HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

ANCIENT INDIA-HINDU PERIOD

• That in ancient India i.e. Hindu Period Sasita was the

court which the king presided.
• It was the highest court in any kingdom in ancient
India. It was situated in the royal palace at the capital
city.
• The King (Rajah), the Chief Justice (Pradvivaka) and
the Judges (Sabhyas) were the judicial officers of the
court. The King was invested with the power of
passing final decrees.
• The Chief Justice had to give his final opinion in the
cases, and the duty of the judges was to investigate
the merits of each case.
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
MEDIEVAL INDIA (MUSLIM PERIOD)

• The conception of ‘justice’ in Islam is that the

administration of justice is a divine disposition. The
judges were appointed by the ruler.
• During the trial all the substantive and procedural
laws were interpreted according to the tenets of
Quran, Sunna, Ijmaa and Qiyas. Holy Quran enjoins
truthfulness.
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
BRITISH INDIA
• In British India, the presidency courts by virtue of a
royal charter established in Bombay, Madras and
Calcutta were following English rules of the law of
evidence.
• In Mofussil courts, outside the presidency towns, there
were no definite rules relating to the law of evidence.
• There was a dire necessity for the codification of the
rules of law.
• In the year 1870, task of codification of law of
evidence was entrusted to Sir James Fitz James
Stephen. And at last, “The evidence Act ” came in to
force on 1st September, 1872.
 TYPES OF LAWS

The entire corpus juris (body of laws) is broadly

classified into two categories:

• SUBSTANTIVE LAWS: The Laws which

defines rights, duties and Liabilities are
called Substantive law. For example Indian Penal
Code.
• PROCEDURAL LAWS: The laws which
prescribes the mode or procedure by which
application of substantive law is regulated are called
procedural law
• The law of evidence doesn’t come under the
purview of substantive or procedural law, but under
‘adjective law’, which defines the pleading and
procedure via which substantive laws are brought
into practice. It is the machinery by which
substantive laws are set and kept in motion. So it
can be said that the law of evidence deals with
rights, as well as, procedures.

STRUCTURE OF IEA, 1872

• The whole act comprises of total 167 section and 11
Chapters.
 PURPOSE OR SIGNIFICANCE OF
EVIDENCE LAW
• In both criminal and civil proceedings, the law of
evidence has a number of purposes. In short, the law
of evidence regulates the process of proof.
• The rule of civil and criminal evidence, in conjunction
with the rules of procedure, establish the frame work
for the process of proof and the conduct of litigation,
so that a lawyer advising his client or preparing his
case for trial or presenting it to the court or tribunal
will know what issues his client must prove in order
to succeed.
 EXTENT AND APPLICATION [SEC 1]

APPLICABLE TO: All judicial proceedings in or

before any Court, including Courts-martial.
NOT APPLICABLE TO –
i. Proceedings under The Army Act, The Naval
Discipline Act, 1934 and the Air Force Act passed
by the British Parliament.
ii. Arbitration proceedings
iii. Affidavits
iv. Departmental Inquiries/Domestic
Inquiries/Commissions of Inquiries /
Administrative Tribunals.
 SCHEME OF IEA
WHOLE EVIDENCE ACT CAN BE DIVIDED INTO
THREE BROAD CATEGORIES,

• Part-I answers the question ‘what facts may or may

not be proved? (s-1 to 55)

• Part-II deals with ‘what sort of evidence is to be

given of these facts?’ (s-56 to100)

• Part-III covers ‘by whom and in what manner the

facts are to be proved?’ (s-101 to 167)

 MEANING OF EVIDENCE
The word evidence is derived from the Latin word
‘evidens’ or ‘evidere’, which means –
•to show clearly;
•to make clear to the sight;
•to discover clearly;
•to make plainly certain;
•to ascertain;
•to prove.
According to Benthem, evidence is as any matter of fact,
the effect, tendency or design of which is to produced in
the mind a persuasion, affirmative or negative, of the
existence of some other matter of fact.
 DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE
SECTION 3
According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence
Act,1872 evidence means and includes oral and
documentary evidence.

ORAL EVIDENCE refers to all the statements

which the court permits to be made before it by the
witness and such evidence should be related to the
matter of fact under enquiry.

DOCUMENTARY OR WRITTEN EVIDENCE

refers to all the documents presented before the
court for the inspection.
 TYPES OF EVIDENCE
ORAL EVIDENCE
• Best and oral evidence under sec.60 of the Act
requires that person who has actually perceived
something by that sense by which it is capable of
perception, should make the statement about it and no
one else.
REAL EVIDENCE
• It is covered under second proviso to Sec 60 –
“Provided also that, If oral evidence refers to the
existence or condition of any material things other
than a document, the court may, if it thinks fit, require
the production of such material thing for its
inspection.” For e.g. weapons.
 DIRECT EVIDENCE

ORAL EVIDENCE
INDIRECT/HEARSAY 
EVIDENCE
 DIRECT EVIDENCE

• Direct evidence is referred to sometimes as original.

