[ S. 6 EVIDENCE ACT 34 ILLUSTRATIONS ( a ) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him .

Whatever
was said or done by A or B or by the by - standers at the beating , or so shortly before or after it as to
form part of the transaction , is a relevant fact . ( b ) A is accused of waging war against the Government
of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed , troops are attacked and
gaols are broken open . The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general
transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them. (c) A sues B a libel contained in a letter
forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the
libel arose , and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained , are relevant facts though
they do not contain the libel itself . (d) The question is , whether certain goods ordered from B were
delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate person successively. Each delivery is a
relevant fact. COMMENTS Scope. Under the definition of the word " relevant " in Section 3 one fact is
said to be relevant to another when one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in
the provisions of the Act relating to the relevancy of fact. These particular ways which the law regards
as relevancy have been described in Sections 6 to 55 which deal with relevant facts. Facts which are not
themselves in issue may affect the probability of the existence of facts in issue and be used as the
foundation of inferences respecting them; such facts are described in the Act as relevant facts . Facts
relevant to the issue have been arranged in the following manner: (1) Things connected with the fact in
issue as part of the same transaction, occasion, cause, effect, motive, conduct (Sections 6 to 16). ( 2 )
Things said viz , admissions , confessions ( Sections 17 to 31 ) . (3) Statements by persons who cannot be
called as witnesses ( Sections 32 and 33 ). (4) Statements under special circumstances ( Sections 34 and
35 ). ( 5 ) Decisions in other cases ( Sections 40 to 44 ) . (6) Opinions about fact in issue (Sections 45 to
51). ( 7) Character and reputation of parties concerned ( Sections 52 to 55 ) . Basis of the rule . - Every
facts is a part of other facts . There is no fact which is unconnected with other facts. "The affairs of men
consist of a complication of circumstances so intimately interwoven as to be hardly separable from each
other. Each owes its birth to some preceding circumstance and in its turn becomes the prolific parent of
others and each during its existence has its inseparable attributes and its kindred facts materially
affecting its character and essential to be known in order to right understanding of its nature." Section 6
lays down that the facts which are so connected with the facts in issue that they form part of the same
transaction are relevant facts . Sections 6 , 7 , 8 and 9 give the various ways in which the facts are so
related to each other to form component of the principal facts . These sections enact the law which is S.
33205 W ar re E tr E g C " in 6

S. 61 OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS usually laid down in England in these terms, namely, that acts,
declarations and incidents which constitute or accompany and explain the fact or transaction in issue
are admissible for or against either party as forming parts of the res gestae. The section renders
relevant facts which form part of the same transaction as the fact in issue. Even hearsay statements are
acceptable under this section if they form part of the transaction. " Same transaction . " - The term '
same transaction ' has not been defined in the Evidence Act. A definition of the word is given by
Stephen who says . " A transaction is a group of facts , connected together to be referred to by a single
legal name , a crime , a contract , a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue . " From
its very nature the word " transaction ' is incapable of exact definition. It should be interpreted not in
any strict or technical way but in its ordinary etymological meaning of " an affair " or " a carrying through
. "The rule of efficient test for determining whether a fact forms part of the same transaction or another
" depends upon whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose, or as a cause and
effect, or as probable and subsidiary acts as to constitute one continuous action. " Proximity of time is
not so essential as continuity of action

and purpose. On the one hand , the mere proximity of tim

e between several acts will not necessarily constitute them parts of the same transaction , on the other
hand , the mere fact that there are intervals of time between the various acts will not necessarily
import want of continuity . To ascertain whether a series of acts are parts of the same transaction , it is
essential to see whether they are linked together to present a continuous whole . facts , which form
part of the same transaction are relevant . res gestae. - The principle underlying Section 6 , the following
is sometimes termed as res gestae. res gestae ' of any case properly consists of that portion of actual
world's happenings out of the right or liability, or asserted in the proceeding. s well established in the
Law of Evidence. It is necessary therefore, to understand what it really means. (That has been used in
two senses. In the restricted sense it means world's happening out of which the right or liability in
question arises. In the wider sense it covers all the probative facts by which res gestae are reproduced to
the tribunal where the direct evidence of witness or perception by the court are unattainable. ) In
restricted meaning res gestae imports the conception of action by some person producing the effects for
which the liability is sought to be enforced in action. To be clear , in the restricted sense " facts which
constitute the res gestae must be such as so connected with the very transaction or fact under
investigation as to constitute a part of it ." Whatever act , or series of acts constitute , or in point of time
immediately accompany and terminate in . ( The principal act charged as an offense against the accused
from its inception to its consummation and whatever may be said by either of the parties during the
continuance of the transaction , with reference to it , including herein what may be said by the suffering
party , though in absence of the accused during the continuance of the action or the latter, form part of
the principal transaction and may be given in evidence as part of res gestae of it. after all action on the
part of wrong - doer has ceased and some time has elapsed do not form part of res gestae and should be
excluded. ) "The res gestae may be defined as those circumstances which are the automatic and
undersigned incidents of a particular These incidents may be separated from the act by a lapse of time
AIR 1939 Bom . C. 129 .

