leading to the death of Lalubhai Naranbhai. Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai, accused №9, was among those charged with various offenses.
• Defense: Jayantibhai claimed that he was in Ahmedabad on the day of the incident for an election appeal hearing and provided evidence of his presence, including a certificate from the Additional Development Commissioner. He also argued that travel times would have made it physically impossible for him to return to Singpur in time for the incident.

Judgment and Ratio

1. Nature of the Plea of Alibi

• Origin and Meaning: The term “alibi” is derived from Latin, meaning “elsewhere.” It refers to a defense strategy where the accused claims to have been at a different location from the crime scene at the time of the offense.
• Provision: The plea of alibi is reflected in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that facts inconsistent with the facts in issue are relevant. The plea is used to argue that the accused was at such a distance from the crime scene that participation in the crime was improbable.

2. Legal Standing of Alibi

• Not an Exception: The plea of alibi is not considered an exception under the Indian Penal Code or any other law but is a rule of evidence. It challenges the prosecution’s claim by demonstrating that the accused could not have been at the crime scene.
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proving the commission of the offense remains with the prosecution, regardless of the accused’s alibi defense. The prosecution must establish the accused’s presence at the crime scene beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Consideration of Alibi Evidence

• Timing of Consideration: The plea of alibi is considered only after the prosecution has satisfactorily discharged its burden of proof. If the prosecution fails to prove the accused’s guilt, it may not be necessary to consider the alibi. However, if the prosecution succeeds, the accused must prove the alibi with certainty to exclude the possibility of their presence at the crime scene.
• Quality of Evidence: The court weighs the prosecution’s evidence against the alibi. If the alibi creates reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s presence, it affects the evaluation of the prosecution’s case. The burden on the accused is substantial, and the evidence must be of high quality to create a reasonable doubt.

4. Application of Section 103

• Burden of Proof: Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act specifies that the burden of proof for any particular fact lies with the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. In the context of alibi, the accused must prove their presence elsewhere if they wish the court to accept their defense.

Conclusion

In Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court upheld the plea of alibi based on the evidence provided by the accused. The Court found that Jayantibhai’s alibi created a reasonable doubt about his participation in the crime, given the evidence that he could not have returned to the crime scene in time. The case highlights that while the plea of alibi is a rule of evidence and not an exception in law, it plays a critical role in challenging the prosecution’s evidence. The accused must prove their alibi convincingly once the prosecution has established its case.