A is charged with the murder of B by stabbing him.
C,D.E,F,G and H are witnesses. At the trial a
witness C says he saw A stab B. D says he heard B
cry out that A was stabbing him. E says that A saw
running with blood stained knife. F says he saw A
washing blood stained clothes. G, who is doctor
says that the knife found in A’s possession might be
caused the wound. H says he heard from C’s
evidence is direct evidence.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE
• Hearsay evidence is not admissible in evidence.
• The reasons why hearsay evidence is not received as
relevant evidence are:
(a) the person giving such evidence does not feel any
responsibility. He can always escape by saying
“I do not know, but so and so told me.”
(b) Truth is diluted and diminished with each
repetition: and ,
(c ) if permitted, gives ample scope for playing fraud.
It would be attaching importance to a false rumour
flying from one foul lip to another.
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

• Ordinarily, circumstantial evidence cannot be

regarded as satisfactory as direct evidence.
• The circumstances may lead to particular inferences
and the relationship to true facts may be more
apparent than real.
• The value of circumstantial evidence has to be
assessed on the consideration that it must be such as
not to admit of more than one solution, and that it
must be inconsistent with every proposition or
explanation that is not true.
CASE LAW :HANUMANT V. THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH AIR 1952 SC 343

• RATIO DECIDENDI: It was stated that while

dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always
a possibility that suspicion might take the place of
legal proof. In cases where the evidence is
circumstantial in nature then such evidence should
be completely established and should be consistent
with the theory of the guilt of the accused.
• Thus, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the
appellants as the evidence produced were
insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIRECT AND
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
BASIS DIRECT EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE

It requires a judge or jury to

ESTABLISHMENT It establishes a fact
establish a fact indirectly via
OF FACT directly.
judgment or inference.

ABSOLUTE It is absolute evidence. It is not absolute evidence.

It has more probative

It has less probative value
PROBATIVE VALUE value than
than direct evidence.
circumstantial evidence.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
• Documentary evidence is defined in the Act as: All
documents produced for the inspection of the court.
The purpose of producing document, is to rely upon
the truth of the statement contained therein .This
involves, When the document produced in the court,
the examination of three questions:
• (i) is the document genuine,
• (ii) what are its contents, and
• (iii) are the statement in the document true?

• Documents are divided into two categories, public

and private.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORAL AND
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
ORAL DOCUMENTARY
BASIS
EVIDENCE EVIDENCE
STATUS UNDER Section
Section
INDIAN 59 and 60 of the Act
61 to 66 deals with
EVIDENCE ACT, deals with such
such evidence.
1872 evidence.
It refers to the It refers to the
statement given by documents
TYPE
the witnesses in a presented in a court
court of law. of law.
It is a statement It is a statement
STATEMENT submitted in oral submitted via
form. documents.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORAL AND
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
If it is not
If a statement
supported by
contradicts the
primary or
RELEVANT previous statement
secondary evidence
it is considered to
it is considered to
be doubtful.
be doubtful.
It can be presented
It can be presented
in the form of
in the form of
words, signs,
MEANS speech, voice or
figures, letters, and
symbols for its
remarks for its
recording.
recording.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE:
• There is an original document; a photograph is taken
and a manuscript is made from the photograph, and
compare either with the original or photograph.

• The original is primary evidence. The photograph and

copy is secondary evidence coming under Sec 63(2).

• That requires that the first copy should have been

made by a mechanical process ensuring the accuracy
of the copy.
• Section 65 specifies in what cases secondary
evidence will be received.
• Example- when a original is shown or appear to be
in possession or power- of the person against whom
the document is sought to be proved, or of any
person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process
of the court, or of any person legally bound to
produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in
sec 66, such person does not produce it.
• When the original document is lost or destroyed
then secondary evidence of the contents of the
document is admissible
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
PRIMARY SECONDARY
BASIS
EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

STATUS UNDER Section 62 of the Act Section 63 of the Act

INDIAN EVIDENCE defines primary defines secondary
ACT, 1872 evidence. evidence.

It is an original
document that is
It is not an original
ORIGINALITY presented before the
document.
court of law for
inspection.

It is not the main source

It is the main source of
SOURCE of evidence but an
evidence.
alternative source.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EVIDENCE

It is not the best

It is the topmost evidence and is used
evidence. Thus, it is a under exceptional
GENERAL RULE
general rule to present circumstances. Thus, it
such evidence. is not a general rule to
present such evidence.

Notice is not required

Notice is required to
NOTICE to present such
present such evidence.
evidence.