ent EVIDENCE ACT [ S. 6 36 more or less appreciable . A transaction may last for weeks. The incident
may consist of sayings and doings ; they may comprise things left undone as well as the things done .
They must be necessary incidents of the litigated act in the sense that they are not produced by the
calculated policy of the actors . They are the acts talking for themselves not what people say when
talking about the acts. In other words they must stand on an immediate casual relation to the actual
relation not broken by the interposition of voluntary individual witness seeking to manufacture evidence
for itself. The test of the admissibility of evidence as part of res gestae is whether the act, declaration or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal facts or even which it
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself and also whether it negatives any
premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony " . (" Facts forming part of the same transaction . "
- The transaction consists both of the physical acts and the words accompanying such physical , whether
spoken by the person doing such acts , the person to whom such acts are done or any other person or
persons. ) Physical acts forming a part of a transaction. - The facts forming the part of the same
transaction with the fact in issue are relevant. the complete transaction from its starting point in the act
of the accused until the end is reached ) What in any case constitutes a transaction depends wholly on
the character of the ac t and the circumstances of the case. It frequently happens that , as evidence of
circumstances may be resorted to for the purpose of proving the commission of a particular offense
charged , the proof of those circumstances involves the proof of other acts either criminal or apparently
innocent . In such cases it is proper that the chain of evidence should be unbroken. If one or more links
of that chain consist of circumstances which tend to prove that the prisoner has been guilty of other
crimes than the one charged, there is no reason why the court should exclude those circumstances.
They are so intimately connected and blended with the main facts added in evidence that there is no
reason why the criminalities of such intimate and connected circumstance should exclude them more
than other facts apparently innocent . Thus , if a man be indicted for murder and there be proof , that
the instrument of death be pistol , proof of that pistol belonged to another man , that the prisoner was
there on that night and the pistol was seen in his possession on the The day of the murder, just before
the fatal act, is undoubtedly admissible, although it has a tendency to prove the prisoner guilty of
larceny. Where a prisoner was charged with stealing six marked shilling from a till and evidence was
tendered of the taking of other money at the same time , it was held that the evidence was admissible
as the several acts of the accused in taking the money were the parts of the same transaction. Such
circumstances constitute a part of the transaction and whether they are perfectly innocent in
themselves or involve guilt makes no difference as to their bearing on the main question which they are
added to prove.A fact forming part of the same transaction with the fact in issue is relevant under
Section 6 though left to itself it has no bearing on the fact in issue. It is a general rule that the evidence
of connected precedent or surrounding circumstances is proper to show the probability that the
principal fact has happened in all cases where it may naturally be assumed that a connection exists
between the main fact and the subordinate fact. ( Where the transaction consists of several physical
acts , in order that the chain of such acts may constitute the same transaction , they may be connected
together by proximity of time , by proximity of place , continuity of action and community of purpose .)

S. 6) OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS In Gentela Vijay Vardhan Rao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh ,
the accused sneaked into passenger bus with most inflammable liquid , petrol and match - box and then
sets it at blaze as a result 23 passengers were roasted to death . The Magistrate recorded the statement
of victim under expectation of death. In view of appreciable interval between acts of carnage and
Magistrate's recording statement ; the statements recorded by Magistrate did not form part of res
gestae. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Panna Satyanarayan, the accused murdered his wife and
daughter. The father of the deceased wife stated that father of accused told him on telephone that his
son had killed the deceased. There was no finding as to whether the information given by the accused's
father to the deceased's father that the accused had killed the deceased was either of the time of
commission of the crime or immediately thereafter so as to form the part of the same transaction. The
statement was held to be not relevant under Section 6. ( The time . - No uniformity exists in the length
of time over which the transaction shall properly be held to extend . The act or transaction may be
completed in a moment of time , or , if there are connecting circumstances it may extend , through a If
on a public street there is an unexpected collision between two men , entirely strangers to each other ,
the transaction of the collision is confined within the few moments it occupies: When there is a social
fair in which two religious parties are arrayed against each other for weeks, then all that such parties do
or say under such circumstances is as much part of the transaction as blows given in homicides for which
particular prosecution may be brought. to oral contract entered into at a particular interview , the
transaction may cover only a few minutes. In a case where an agreement between the parties has been
reached by a series of negotiations , extendedin g over months or even years , the time covered by the
transaction will be extended . ( Space . - No limitation can be imposed as to the territorial boundaries
within which the transaction must occur. Those of sudden quarreled , shooting or stabbing may occur at
one place even in a room . They may on the other hand , like a rebellion , or other movement may cover
the breadth of a country or of a continent. ) Psychological acts forming part of the transaction , or- "
words accompanying physical acts " .- The words spoken by the person doing the act , or by the person
to whom they were done or by the bystanders are relevant as a part of the same transaction ) but it
should be borne in mind that such statements or declarations , as they are called , in order that they
might be admissible as res gestae should be contemporaneous with the transaction in issue , that is ,
the interval should not be made as to give time and opportunity for fabrication and connection and they
should not amount to my narrative of a past occurrence . (They are admitted , when they appear to
have been made under the immediate influence of some principal transaction relevant to the issue and
are so connected with it as to characterize or explain , immediate influence of some principal
transaction relevant to the issue. of the complainant to the third person is not admissible, it is the
power of perception unmodified by recollection that is appealed to and not of a recollection modifying
perception. Whenever recollection comes in whenever there is opportunity for recollection and
explanation the statements cease to be part of the transaction. S. 6) OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS In
Gentela Vijay Vardhan Rao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh , the accused sneaked into passenger
bus with most inflammable liquid , petrol and match - box and then sets it at blaze as a result 23
passengers were roasted to death . The Magistrate recorded the statement of victim under expectation
of death. In view of appreciable interval between acts of carnage and Magistrate's recording
statement ; the statements recorded by Magistrate did not form part of res gestae. In State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Panna Satyanarayan, the accused murdered his wife and daughter. The father of the
deceased wife stated that father of accused told him on telephone that his son had killed the deceased.
There was no finding as to whether the information given by the accused's father to the deceased's
father that the accused had killed the deceased was either of the time of commission of the crime or
immediately thereafter so as to form the part of the same transaction. The statement was held to be
not relevant under Section 6. ( The time . - No uniformity exists in the length of time over which the
transaction shall properly be held to extend . The act or transaction may be completed in a moment of
time , or , if there are connecting circumstances it may extend , through a If on a public street there is
an unexpected collision between two men , entirely strangers to each other , the transaction of the
collision is confined within the few moments it occupies: When there is a social fair in which two
religious parties are arrayed against each other for weeks, then all that such parties do or say under such
circumstances is as much part of the transaction as blows given in homicides for which particular
prosecution may be brought. to oral contract entered into at a particular interview , the transaction
may cover only a few minutes. In a case where an agreement between the parties has been reached by
a series of negotiations , extendedin g over months or even years , the time covered by the transaction
will be extended . ( Space . - No limitation can be imposed as to the territorial boundaries within which
the transaction must occur. Those of sudden quarreled , shooting or stabbing may occur at one place
even in a room . They may on the other hand , like a rebellion , or other movement may cover the
breadth of a country or of a continent. ) Psychological acts forming part of the transaction , or- " words
accompanying physical acts " .- The words spoken by the person doing the act , or by the person to
whom they were done or by the bystanders are relevant as a part of the same transaction ) but it
should be borne in mind that such statements or declarations , as they are called , in order that they
might be admissible as res gestae should be contemporaneous with the transaction in issue , that is ,
the interval should not be made as to give time and opportunity for fabrication and connection and they
should not amount to my narrative of a past occurrence . (They are admitted , when they appear to
have been made under the immediate influence of some principal transaction relevant to the issue and
are so connected with it as to characterize or explain , immediate influence of some principal
transaction relevant to the issue. of the complainant to the third person is not admissible, it is the
power of perception unmodified by recollection that is appealed to and not of a recollection modifying
perception. Whenever recollection comes in whenever there is opportunity for recollection and
explanation the statements cease to be part of the transaction.

