Assignment on Law on Evidence (I) for Class Test 1

Submitted by:
Tanvir Mahtab
9th semester, Fall’20
Course: Law on Evidence (I)
Course Code: LAW 345
ID: 181100018

Date of submission: 05.12.2020

Submitted to:
Nuran Choudhury
Lecturer, Dept of Law

Eastern University.
Answer to the ques no. 1

X was murdered by someone anonymous. A blood-stained knife and a video cassette were recovered
from the crime scene.

Now whether the knife and the video cassette are considered as documents or not.

Section 3 defines document as

 any matter expressed or described

 upon any substances
 by letters, figures or marks or by any means
 intended to be used or which may be used
 for the purpose of recording that matter

following these conditions,

knife is not a document because for the purpose of recording matter is missing here. More over
Stanford states that knife is a real evidence or circumstantial evidence. 1 But the other side of the
coin states, if there is fingerprint on the knife, then it is a record of the criminal. From that point of
view, it would be admissible as a document as it fulfills all the conditions.

video cassette is admissible before the court as a document. Because any matter is expressed or
described on a cassette. There is particular substance upon which the matter as magnetic tape is
expressed. It is placed as marks or figures. And it can be used for the purpose of recording
something. This was affirmed in the case Khaleda Akhtar vs State 2 justice ATM Afzal stated that, the
ordinary dictionary meaning od the word matter is space. If for the purpose of recording certain
matter for the purpose of showing it on television by application of technology a video cassette or
tape is made, we do note see any reason why the same should not or could not come within the
definition of document…. Thus we have no hesitation in holding that a video cassette is document
within the meaning of the evidence act. This is again affirmed in the case Yusuf Ali vs State 3. It states
that a tape record of a relevant conversation is a fact and admissible in evidence.

Thus we have come to this decision that blood strain knife is not a document and video cassette is
within the purview of the Evidence Act is a document.

1
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, < https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/>
2
37 DLR 275
3
AIR 1968 SC 147
Answer to the ques no 2 (a)

The first issue is,

I. Whether M killed N or not.

II. Whether M was present in the place in the say of occurrence

For Fact in issue I, relevant facts are

1. N married the woman M loved.

2. M a week prior to the murder bought a club from P
3. M was seen in the crime spot just before the crime in an odd hour
4. a man from neighboring house approached to the spot with a torch light.
5. a blood-stained club from the well
6. M had absconded.

Relevant sections are section 6,7,8 and 11.

These facts are relevant because,

1. N married the woman M loved: it shows the motive of the murder. N married the woman M
loved. Thus it might create grievance in M’s mind. Under section 8 motive is a relevant fact.
In the case Nausher Ali vs State4 it is held that Motive is important as evidencing a state of
mind which is a material element in the offence. Thus his motive is a relevant fact under
section 8.
2. M a week prior to the murder bought a club from P: this proves the intention and also the
preparation of committing a crime. Section 8 deals with preparation of a crime. It states any
facts is relavent if it shows the preparation or motive or conduct. Preparation means on the
part of the accused doing anything to accomplish the crime. 5 He bought the club the kill N.
thus buying the club shows his preparation to accomplish the crime.
3. M was seen in the crime spot just before the crime in an odd hour: this shows the conduct of
M. conduct can be of two types. Previous conduct and subsequent conduct. He was seen
near the crime scene in odd hour shows his previous conduct and preparation. In the case
Mohan Bhana Lal vs E6 it is held that preparation is considered as a previous conduct of the
accused. Thus M’s this previous conduct is a relevant fact.
4. a man from neighboring house approached to the spot with a torch light: this man came
listening the cry of N. so this happened within the same transection of the occurrence. Thus
section 6 plays its role as section 6 deals with the occasion of same transection. It says, facts
form a part of the same transection are relevant fact.
5. a blood-stained club from the well: this is covered by the section 7 which deals with cause
and effects. The blood strained club is the effect of the crime. Thus finding a blood strained
club is a relevant fact.
6. M had absconded: this is subsequent conduct. The conduct of a person in absconding after
the commission of the offence is evidence to show that he was concerned in the offence,

4
39 DLR AD 194
5
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 9th edi. Wadhwa & Company, (1999)
6
1937 AIR 293
 (Manzoor Elahi vs State7; Permeshwar Din vs E8; Crown vs Fateh Mohmmad9). section 8 deals
with subsequent conduct. Absconding is thus a subsequent conduct and it is relevant to the
fact.

Relevant fact for Fact in issue II,

day before the occurrence he left for another district: the defence lawyer is trying to say that
Mr. M was not present at the time of the occurrence. In fact day before the occurrence he
left for another district and he produced a bus ticket for this purpose. But he was seen at the
place just before the occurrence. So the fact brought before the court is inconsistent under
section 11 of the evidence act. Section 11 states, Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant
If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus this shall not be
considered as relevant fact under section 11.

These are the facts in issue and relevant facts in the scenario.

Answer to the ques no 2 (b):

Is the challenge of defense team regarding T.I. parade justified.

Yes, the challenge of defence team regarding TI Parade is justified because the prosecution
team showed the picture of M before. And it has to be noted that TI parade must be done by
the Magistrate10. But in the fact, it was not done. Again a TI parade is possible when the
witness had no opportunity to see the accused after the occurrence. 11 This case also states
that if the witness had the opportunity to see the accussed after the commission of the
crime, it would be no difficulty for the witness to select the accused from the part of the
prosecution. In the present case, the prosecution without following due procedure showed
the witness the picture of the accused. From this point of view the challenge of defense
team regarding T.I. parade is justified.

7
PLD 1965 Lah 656
8
1941 AIR Ori 517
9
35 PLR 740
10
Md Bashir Alam vs State 10 DLR SC 21
11
Hatu Mallik vs State 16 DLR 662
Answer to the ques no 3

A is accused of negligently delivering wrong goods to B. A delivered goods to several immediate

persons successively.

Whether delivering wrong goods by A is a negligence or accident. To prove that the fact in issue here
is

 whether delivering goods to several immediate persons successively was wrong goods or
proper goods.

Section 15 of the evidence act states that, when there is a question of accident or indentation,
the former series of similar occurrences are to be relevant.

Explanation 2 of section 14 also allows the previous conviction of such person. And the state of
negligence is considered in this section

In the fact A delivered goods to several immediate persons successively. If he delivered wrong
goods to them then the occurrence happened with B was not accidental rather it was
intentional. Or if he delivered the pervious goods properly, then it would be considered as
relevant fact.

Thus section 14 and 15 allows us to consider previous relevant occurrence but it has to be the
similar occurrence. In Nur Md12 case evidence of similar criminal acts of the accused in other
cases…evidence admissible only if relevant. In another case R vs Bakhtawar 13 it is held that
evidence of previous act of dishonesty can only be allowed if it was committed without
dishonest intention. In the facts, if the previous deliveries are good then it was accidental under
section 15 and if the previous delivery was also wrong then it might be intentional and
negligence under section 14.

Bibliography:

 The Evidemve Act, 1872

 Reflection on the laws of Evidence by Nazrul Islam
 The Law of Evidence by Ratanlala and Dhirajlal
 Law of Evidence by Vepa P. Sarathi
 Website
i. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

12
1 DLR PC 121
13
A 1927 L 549: 28 PLR 313