It is admissible only in
ADMISSIBILITY It is itself admissible. the absence of primary
evidence.
 ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

• Originally, digital or electronic type of evidence

was not mentioned or covered under the definition
of evidence. However, the definition of evidence
was amended by the Information Technology Act,
2000 to include ‘electronic records’ within the
same. An electronic record includes record
generated, data generated, the image stored, sound
stored, or any information received or sent in an
electronic form.
• Such evidence must be collected with a reasonable
and least objectionable means.
 FACT- MEANING
FACT means and includes
• Any thing, state of things or relation of things
capable of being perceived by the senses called as
Physical Facts.
• Any mental condition of which any person is
conscious called as Psychological facts

• ILLUSTRATIONS :
a) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
b) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
 FACT

PHYSICAL FACT PSYCHOLOGICAL FACT

WHICH IS CAPABLE OF
OF WHICH ANY PERSON
BEING PERCIEVED BY
IS CONSCIOUS
SENSES
 FACTS IN ISSUE (SECTION.3) :
•The expression “facts in issue” means and includes —
any fact from which, either by itself or in connection
with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature, or
extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or
denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.
•'Fact in issue' are those facts, which are alleged by one
party and denied by other party in the pleading in a
civil case or alleged by the prosecution and denied by
the accused in a criminal case.
•Generally fact in issue is those facts , which are
under consideration of the court and in which the
court has to give its adjudication
• EXAMPLE - A is accused of murdering B. At trial,
the following facts may be in issue:
• That A caused B's Death. ( It refers to the question,
whether A has caused the death of B. If the answer is
'No', A is discharged/ acquitted. If the answer is 'Yes'
the following questions will arise)

• That A is intended to cause B's Death. (If A caused

B's death, the next question arises is, whether A had
an intention to B's death or, not. If the
intention(Mens Rea/Mental element) is present, it is
murder or culpable homicide and A is awarded
serious punishment i.e. death or life imprisonment.
Otherwise (if intention/mens rea is absent) it amounts
to an accident, which is a defense Under Section 80
I.P.C. If the accident is by negligence, the
punishment is up to two years imprisonment or fine
or both)
• That A had received grave and sudden
provocation from B (It refer to the question,
whether B is instrumental/responsible for such a
grave and sudden provocation by A, accuating to
cause B's death.)
• That at the time of committing the act, whether A
was incapable of knowing the nature and extent
of the consequences (of his act) by reason of
unsoundness.
• In short, the questions, which give rise to a right
or liability are called Fact in Issue.
• The fact in issue is also known by its Latin
name 'Factum Probandum' or that which is
to be proved.
 “FACTUM PROBANDUM AND
“FACTUM PROBANS

All litigations, whether civil or criminal, involve the

relationship between these two concepts.

A. FACTUM PROBANDUM refers to the ultimate

fact to be proved, or the proposition to be established.

EXAMPLE: guilt or innocence; existence of a breach

of contract; existence of an obligation; the fact of
payment; the injury or damage incurred.
• B). FACTUM PROBANS refers to the evidentiary
facts by which the factum probandum will be proved.

• EXAMPLES: the written contract; the promissory

note to prove the existence of an unpaid debt.
 RELEVANT
• 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.

ILLUSTRATION-
• A is accused of Murder of B in Agra (Fact)
• A was in Canada for his business meetings at the time
of the murder (Relevant fact)
• There are two kinds of relevancy –
(I) LOGICAL RELEVANCY
(II) LEGAL RELEVANCY
(I) LOGICAL RELEVANCY - A fact is said to be
logically relevant to another when by application of
our logic it appears that one fact has a bearing on
another fact.

(II) LEGAL RELEVANCY - A fact is said to be

legally relevant when it is expressed as relevant under
Section 5 to 55 (Relevancy of Fact).
• It is generally upheld that “Every fact that is legally
relevant is also logically relevant but every logically
relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant or
admissible.”
• A fact is logically relevant if it is connected with
another fact but it is legally relevant if the law declares
it to be relevant otherwise it is inadmissible as evidence
in a court of law. If it is not declared by the law to be
relevant, it is not admissible as evidence under the
Evidence Act.
• A fact may be logically relevant to a particular case but
there is no guarantee that it will be legally admissible in
the courts. So all the evidence that are to be produced in
the courts have to both logically relevant and legally
admissible.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT IN ISSUE
AND RELEVANT FACT
No.
Fact in Issue Relevant Fact

“Facts in issue”- Relevant”.—One fact is said

1) any fact from which, either by itself or in connection to be relevant to another when
with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature, or the one is connected with the
extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or other in any of the ways
denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. referred to in the provisions of
this Act relating to the
relevancy of facts.

2) It is a necessary ingredient of a right or liability. It is not a necessary ingredient

of a right or liability.