EVIDENCE ACT ( 8. 6 38 and would not the statement of its effect as res gestae and would reduce it to
the status of a complaint or narration of a past event . ! All spontaneous statements in some way
connected with the transaction under investigation are not It must be shown that the statement is a
part of the transaction. The statement is not acceptable only because it is uttered in the course of the
transaction. ' B ' on the neck with a knife and this is seen by bystanders who exclaim , ' A ' is killing ' B ' ?
While the neck with the only difference that the latter is a physical reaction to the act whereas the
former is the psychological reaction through perception. ction 6 is that it is part of the transaction and
not merely because it is spontaneous. Statement in answer to a question. - As said earlier, the
requirement of Section 6 is that the statement must have been made contemporaneously with the act
or immediately after it and not at such an interval of time as to make it a narrative of past events. If the
statement is answer to a query after lapse of some time, it cannot be treated as res gestae. At the time
of murder , the cry of deceased ' saved me ' and that of the children that their mother was being killed
are relevant as res gestae . Illustrations When a minor married girl was abducted by accused
immediately on her recovery at the railway platform she told her uncle that she had handed over her
ornaments to Ram Das who had placed them in his jhola and had run away with the ornaments. The
statement is relevant under Section 6.³ Pratap Singh was charged with the murder of Ram Charan . One
Sarfaraz Beg deposed before the court that at about 1.50 p.m. on the night of the alleged occurrence ,
he heard some row from his house which was at the distance of about 400 yards from the place of
occurrence . He said that he went towards the place of occurrence near which a large crowd had
collected . On going inside the house he found a dead body lying with fresh wounds. According to the
witness , Mst. Mahadevi was there. When she was questioned about the murder she stated that her
husband and brother had run away after committing the murder . It was held that as the statement was
in answer to a query and was made after the lapse of some time after the murder , it cannot be treated
either as spontaneous or as part of the transaction of the murder , and so was not admissible. Kwas
staying in a hotel where there was a wine bar. Early in the afternoon he took brandly and upto 2 p.m.
he consumed 5 pegs. J was employed as bearer of the hotel. It was alleged that the applicant asked him
to bring hot water for bath. It was alleged that the applicant asked for one more peg. That was done. J
' then asked ' K ' what more could be brought for him . This annoyed the applicant who abused ' J ' and
shortly afterwards went inside his room and bringing a gun fired at ' J ' who crouched down and the shot
missed him. Some people came hearing the shots, and found ' J ' crying. Upon enquiry he said that 1 . 2
. Kameshwar Prasad Singh v. Rex , 1951 ALJ 149 .. Sawal Dax v. State of Bihar , AIR 1974 SC 778 .
Pratap Singh v. State , 1971 C LJ 172 . Sawal Dar v. State of Bihar , AIR 1974 SC 778 . Ram Das v. State ,
1972 Cr LJ 57 . Pratap Singh v. State of M.P. , 1971 Cr LJ 172 . 3 4 . 5. 6.

39 OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS S. 61 he had been fired at by ' K. It was held that the statement of ' J '
did not form part of the same transaction as the act of firing and was not acceptable. (1) Noor Mohd's
case. One R practiced fraud upon one M and thus took Rs. 8,000. Af lodged a report and filed a
complaint . One S a prosecution witness stated that M came to him and said that he had been deprived
of about Rs. 8,000 , that M again came to him and told him that he had neither filed a complaint against
him nor had made a report against R and that after having robbed him , R was still trying to rob him of
what he still had , that after he ( the witness ) once visited Af and the latter said that R was making his
life miserable and that the witness said that he would take steps to have his money recovered and
thereupon M said " let that matter go . I have forgiven him but he should not touch what is left." This
statement was held inadmissible as it was my narrative of past occurrence. (ii) Richard's case - A dispute
between A and B was whether A had agreed to make a purchase from B on a certain date. In support of
B's allegation that A had agreed to make the purchase , a letter , dated 23rd December , 19 from him
( B ) to a solicitor was produced . In this letter B had made a mention that A had agreed to make a
purchase. The letter was held inadmissible as there was no evidence to show whether the statement in
the letter was made with reference to some events which had just happened. (ii) A is passing by a road.
B is walking ahead of him . C comes from aside and stabs 8 from behind . A is awe - struck and cries
instantaneously. ' O ' wicked C what have you done . This utterance is a straight outcome of the feeling
of A created by the shock of the stabbing upon the mind of A. (iv) " A " begins assaulting ' B '. ' C ' and ' D
' begin shouting that ' A ' is assaulting ' B '. The fact that ' C ' and ' D ' shouted that ' A ' was assaulting ' B
' is relevant. (v) The deceased and many others were celebrating Hol. The accused fired at the
deceased. Some of the witnesses arrived at the scene of occurrence immediately after occurrence. The
bystanders informed the witnesses that the accused fired at the deceased. The evidence of the
witnesses to the effect that the person , present on the scene of occurrence told them that the accused
fired at the deceased is relevant. ( vi ) The accused dragged the deceased from his house to Chowk area
and began to beat him . " Z " who was present when the beating began ran to the village Police Patel
namely Lakshman , while the beating was in progress , and told him that the deceased was being beaten
by the accused . The statement of the Patel before the court that Z told him that the accused were
beating deceased was held relevant. Rape. Where the raped girl made a statement to her mother after
the rape when the perpetrator had gone away and the girl came home from the scene of occurrence it
was held not to be acceptable under Section 6 as part of the transaction. Statements of bystanders. -
As seen before a statement of a bystander is acceptable under Section 6 if forms part of the same
transaction with the fact in issue. The word " bystanders ' means the persons who are present at the
time of incident and not 1 . Komeshwar Prasalv . Res 1951 ALJ 149 . 2 Noor Mold v. Imia Ahmad , AIR
1942 Oudh , 132 3 . Richard Gillie v. Posho Lad , AIR 1939 PC 146 4 MP Jairav . Saate of Karnatak , 1980
Cr. LJ NOC 13 5. Jetha Ram . State of Rajathan , AIR 1979 SC 22 : 1979 CLJ 26 . 6 Badruklin v. State of
Maharashtra , AIR 1981 SC 1223 . 7 . Galam . R. AIR 1930 Lah . 337 ,

del EVIDENCE ACT [ S. 7 40 the persons who gather on the spot after it . It must be noted that such
statement is relevant only if is that of a person who has seen the actual occurrence and who uttered it
simultaneously with the incident or so soon thereafter as to make it reasonably certain that the speaker
is still under the stress of excitement caused by his having seen the i incident . The remark made by the
persons other than the eye-witnesses could only be hearsay because they must have picked up the news
from others. ) CASES ( 1 ) Nasiruddin v. Emperor. - One Fakiria was killed in broad daylight in one of the
crowded Bazars of Gujranwala . At the trial one Mst. Aishan Bibi was examined as witness. She stated
that when she reached the spot , she heard the people present saying that Rajja , Nasiria and Jagari had
committed the crime. It was not stated that the people who informed her of the names of the
murderers were present when the murder was being committed. It was held that the statement was
not acceptable. (ii) Chhotka v. State. - The accused were charged for the murder of Bhutu. Bhutu was
sitting on the cemented ledge in front of the shop and had been served with tea , when the accused
Chhotka came up and inflicted multiple injuries. Bhutu reeled into the open drain nearby from where he
was picked up by Shyama and Nero who placed him first on the Kachha flank of the road and shortly
thereafter carried him to the dispensary. The injured was placed on the verandah of the dispensary
where a large crowd was collected . One Kiran Bala informed Moti Bewa the mother of the deceased of
the assault on her son by the appellant. Kiran Bala happened to have gone to the tea shop in front of
which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place . At the moment of Kiran Bala's visit the injured
Bhutu had just been picked up from the drain and placed on the flank of the Kachha road. Kiran Bala
learn from the bystanders shortly after the occurrence that the appellant had stabbed Bhutu. This
statement of Kiran Bala was held inadmissible. The bystanders or the crowd from whom Kiran Bala
heard the statement could not be presumed to have been present at the time the murder was
committed. (iii) Mahendra Pal v. State. - The place where a murder was committed was occupied by a
number of persons apart from the deceased and eye-witnesses. Those persons came up immediately
after and were informed by the eye-witnesses as to who the two culprits had been. The statements of
these persons were held to be acceptable . F.I.R. when res gestae . - If a witness is present at the scene
of occurrence and then after some time goes to police station and makes first information report. The
making of the report is part of the transaction and so it amounts to res gestae . The fact that some time
has elapsed between the occurrence and report is immaterial.³ SE ECTION 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 transaction ,
are relevant . which they happened; or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or 1 .
Mahadeo v. State of MP , 1975 CrLJ 110 . Nasiruddin v. Emperor , AIR 1954 Lahore 46 2 . 3. Chhotka v.
State , AIR 1958 Cal . 482. 4. Mahendra Pal v. State , AIR 1955 All . 328. 3. S.C. 778. Shyam Nandan
Singh v. State of Bihar , 1991 CrLJ . 3350 ; Sawal Das v. State of Bihar , AIR 1974

OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS 41 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 it or
mentioned the fact that he had it , to third person , 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. (c) The question is whether A poisoned B. 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, are relevant facts. COMMENTS Scope. - Section 7 lays down that the facts
which are cause or effect of the facts in issue or of relevant facts are relevant. It also lays down that the
facts which are occasion or which afford an opportunity for the occurrence of the fact in issue or of
relevant fact, are relevant. Causation .- "Such relations make it possible when the existence of the fact
in the chain of causation is asserted to test the truth of the assertion by an inquiry as to existence of
those facts , with which , had it existed, it would have been so connected as to make their own
existence necessary , or at least highly probable " . "There is a principle implied in the very statement of
what induction is ; an assumption with regard to the grace of nature and the order of universe , namely ,
that there are such things in nature as parallel cases that what happened once , will , under A sufficient
degree of similarity of circumstances happen again and only not again but as often as the circumstances
recur. is warranted. The universe so far known to us is so constituted that whatever is true in any one
case is true in all cases of certain description. The only difficulty is to find out the description. " Section 7
based on induction. - Under Section 7, the relevancy of facts is to be determined by human experience.
What has been the effect of a particular cause and what has been a constant cause of a particular effect
in the past, will be the same in future. The thing will be clear by taking examples . If a living being is cut
into pieces on the ground there shall be bleeding and the blood will be found on the place of occurrence
. By his induction whenever a man finds human blood in a great quantity on a particular severely injured
there. place he may reasonably infer that some living being was cut into pieces or at least Section 7
embraces larger area than Section 6. Under Section 6 a fact to be relevant was to " form part of the
same transaction." It may often be difficult for a judge to say whether a fact or action can be properly
said to form part of the same transaction with the fact in issue. Section 7 leaving the transaction beside,
provides for the admission of several classes of facts, which though do not possibly form part of the
transaction, are yet connected with it in particular modes and so they are relevant with the transaction
under L Chhotka v. State , AIR 1958 Cal . 482 8.71

EVIDENCE ACT ( S. 7 42 enquiry . The facts which are connected with the fact in issue in the following
modes are relevant under the section : (1) The facts as being occasion or cause of ( the fact in issue ) or
of relevant fact (2) Facts as being their effect. (3) Facts as giving opportunity for their occurrence. (4)
Facts as constituting the state or things under which they happened. These modes of action mentioned
above are in truth the different aspects of causation and the reason for admission of this nature of
evidence is that if you want to decide whether a thing occurred or not , the most and the first natural
step is to see whether there were facts at hand calculated to produce or afford an opportunity for its
occurrence or facts from which its occurrence was calculated to be produced. Moreover properly to
appreciate a fact it is necessary to know the state of things in which it occurred. together that it would
be convenient to take them together, J was tried for the murder of K. The dead body of K was found
near a bridge in a gunny bag. At the trial the facts proved were : ( 1 ) the wife of K deposited all her
ornaments with J : ( i ) J took all the money that X had for purchasing a truck that he never purchased :
( iii ) K demanded money from J on the 17th May , 1947. J asked K to come on the 19th May ; ( iv ) X
came and stayed with J on the 19th night , of these facts , the facts of J being indebted to K and K's
demand for money are relevant as the cause of murder and the fact that X went and stayed there and
slept are relevant as the occasion of murder and also opportunity for it . The falling of trees in large
numbers in locality indicates the existence of a storm previously; the tanks reservoirs found filled with
water and rivers found in spat, indicate that there has been heavy rainfall. These are illustrations of
inferences from effect back to the existence of cause. Foot prints. The evidence that there were
footprints , at or near the scene of offence , of the accused is relevant as the effect of the going of the
accused that way . Injuries of accused. - The facts that the accused of a riot case had injuries on their
person is relevant to show that they took part in the riot - this is relevant as the effect of taking part in
riot. " The state of things under which they happened . - In a murder trial evidence was led to the effect
that when it became cloudy and stormy , when the electricity failed and when it became very dark the
murder was committed. In this case the fact of The notion of causation is by no means easy to analyze
correctly, but it is enough here to point out that certain superficially different terms represent
essentially the same evidential process. the same time indefinite. Stated in its broadest form, the notion
of cause and effect is merely that of invariable sequence. It is only rarely however, if at 1. Jai Nand Dr. v.
Rex , AIR 1949 AIL 291 Sidik Sumar v. Emperor , AIR 1942 Sind 11 . Chandra Gopal v. State , AIR 1955
NUC 4845 2 3 .