3) It is called principal fact or ‘factum probandum.’ It is called evidentiary fact or

factum probandi

4) Fact in issue are affirmed by one party and denied by Relevant facts are the
other party. foundation of inference.
 PROVED

• A fact is said to be proved when, after considering

the matters before it, the Court either believes it to
exist, or considers its existence so probable that a
prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition that it
exists.
 DISPROVED

• A fact is said to be disproved when, after

considering the matters before it, the Court either
believes that it does not exist, or considers its
nonexistence so probable that a prudent man ought,
under the circumstances of the particular case, to act
upon the supposition that it does not exist.
 NOT PROVED

• A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither

proved nor disproved.

• Evidence and Proof- not synonymous.

 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROVED,
DISPROVED AND NOT PROVED

No
Proved Disproved Not Proved

1 The term ‘proved’ is The term ‘disproved’ is The term ‘Not

positive negative. Proved’ is a mean
between the terms
proved and
disproved

2 When fact is proved When a fact is disproved When a fact is not

the court gives no further question arises proved, it implies
judgment in favour as to its proof. further evidence
of the person, who either to prove or
has proved it. disprove the fact.
 MAY PRESUME (SECTION 4)

• Whenever it is provided by this Act that Court may

presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as
proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call
for proof of it

• Presumptio Huminis

• Sec- 86-88A, 90-90A, 107,108,113A, 114

 SHALL PRESUME

• Whenever it s directed by this Act that the Court

shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as
proved, unless and until it disproved

• Presumptis Juris

• Sec- 79-85A, 85B, 85C (Presumption of

Document

• Sec- 113B, 114A (Presumption of Fact)

 CONCLUSIVE PROOF

• When one fact is declared by this Act to be

conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on
proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and
shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose
of disproving it.

• Sec - 41, 112, 113

 SECTION 5

Evidence may be given in a suit or proceeding of:

• Facts in issue
• Relevant facts

• It means the court must take evidence of the

• Relevant facts only and of no others.
• Section 6 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts
 SECTION 5
Party has right to give evidence on Relevant
Issue or Fact in Issue
• Exception S. 25, S.26, S. 121-131

No right to give evidence on something which is

not Relevant Issue or Fact in Issue
Exception S. 155
RELEVANCY
When facts are so related as to
render the existence or non-
existence of other facts
probable according to
common course of events or
human conduct, they are
called relevant.
(ii) It is founded on logic and
human experience.
(iii) It signifies as to what
facts are necessary to prove or (iii) It is a decisive factor
disprove a fact in issue.
ADMISSIBILITY
When facts have been
declared to be legally relevant
under I.E.Act, they become
admissible.
(ii) It is founded on law not on
logic.
between relevancy and proof.
CASE LAW : RAM BIHARI YADAV V STATE OF
BIHAR, AIR 1998 SC 1850
RATIO DECIDNEDI: The Supreme Court observed
that, more than often, the expressions relevancy and
admissibility are used as synonym but their legal
implications are different because more often than not,
facts which are relevant may not be admissible for
example, the communication made by spouse during
marriage, the communication between an advocate and
his client, though relevant are not admissible. So also
the facts which are admissible may not be relevant.
For example, questions permitted to be cross-
examined to test the veracity or to impeach credit of
witness, though not relevant are admissible.
 DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE

• Res Gestae is a latin term which means “things done”

or “it means an act done or event in the course of a
transaction”.
• In other words, parts of transaction which are
interconnected with related circumstances with the
facts in issue.
• Reference to words spoken that are so closely
connected to an event that they consider part of the
event, and their introduction does not violate the
hearsay rule.
• Res Gestae is based on the belief that because certain
statements are made naturally, spontaneously and
without deliberation during the course of an event, they
leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation
upon hearing by someone else (i.e. by the witness who
will later repeat the statement to the court) and thus the
courts believe that such statements carry a high degree
of credibility.
• EXAMPLE: Imagine a young woman standing on the
side of a main road (the witness). She sees some
commotion across the street. On the opposite side of the
road to her she sees an old man shout 'The bank is
being robbed!' as a young man runs out of a building
and away down the street.
• The old man is never found (so can't appear in court
and repeat what he said) but the woman repeats what
she heard him say. Such a statement would be
considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission
as evidence because the statement was made
concurrently with the event and there is little chance
that the witness repeating the hearsay could have
misunderstood its meaning or the speaker's intentions.