43 8. 71 OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS all, that such an abstract assertion can be made in universal terms
that will stand examination. Thus that a bullet shot from a pistol into the heart " cause " i.e. , will
invariably be followed by death , is a seemingly impregnable assertion , and yet not only may it not be
true of bullet of every size , but it may not be true , even with ordinarily large bullets , in instances
recorded here and there , and In the future, surgical skill may show that the instances of non-sequence
of death might be made even more numerous. The assertion may then be amended by adding limiting
conditions , so as to say that , provided this and that and the other be so , a bullet through the heart
causes death . In short , instead of an absolute certainty or invariability of sequence , the assertion will
be only of a very high probability of sequence . In most instances no once thinks of making an assertion
in absolute form, and it is easy to say that an assertion of causation means easily only an assertion of
high probability or strong tendency. Thus , the planting of seeds in good soil at the right time of the year
will probably result in a harvest in due season , but the result is not invariably certain , because no rain
may fall or the land may be built upon or other influences may interfere. Though we should feel
justified in speaking of the seed as the cause of the harvest, yet it would not be intended to assert
anything more than the seed has a tendency to produce the harvest. Coming now to an example of still
weaker probability , suppose it to be asserted that gun powder may spontaneously , that it is without
human meddling explode . This is not saying that it will probably so explode , but merely that under a
rare combination of circumstances it will do so i.e. , it has a capacity to do so. Capacity , then , is a
quality representing the same process of thought as tendency , i.e. , it represents the possibility of a
result as compared with the probability of a result , and above them both is notion of a still highest
degree , rarely realized in experience that of absolute certainty of result . All these are in the same
category , the difference is that in the highest degree we think of the sequence as occurring under any
and every combination of other circumstances , but on the middle degree under ordinary combinations
only , and in the lowest degree under rare combinations only. The notion of causation is perhaps most
commonly associated with the middle and highest degree only , i.e. , one would naturally say a bullet
through the heart will cause death " and " showing seed will cause a harvest , " while in the lowest
degree one would either not speak at all of cause or would qualify the statement for example , by saying
' gun powder may cause spontaneously an explosion'. The essential thing to note is that all these terms
express only varying degree of certainty or probability or possibility and that they all belong to the same
logical category of thought- "Wigmore. Tape - recorded conversation . - Tape - recorded conversation is
relevant under Sections 6 , 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act , it is res gestae . It is also comparable to a
photograph of relevant incident. Tape - recorded conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is
acceptable under Section 7 of the Evidence Act . The tape - recorded conversation is relevant provided
first the conversation is relevant to matter in issue , secondly , there is identification of voice and ,
thirdly , the accuracy of tape - recorded conversation is proved by tampering of statement . eliminating
the possibility of crashing the tape - recorded . There should be no possibility of In Spencer Cooper's
trial for murder , the body of the deceased was found in a river. The question in issue was whether she
has committed suicide by jumping and drowning in the river or had been killed and thrown into the
water. The stomach of the deceased contained no water. The prosecution wanted to add evidence of
expert doctors to the effect that a person who dies in water the stomach must contain water. On the
other hand 1 2 . SC 72; Rano Reddy v. VV. Giri , AIR 1971 SC 1162 RM Malkaniv State of Maharashtra ,
AIR 1973 SC 157 : Pratap Singh v. Stair of Punjab, AIR 1964 Lartonkev. Deep Chand AIR 1974 Raj . 79.

EVIDENCE ACT [ S. 7 44 the defense tried to add evidence to the effect that a person dying in the water
does not necessarily take water inside his belly . Now in this case facts in issue are (1) whether the
deceased was killed outside and thrown into the water, or (2) she jumped into the water and died of
drowning. Now the evidence tried to be addicted by the parties is only to show as to what is the effect
of a drowning . One party tried to prove by general happenings of the world that a man drowned must
have water in stomach while other party tries to prove that a man may be drowned and still may not
have water in the stomach. These facts which being the general consequences of drowning are relevant
under Section 7. In another case the plaintiff brought an action against a barber for negligent use of
razor by which he had caused the plaintiff to have barber's itch. The plaintiff added evidence to prove
and he was allowed to prove that he never went to another barber's shop and that two other persons
who had been shaved by the defendant acquired the itch . These facts were allowed as they constituted
the state of things in which the plaintiff acquired itch . Similar Facts. - Generally speaking it is not
admissible to prove the fact in issue by showing that , facts similar to it ( fact in issue ) have occurred on
similar occasions . " It is undoubtedly not competent for the prosecution to add evidence tending to
show that the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment for
the purpose of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person , likely from his criminal conduct
or character to have committed the offense for which he is being tried." There are certain exceptions to
this general rule. If the similar acts are so related with the main acts as to show the party's identity
irrespective of any general propensity , they will be acceptable , notwithstanding that they may also
tend to show such propensity . So to show that A was a writer of a libellous letter , other letters written
by ' A ' to third persons are admissible to prove by comparison that the letter in question was written by
A. In some other cases evidence of similar instances are admissible. CASES ( 1 ) The plaintiff filed a suit
for injury received due to a defective stair case . The defendant was allowed to add evidence that
43,000 persons have passed from the stair case and none received injuries. (ii) In a case the question
was whether heap of refuse and earth, in a highway had a dangerous tendency to frighten horses. To
prove this tendency to frighten horses the heap. , facts was received by the drivers of various other
horses than the plaintiff in passing the ( iii ) In another case the question being whether A's dog killed
certain sheep belonging to B. The fact that the same dog had been seen killing one of B's sheep on a
held impossible . mountain on a saturday and other sheep of B were found dead on the same evening
was ( iv ) Some footprints were found near the scene of occurrence . The prosecution led held
acceptable.² evidence of a tracker to prove those footprints were that of the accused. The evidence was
(v) A letter was despatched to one Joshi. He sent a letter in reply . The letter of Joshi was produced in
evidence. But the contents could not be proved. It was held that though the contents of the letter
could not be proved the fact of its receipt purporting to come from Joshi in reply to a letter sent to him
would be relevant under Section 7. 1. " Best on Evidence , ' p . 467 , See also Brown v. ECR . Co , 22 BD
391 . Lewis v. Jones , 1 TLR 153 . 2 . Pratap Singh v. The State , AIR 1955 Saurasthra 68. 3 .

45 OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS S. 81 ( vi ) The plaintiff claimed certain sum of money from the
defendant . Of that sum certain items were not recorded in the regularly kept account book of the
defendant . It was held that the absence of entry is admissible to prove want of payment under Section
7.¹ ( vii ) A is charged for poisoning opportunity B. The fact that A lives in the same house with B and had
for tampering with his food and drink is relevant. (viii) A is charged for entering B's room in night for
stealing money. The fact that A lived in the same house, and that there were interconnecting doors, are
relevant facts as giving opportunity of having committed theft. and or conduct . - Any fact is relevant
which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any act 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 is
not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act . Explanation 2. - When the
conduct of any person is relevant , any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing , which
affects such conduct , is relevant. ILLUSTRATIONS ( a ) A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A
murdered C , that B knew that A had murdered C and that B had tried to extort money from A by
threatening to make his knowledge public are relevant. bond. (b) A sues B upon a bond for the
payment of money, B denies the making of the for a particular purpose, is relevant. The fact that , at the
time when the bond was alleged to be made , B required money ( c ) A is tried for the murder of B by
poison . administered to B, is relevant. The fact that before the death of B , A procured poison similar
to that which was ( d ) 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 vakils in which he did not approve , are relevant . reference to
making the will , and that he caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of 1 . Kasam v. Firm of Haji
Jamal , 76 IC 327 .

[ S. 8 EVIDENCE ACT 46 ( e ) A is accused of a crime . The facts that , either before or at the time of , or
after the alleged crime , A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an
appearance favorable to himself or that he destroyed or concealed evidence , or prevented the
presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses , or suborned persons to
give false evidence respecting it , are relevant. (f ) The question is whether A robbed B. The facts that
after B was robbed C said in A's presence- " the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B and
that immediately afterwards A ran away , are relevant . ( g ) ) The question is whether A owes B rupees
10,000. The facts that , A asked C to lend him money , and that D said to C in A's presence and hearing- "
I advise you not to trust A , for he owes B , 10,000 rupees " and that A went away without making any
answer are relevant facts. ( h ) The question is , whether A committed a crime . The fact that , A
absconded after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being made for the criminal , and The
contents of the letter , are relevant . (1) A is accused of a crime . , or attempted to conceal things which
were or might have been used in committing it , are r element. ( ) The question is whether A was
ravished. The facts that , shortly after the alleged rape , she made a complaint relating to the crime , the
circumstances under which , and the terms in which the complaint was made are relevant. The fact that
, without making a complaint , she said that she had been ravished is under section 32 , clause (1) , or a
not relevant as conduct under this section , though it may be relevant as a dying declaration
scorroborative evidence under section 157 . (k) The question is, whether A, was robbed. The fact that ,
soon after the alleged robbery , he made a complaint relating to the offence , the circumstances under
which , and the terms in which , the complaint was made , are relevant . The fact that he said he had
been robbed without making any complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this section though it may
be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under
Section 157. COMMENTS Scope. - Section 8 deals with the relevancy of motive , preparation and
conduct . It lays down that ( 1 ) a fact which shows or constitutes a motive for any fact in issue or
relevant fact is relevant ; ( 2 ) a fact which constitutes or shows preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact , is relevant ; ( 3 ) previous or subsequent conduct of any party or of any agent to any party
to any suit or proceeding , in reference to such suit or proceeding .

OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS 47 S. 81 or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact , are relevant
provided such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact ; (4) previous or
subsequent conduct of any person an offense against whom is the subject of any proceeding or suit is
relevant provided such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact : ( 5 )
statements accompanying and explaining acts ( Explanation 1 ) ; ( 6) statements made in the presence
and hearing of a person whose conduct is relevant provided the statement affects such conduct .
Principle . There is hardly any act without a motive . Motive is the moving power which impels one to
do an act. It is the inducement for doing the act. The absence or presence of a motive and evidence of
preparation , previous attempt , previous or subsequent conduct of the parties are relevant as they help
in proving or disproving a fact in controversy . It may sometimes be important to know, whether a man
charged with an offense, has any interest or motive to commit it. In determining the fact whether a man
charged with an offence, committed it or not, it is important to know whether previous to the act he
made certain preparations to do the act. Again , the conduct , antecedent or subsequent , of a person
committing an offence or of a person against whom an offence has been committed , may be helpful in
deciding as to whether a man has committed an offence. Illustrations Lakshmi v. State .'- The accused
was addicted to smoking ganja and taking wine. He used to make demands for money from deceased
Chhote Lal who was opposed to this habit of life of the appellant and would not accede to his request to
advance him money to enable him to indulge in these vices. A few days before the accused had also
beaten his mother and wife. At that the deceased had intervened and prevented him from doing so. On
the appellant's refusal to obey him , the deceased had chained him. The accused had run away after
breaking the chains. The accused stopped speaking to Chhote Lal . On the evening of 6th October ,
1954 , Chhote Lal was sitting at his door on a chabutra . The appellant took a pharsa and proceeded
towards Chhote Lal . He began to assault Chhote Lal with the pharsa. Chhote Lal raised an alarm . A
number of persons reached the spot on hearing the cry. On the arrival of these persons the appellant
fled away outside the village with the pharsa . The accused tried to win over the witness of fact. In jail
he gave a correct description of his address. At the trial at every stage, his statement was such as
according to his conception was best calculated to subserve his purpose and to advance his own
interest. At the trial the accused took the plea that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident.
All the facts given above were held to be acceptable . The facts given in the first para were admitted as
motive of the murder , the contents of the second para were allowed as the conduct of the accused ,
before the incident , at the time of the incident and after the i incident . The facts given in third para
were acceptable as conduct of the accused during the trial in reference to the proceedings. ( a ) Motive
- Meaning of . - A motive is that which moves a man to do a particular act. It is that which is in the mind
of a man and which moves him to act. The common inducement to acts, are the desires of revenging
some real or fancied wrong; of getting rid of rival, or an abnoxious connection, or of escaping from the
pressure of 1 . 1959 ALJ 287 .