• The phrase is used in to justify or explain the

admission of the use in certain circumstances of
words, which might otherwise be inadmissible.
• For declarations to be admitted as part of res gestae,
the following conditions must be met:
1. The statement must have been made
contemporaneously (simultaneous, concurrent,
happening during the same period of time) with the act,
i.e., made either during, or immediately before or after
its occurrence, but not at such interval (gap) as to allow
of fabrication, or to reduce them to mere narrative
(story or tale) of a past event.
2. The statement is a statement of fact and not of opinion.
3. The statement must have been made either by a
participant in the transaction or by a person who has
himself witnessed the transaction.
4. The statement made by a by-stander would be relevant
only if it is shown that he was present at the time of the
happening of the event and has witnessed the same.
RES GESTAE EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY
RULE
• Res Gestae is an exception to the rule against
hearsay evidence. Res gestae is based on the belief
that because certain statements are made naturally,
spontaneously and without deliberation during the
course of an event, thus the courts believe that such
statements carry a high degree of credibility.

• The basis for the admissibility of the evidence as

part of res gestae is its close connection to the facts
in issue as to form part of the transaction out of
which the facts in issue arose.
CASE LAW : RATTEN V. R [1972] AC 378
• The appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife
by shooting her with a shotgun. His defence was that
the gun had discharged accidentally while he was
cleaning it.
• To rebut that defence, the prosecutor called for the
evidence of a telephone operator, who stated that
shortly before the time of the shooting, she had
received a call from the address where the deceased
lived with her husband. The witness said that the call
was from a female, who in a sobbing voice and
hysterical state said, “Get me the police, please!” and
gave the address, but before she could make the
connection to the police station, the caller hung up.
• Held: Evidence would have been admissible as part
of the res gestae because not only was there a close
association in place and time between the statement
and the shooting, but also the way in which the
statement came to be made, in a call for the police
and the tone of voice used showed intrinsically that
the statement was being forced from the wife by an
overwhelming pressure of contemporary events.
CASE LAW: R V. ANDREWS [1987] 1 ALL ER
513
• The appellant and another man knocked on the door
of the victim’s flat and when the victim opened it,
the appellant stabbed him in the chest and stomach
with a knife and the two men then robbed the flat.
• The police were called and The victim, who was
seriously wounded, told the police that he had been
attacked by two men and gave the name of the
appellant and the name and address of the other man
before becoming unconscious.
• The court held that since the victim’s statement to the
police was made by the seriously injured man in
circumstances that were spontaneous and
contemporaneous with the attack, there was thus no
possibility of any concoction or fabrication of
identification. A statement made to a witness by the
victim of an attack describing how he had received
his injuries was admissible in evidence as part of the
res gestae.
• The common difference between res gestae under
common law and section 6 is that the common law
doctrine only admits evidence which, if not absolutely
contemporaneous with the action or event in issue,
must at least be so closely associated with it in point of
time, place and circumstance, as to be part of the thing
being done.
• Section 6, in contrast, is positively more liberal. It
provides as follows: “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”. The wording of section 6 does not
seem to insist on the contemporaneity or close
association with regard to the time and place.
CASE LAW: IN SAWAL DAS V STATE AIR
1974 729,
RATIO DECIDENDI: There was a problem with a
dowry, where there was a fight and the wife said
“Bachao! Bachao!” and wife was eventually killed.
The children and bystander heard it. The repeated
statement was objected because of hearsay.
HELD: That the statement uttered spontaneously
relevant under section 6.
 SECTION 7
• Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts
in issue.
• “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 : (a) The question is whether A
robbed B. The facts that shortly before the robbery,
B went to a fair with money in his possession and
that he showed or mentioned the fact that he had it
to third persons 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 murder was committed are relevant
facts.
• Generally, section 7 is an extension of section 6 which
is connected to the doctrine of res gestae. However,
there are views that section 7 has no connection to
section 6. This view may be based on the reason that
the facts in section 7 do not form part of the same
transaction. Although the facts under section 7 do not
form part of the same transaction, they are closely
linked with the facts in issue. These can be considered
as relevant facts. This shows that section 7 is wider in
nature than section 6. The relevancy of the facts in
section 7 can be clarified through the human
experience. It means that whatever effect of the
particular cause or what has been the constant cause
of the particular effect in the past will be the same in
the future.
 THE FACTS IN SECTION 7 OF THE
EVIDENCE ACT 1950 CAN BE TREATED
AS RELEVANT FACTS ON THE
FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
Facts as Being the Occasion of the Relevant Facts
or Facts in Issue. This refers to the facts that show
the circumstances which constituted the occasion
for the happening of the fact in issue.
• FOR EXAMPLE, see illustration (a) of section 7.
It states that when B has money and mentioned to
third persons or showed that money and later, was
robbed on the occasion of a certain fair, he was able
to show that he had the money with him. Otherwise,
there would be no occasion to rob him.
• CASE LAW: JAINAND V. R [1949] AIR 60
FACTS OF THE CASE: The deceased and his
family stayed with the accused at his house for the
purpose of getting treatment for his wife. The victim’s
wife handed over her ornaments to the accused for
safe custody. The accused took all the money to
allegedly purchase a truck. This led to a quarrel
between the accused and the deceased.
The deceased then left the house of the accused with
all his belongings. The deceased continued visiting
the accused to demand the return of his money. The
accused promised to return it on a particular date.
On that particular day, the deceased went to the
accused’s house where he killed him.
This fact was held to be relevant under section 7
for showing facts on the occasion and cause of the
murder.
RATIO DECIDENDI: “The fact in issue was
whether Jainand had committed the murder of
Karan Singh. The facts that Jainand had taken
money and ornaments from Karan Singh and had
on the day of murder gone to Jainand to demand
the money and ornaments are relevant facts
showing occasion, cause or effect of the fact in
issue.”
 FACTS AS BEING THEIR EFFECT
• Effect means everything that leaves behind a certain
result which not only records the happening of the act
but also clarifies the nature of the act.
• For example, fingerprints, marks, footsteps, etc, at the
place where the crime was committed or the injuries of
the accused caused by the struggle or while being
under the influence of intoxication.
• For instance, if the conversation between the accused
and the complainant at the time of offering and taking
the bribe has been tape recorded and the voice has been
identified, then the tape-recorded conversation may be
relevant under section 7 as forming the effect of
relevant facts.
FACTS PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE HAPPENING OF THE FACT IN
ISSUE OR ITS OCCURRENCE
• Opportunity is anything which would not have
happened but for that cause. The prosecutor should
show that the accused has the chance to commit the
crime.
• However, the opportunity should be exclusive
(restricted/limited) in order to constitute the relevant
fact. If there are more than one person who had the
same opportunity, then other corroborated evidence
should be produced in order to support the contention
that one of them is the real culprit.
CASE LAW :SIDIK KUMAR V.
EMPEROR [1942] AIR SIND 1126
• The accused struck the victim twice with a
sharp hatchet (cut) due to a long dispute
between them over a woman. The prosecution
relied on the evidence of footprints.
• RATIO DECIDENDI: The court held that the
evidence of footprints at or near the scene of
the offence was relevant under section 7 to
show the facts constituting the effects of facts
in issue.
FACTS CONSTITUTING THE STATE OF
THINGS UNDER WHICH THE FACT IN
ISSUE HAPPENED