(S. 8 48 EVIDENCE ACT pecuniary or other obligation or burden ; of obtaining plunder or other coveted
object ; of preserving reputation or of gratifying some other selfish or malignant passion. " Motive is an
emotion, a state of mind, but it is often confused with events tending to excite , to emotion , the
outward facts , which may be the stimulus and the cause of the emotion . Motive , in the correct sense is
the emotion supposed to have led to the act. It is generally proved by two types of circumstantial
evidence, namely: (1) conduct of the person, and (2) by events about that person which could excite
that emotion. Conduct is effect and expression of that inward emotion. In State of MP v. Dhirendra
Kumar, Munnibai was Munnibai reported the matter to her mother - in - law who in turn told her
husband who asked respondent t o vacate the house. Held , it could be taken as motive of murder .
Intention and Motive . - Motive should not be confused with intention . Intention is an act of the will
directing an act or a deliberate omission . It shows the nature of the act which the man believes he is
doing. If a man fires at a tiger , but the aim is missed and a man is killed , he intends to kill the tiger . His
intention is not to kill the man. The motive to kill the tiger might have been to get rid of the danger
from it to men or to get its hide . A owes Rs. 1,000 to B. B puts pressure upon A for his money. A
decides to kill B with a motive to get rid of the pressure of demand . He invites B to his house and
strikes him with a sword and kills him . His act was prompted with the said motive and at the actual
moment, the assault was with the intention to kill. Motive is reason which prompts the intention. It is
the reason which induces him to do the act which he intends to do and does. Motive is relevant and
may be proved in a case as it is of great importance to see whether there was motive for committing
such and such a crime or whether there was none. It is always a right argument by the counsel of the
accused that there is no apparent motive for the committal of the crime for his client . Proof of Motive.
- No doubt , motive is helpful in deciding a case but often it is very difficult to prove the motive with
which an act has been done , and so it has been laid down that if it is clear and certain that a crime has
been committed , it is not essential to prove that there was a motive for the crime . Absence of motive
or inadequacy of motive is of comparative unimportance where there exists absolutely cogent evidence
that a crime has been committed by a particular person. But if the crime is alleged to have been
committed for a particular motive , it is relevant to inquire whether the particular crime could have been
committed with the alleged motive . If there is no direct evidence of an offense but the court has to
infer about the guilt from the circumstances, the question of motive becomes vital. If the motive is
displaced or even made reasonably doubtful, it is enormously in favor of the prisoner. The prosecution
is not bound to prove motive of any offense in any criminal case. If the prosecution proves motive court
has to consider it and see whether it is adequate. 1. AIR 1997 SC 318 . 2 Narayan v. State of
Maharashtra , AIR 1971 SC 1656 . 3. State of U.P. v. Hari Prasad , 1974 SC 1740 . 42 Matadin v.
Emperor , AIR 1937 Oudh 236 ; Bhanji v. Govt. of Hyd. , AIR 1954 Hyd 196; Udy Paul Singh v. State of
U.P. , AIR 1972 SC 54 . 5. State of Haryana v. Sher Singh , AIR 1981 SC 1021 . ,

OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS 49 Where the prosecution fails completely to prove motive and evidence
regarding commission of offence is not clear and definite, the accused cannot be convicted. But even in
case of circumstantial evidence , if after giving due consideration to the want of proof of motive the
court is satisfied that the circumstances proved give one conclusion only that the accused is guilty, he
may convict the accused . However improbable an alleged motive for the crime may be the prosecution
is entitled to call evidence in support of it and nonetheless so because such evidence may suggest that
the accused has committed some crime other than that with which he is charged Where there is a clear
proof motive for the crime , that lends 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
. The absence of proof of motive has this effect only that the other evidence bearing on the guilt of the
accused has to be very closely examined. 1 Adequacy of Motive. - There cannot be one rule for every
case, as regards adequacy of motive; it must depend on the moral character of the person accused in
each case. There can be no motive which can induce an honest man to commit a crime . In the case of
debauch and immoral man the slightest motive may induce him to murder a man . The cases are not
rare where men have murdered children for ornaments worth a few chips . Thus it is seen that
adequacy of motive to commit crime depends upon the character of a man . Sufficiency or insufficiency
of motive is not always of much significance in a criminal trial. Insufficiency of motive cannot be fatal to
the prosecution case in every trial. Similarly a sufficiency of motive cannot be the basis of conviction if
the case is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Motive, absence of Motive or
sufficiency or importance or significance of Motive. - Whether there is absolutely no motive or the
motive alleged is not sufficient , is immaterial in a case where evidence is overwhelming . Y Absence of
motive may not be relevant in a case where there is sufficient evidence to prove the case but in a case
based only on circumstantial evidence absence of motive helps accused and negatives the proof , Le .. to
say if any case is based only on circumstantial evidence and if there is no proof of motive the accused
may not be found guilty of charge. When there is direct evidence . The evidence of motive is not of
much significance . The evidence of motive becomes important to corroborate the circumstantial
evidence. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nahar Singh and others , the Supreme Court held that where the
participation of the accused in crime had been established by eye - witness the motive would pale into
insignificance and could not be ground to justify acquittal of accused . Importance of significance or
motive . - In State of U.P. v. Babu Ram , the accused himself admitted his motive of crime as the
deceased had rejected his demand for property . The Supreme Court observed: Rajendra Kumar v. The
State of Punjab , AIR 1966 SC 1322 . Natha Singh v. Emperor , AIR 1946 PC 187 : Chhatra v. State , AIR
1958 Cal . 482. Alley v. State of UP, AIR 1955 SC 807 : Prem Narain v. State , AIR 1957 All 177. Hari Bag
v. State , AIR 1958 Cal . 118. 4. Rangi Lal v. State of U.P. , 1991 Cr.LJ. 911. Sakharam v. State of M.P,
AIR 1992 SC 758. AIR 1998 SC 1328 . AIR 2000 SC 1735 . frien 5 . 6. 7.
( S. 8 EVIDENCE ACT 50 " It cannot be laid down that the motive may not be very important in cases
depending upon direct evidence , whereas motive is very much material only in the case which depends
upon circumstantial evidence . There is no legal warrant to making such a hiatus . Motive is relevant
factor in all criminal cases whether based on testimony of eye witness or circumstancial evidence . The
question in this regard is , whether prosecution must fail because it failed to prove the motive , would
weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit. No doubt if the prosecution proves the existence of
motive, it will be well and good for it. Particularly in a case depending on circumstantial evidence for
such motive could then be counted as one of the circumstances. is generally difficult area for any
prosecution to bring on record that what was in the mind of respondent. through interrogation that
cannot be put in evidence by them due to the ban imposed by .law. In Yunus v. Kariya , it was held by
the Supreme Court where ocular evidence ( eye witness ) was very clear and continuing , role of accused
person in time stood and established failure to prove motive for the crime was of no consequence .
Where there were earlier election disputes and the deceased had successfully contested the election
against the candidate of accused party and the deceased had few months before the incident, quarreled
when the accused had diverted the sullage water towards the house of the deceased and the latter had
frustrated their effort and in consequence of the obstruction the sullage water collected in a pool
before the house of the accused which infuriated them and the proceeding on that score under Cr. P.C.
were pending the old enimity coupled with the incident over the passage of the sullage water could be
the motive for the murder and the same could not be said to be so weak as not to prompt the accused
to kill their rival. b) Preparation. - Evidence tending to show that the accused made preparation to
commit a crime , is always admissible. Preparation only evidences a design or plan to do a certain thing
as planned. It is not always carried out but it is more or less likely to be carried out . The existence of
the plan is always used in daily life as the basis of inferences to the act planned . In a case of burglary
the four accused held a meeting to arrange for the crime ; a bar of iron and pair of pincers were alone
necessary ; and these the accused brought ; these facts were admitted to show preparation. The
probative force , both of preparation and the previous attempts manifestly rests on the presumption
that an intention to commit the offense was framed in the mind of accused which persisted until the
power and opportunity were found to carry it into execution . The preparation on part of the accused
may be , to accomplish the crime , to prevent discovery of crime or it may be to aid the escape of the
criminal and avert suspicion . Illustrations ( 1 ) An inn - keeper and his wife were accused of murder of a
guest . It is shown that on the night the murder was committed, they sent the maid-servant out of the
house so that there may not be anybody to see the offense being committed. When she returned the
next morning she was made to sleep in another part of the building. This is a relevant preparation to
prevent the discovery of this crime. ( 1 ) The accused was charged with cheating for importing goods in
Karachi port without paying the proper custom duty. Evidence was added of previous visit of the 1 . AIR
2001 SC 539 . Garme) Singh v. State of Punjab, AIK 1992 SC 214 Appu v. State , AIR 1971 Mad 194 2 3 .