• State of things is defined as the circumstances or

background on which the fact in issue happened.
Usually, it encompasses the physical condition
connected with the main fact which happened.
• The examples can be seen in the state of health,
relationship between the parties involved or habits of
the person.
• A was charged with the murder of the pregnant girl at a cottage
with whom A was earlier in a relationship. She was found dead
with her throat cut. There was evidence of the footsteps of a
person who had been running away from the place of the
incident. This shows the effect subsequent to the event. At the
time of the incident, the girl was in the cottage and was found
dead with her throat cut. The fact that she was alone showed
the occasion of relevant fact. There was a witness, a girl, who
saw a person who looked like the accused running towards the
cottage before the incident occurred. There was also the fact
affording the opportunity to commit the crime, where the
fellow of the servant of the accused said that the accused was
away from work for about an hour. The state of things that the
girl was pregnant also constituted a relevant fact to show that
the accused had knowledge about the matter and as to the
motive of the murder, in order to conceal the evidence, he
murdered the deceased.
 SECTION 8
• Section 8 of Evidence Act provides for Motive,
preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.
• It states: (1) Any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in
issue or relevant fact.
• (2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any
party, to any suit or proceeding in reference to that
suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in
issue therein or relevant thereto, the conduct of any
person an offence against whom is the subject of
any proceeding, is relevant if the conduct influences
or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact,
and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
 MOTIVE

SECTION 8

PREPARATION CONDUCT
• MOTIVE : Motive is the reason why a person does
a particular act. It is not the same thing as intention.

CASE LAW : R V STEANE [1947] KB 997

• RATIO DECIDENDI: “The motive of man’s act and
his intention in doing the act are, in law, different
things. Motive is concerned with the reason for doing
something”.
• Motive is a relevant fact and evidence of it, is
admissible. The absence of any motive however does
not weaken the guilt of the accused.
• ‘Intention’ in this sense must be distinguished from
‘motive’.
• ‘Intention’ indicates that a man is consciously
shaping his conduct so as to bring about a certain
event; whereas ‘motive’ indicates the reason why he
desires that event and therefore why he pursues his
selected course of conduct so as to achieve it.
• In other words, if a man knowingly does something
then not only does he intend to do it but in the
absence of anything to the contrary he must be taken
to intend the natural and probable consequences.
• The absence of any motive in doing an act does not
mean that the accused is innocent
CASE LAW : ATLEY V STATE OF UP, AIR 1955
SC 807
RATIO DECIDENDI: “Where there is clear proof
of motive for the crime, that leads additional support
to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty
but the absence of clear proof of motive does not
necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. If the
prosecution has proved by clear evidence that the
appellant had reasons for doing the act, that would
have additional assurance to the circumstantial
evidence pointing to his guilt. But the fact that the
prosecution has failed to lead such evidence has this
effect only that the other evidence bearing on the guilt
of the accused has to be very closely examined”
• MOTIVE CANNOT BE PROVED BY HEARSAY
EVIDENCE.
KARAM SINGH V PP [1967] 2 MLJ 25
RATIO DECIDNEDI: In this case, there was no
eyewitness of the attack on the deceased and the
prosecution case was based entirely on the
circumstantial evidence. At the trial, the deceased’s son
Harban Singh gave evidence that his father had told him
on the night before he was killed he had a quarrel
between him and the appellant. Thus in fact Harbans
Singh had not witnessed any quarrel between his father
and the appellant. Instead, his father only told him. The
Court held that all evidence of the deceased’s son even
if true, was inadmissible as hearsay evidence.
• PREPARATION
• Illustrations 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
administered to B. is relevant.
• Illustration (d) provides the question is whether a
certain document is the will of A. The facts that not
long before the date of the alleged will A made
inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the
alleged will relate, that he consulted lawyers in
reference to making the will and that he caused
drafts of other wills to be prepared of which he did
not approve are relevant.
• CONDUCT
• Section 8 (2) of the Act makes conduct relevant,
• The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any
party, to any suit or proceeding in reference to that
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 the
conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in
issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous
or subsequent thereto.
 SECTION 9
• SEC. 9 DECLARES THE FOLLOWING
KINDS OF FACTS TO BE RELEVANT:
• Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in
issue or relevant fact,
• Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested
by a fact in issue or relevant fact,
• Facts which establish the identity of anything or
person,
• Facts which fix time or place at which any fact in
issue or relevant fact happened, and
• Facts which show the relation of parties
 TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE

• The idea of Identification parade is to test the veracity

of the witness in the question of his capacity to
identify, from among several persons made to stand in
a queue, an unknown person whom the witness had
seen at the time of occurrence.
• In cases where the identity of the accused is not
known to the eye-witness, it is essential for the
investigating officer to get such suspect identified
from eye-witness in a test identification parade.
 TI PARADE- WHY NECESSARY?
1) Ensures that investigation is proceeding on a right
track,
2) Ensures that the eye-witness's memory regarding
the identity of the appellant.
Under Section 9 Identity of physical features also
becomes relevant: Such as age, height, hair,
complexion that provide a material for proving the
identity of a person.
• IDENTIFICATION BY FINGERPRINT: The
identity of finger impressions is the evidence of the
identity of person.
• IDENTITY BY FOOT MARKS: Evidence of tracker
is admissible if proved.
CASE LAW: SURESH CHAND BAHRI V.
STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1994 SC 2420
• RATIO DECIDENDI: TI Parade must be held at
earliest possible opportunity with necessary safeguard
and precaution. However, when accused had been
seen by the witness for quite number of times at
different point of time and place then no TI parade is
necessary.
CASE LAW: DANA YADAV V. STATE OF BIHAR
AIR 2002 SC 3325.
• RATIO DECIDENDI: Where the accused was already
well-known to the witnesses, the Supreme Court
observed that the holding of an TI parade would be
waste of public time.
CASE LAW: RAM BABU V. STATE OF UP
AIR 2010 SC 2143.
RATIO DECIDENDI: The purpose of the TI parade is
to test and strengthen trustworthiness of the evidence
of the witness in the court. The evidence generated by
the a TI parade is used for corroboration.
RAJESH GOVIND JOGESH V STATE OF
MAHARSHTRA AIR 2000 SC 160.
RATIO DECIDENDI: The delay in holding parade
must be satisfactorily accounted for. The explanation
that no magistrate was available in Bombay for 5
weeks for supervising the parade was held to be not
satisfactory.
 SECTION 10
• Things said or done by conspirator in reference to
common design. –– Where there is reasonable ground
to believe that two or more persons have conspired
together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong,
• anything said, done or written by any one of such
persons in reference to their common intention,
• after the time when such intention was first entertained
by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of
the persons believed to be so conspiring,
• as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the
conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such
person was a party to it.
• MEANING OF CONSPIRACY:-
• The term ‘Conspiracy’ means combination of two or
more persons for unlawful purposes.
• The term conspiracy means a secret plan by a group
to do something unlawful and harmful or something
which is not unlawful but by unlawful means.
• According to Stephen, “when two or more persons
agree to commit any crime, they are guilty of
conspiracy whether the crime was committed or not”.
• Agreement between two or more persons form an
essential ingredient. Such agreement is formed to do
an illegal act.
 CASE LAW :BHAGWANT SWARUP V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1965
SC 682
• RATIO DECIDENDI: SC defined Conspiracy as
two or more corrupt persons agreeing together to
do, by concerted action, something unlawful either
as a mean or as an end. Thus the conspiracy is a
kind of agreement to do an unlawful act, or a lawful
act by lawful means. Being contrary to law the
conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy, and
executed in darkness of the facts.
CASE LAW: SHIVNARAYAN V. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1980 SC 439.
RATIO DECIDENDI: “Act of a conspirator is act of
another. Under the principle contained in section 10
of the Evidence Act, once a conspiracy to commit an
illegal act is proved, act of one conspirator becomes
the act of the other.”

• This section is based on the “Theory of Implied

Agency”. So the things said or done by one
conspirator are admissible against the other if they
relate to the conspiracy.
 THEORY OF AGENCY
CASE LAW:EMPEROR V. SHAFI
AHMED, (1925) 31 BOM. 515
RATIO DECIDENDI: It has been held that if two or
more persons conspire together to commit an offence,
each is regarded as the agent of the other, and just the
principal is liable for the acts of agent, so each
conspirator is liable for what is done by his fellow
conspirator, in furtherance of the common intention
entertained by both of them.
• The general principal is that no person can be made
liable for the acts of another but in conspiracy the
persons who take part in conspiracy are deemed to be
the mutual agent.
 SEC. 10: A NECESSARY EVIL
• Sec. 10 has a potential to rope in the innocent with the
guilty, and to rope in people who have genuinely
abandoned and regretted.
• However, it must be kept in mind that Sec. 10 only
makes some facts relevant, appreciation of evidence
and giving due weight to it is the function of the court.
• WHAT THINGS ARE RELEVANT UNDER
SECTION 10?
• Any thing said, done or written by any one of the
conspirators is relevant against all the conspirators.
• That the conspiracy existed is relevant.
• And every such conspirator or a person was a party to
it.
CASE LAW: BADRI RAI V STATE OF
BIBAR , AIR 1958 SC 953.
• RATIO DECIDENDI: Sec. 10 has been deliberately
enacted in order to make such acts/statements of a
co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of
conspirators, because of the nature of the crime. A
conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, and executed in
darkness. Naturally, therefore, it is not feasible for
the prosecution to connect each isolated
act/statement of one accused with the
acts/statements of the others, unless there is a
common bond linking all of them together.
CASE LAW: MIRZA AKBAR V. KING
EMPEROR (1940)67 IA 336
• RATIO DECIDENDI: The privy council held that
correspondence between the accused was relevant
under section 10 as the substance of the latter were
only consistent with the conspiracy between the
accused prisoners to procure the death of ali asghar,
but the statement of mehr laqa to the magistrate was
not relevant under section 10 as it was made after
the object of conspiracy had already been carried
out.
 SECTION 11

When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

• (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or
relevant fact;
• (2) if by themselves or in connection with other
facts they make the existence or non-existence of
any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or
improbable.
• ILLUSTRATIONS (a) The question is whether A
committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The
fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The
fact that, near the time when the crime was
committed, A was at a distance from the place where
it was committed, which would render it highly
improbable, though not impossible, that he committed
it, is relevant.
• (b) The question is, whether A committed 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
committed by no one else and that it was not
committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
 PLEA OF ALIBI

• This section is based on doctrine of ‘plea of alibi’.

• ‘Plea of alibi’ means presence of the accused
elsewhere at the time of the crime.
• This is one kind of defence taken by an accused
person to avoid criminal liability.
• The plea of alibi postulates the physical
impossibility of the presence of the accused at the
scene of the offence by reason of his presence at
another place.
• The burden of proof in this case lies on the person
who wants to take benefit of plea of alibi.
• According to Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872, the burden of proof lies on him i.e. the
accused and not on the prosecution.
• Proof of alibi should be set up at the earliest stage
of proceedings. Failure to do so would made it
unconvincing.
• An uncorroborated evidence of alibi cannot be
given importance/weight.
• An Alibi is a legal maxim for a claim of a piece of
evidence that one was elsewhere when an alleged
act took place.
• The plea of absence of a person, charged with an
offence, from the place of occurrence at the time of
the commission of the offence is called the plea of
alibi.
• An Alibi is an excuse. It is a defence in a criminal
prosecution.
• If a person is successful in establishing a plea of
alibi, he will be entitled to an acquittal.
MUNSHI PRASAD AND OTHERS V. STATE OF
BIHAR (AIR 2001 SC 3031)
RATIO DECIDENDI: The presence of the accused at a
distance of 400-500 yards between place of occurrence
cannot be said to be presence elsewhere. It cannot be
impossibility to be at place of occurrence.
 VIJAY PAL V. STATE(GNCT) DELHI, AIR 2015
SC 1495
RATIO DECIDENDI: The supreme court held that the
burden on the accused is rather heavy and he is required
to establish the plea of alibi with certitude. The plea can
succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far
away at the relevant time that he could not be present at
the place where crime was committed.
•THANKS