S. 81 OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS 51 accused to the port of Okha , where it was said he tried to make
some arrangements with the customs whereby he could import other goods without payment of proper
duty. The evidence was held acceptable. (c) The conduct of a party. - The second paragraph of section
8 makes relevant the conduct of any person who is a party of a suit or proceeding in reference to any
fact in issue therein or relevant thereto. The conduct of a party , interested in a proceeding at the time
when the fact occurred out of which the proceeding arises is extremely relevant. The word " party "
includes not only the plaintiff and the defendant in a civil suit but parties in a criminal prosecution; as
for instance a prisoner charged with murder , conduct - Meaning of . - The conduct is the expression in
outward behavior of the quality or condition operating to produce those effects. These results are the
traces by which we may infer the moving cause. A man's conduct includes what he does and what he
omits to do. Conduct may , in certain circumstances , include statements as is made clear by the
explanation 1 . The conduct of any person an offense against whom is the subject of any proceeding.
This section provides that the term ' party ' includes any one an offense against whom is the subject of
any proceeding. The reason why the Legislature said this was probably the fact that by pare legal
technicality the State occupies in criminal matters a position analogous to that of a plaintiff in a civil
suit.² Technically speaking, a person against whom an offense is committed is not a party to a criminal
proceeding . If this clause would not have been inserted in the section, there would have been a good
deal of controversy as to whether the conduct of a person against whom an offense has been
committed was relevant. The gestures of deceased in reply to questions put to him together with
gestures in reply to them are acceptable. The conduct in reference to the fact in issue or relevant
thereto. The conduct of any party to a proceeding in order to be relevant must be (1) in reference to
any fact in issue or relevant thereto, or (2) to any suit or proceeding. The accused was charged with
dacoity. He concealed a sum of money. He pointed out the place to the evidence was held
inadmissible. The police and the money was recovered. The money was not the subject - matter of the
dacoity Conduct in reference to the proceeding - As the conduct of a party to a proceeding or suit in
reference to the fact in issue or relevant fact , are admissible , similarly the conduct of a party in relation
to the proceeding is also acceptable. The fact that the accused has attempted to striffle or thwart at the
investigation of the crime is relevant. S is suspected of having poisoned T. He tried in every way to
prevent the body of 7 from being medically examined. This conduct of S in preventing the medical
examination of the body of T is relevant . R disappeared while living in P's house. P was suspected of
murder. It being proposed to dig the basement of the floor, P objected. The floor was dug and the dead
body of R was found. The conduct of P in objecting was acceptable. When a person is accused of a
crime , the fact that before or at the time of or after the alleged crime he destroyed or concealed
evidence or prevented the presence or procured the absence of the persons who might have been
witnesses or suborned persons 1 . Mohan Lal v Emperor , AIR 1937 Sind 293 . 2 Queen - Empress v.
Adbullah , 7 All . 385. 3. Emperor v. Moti Ram Rai Singh, AIR 1937 Bom. 372. 4. Bahan Vaje Ram
Raghuram v. State , AIR 1954 Kutch 20 .

EVIDENCE ACT [ S. 8 52 to give false evidence respecting it is relevant as a conduct in reference to the
proceeding . conduct to referring the proceeding is illustrated when a party does something in the
reference to the proceeding . The conduct of a party only acceptable . - It must be borne in mind that
the conduct of a party alone is impossible. The conduct of a person who is not a party to the suit or
proceeding is not acceptable. The conduct of a conspirator who was dead and so not an accused at the
trial was held inadmissible. Against whom impossible . - The conduct of a man is acceptable only
against him . The conduct of one accused is not relevant against a co - accused. - A conduct is relevant
if it influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or a relevant fact. A criminal trial is not an inquiry into
the conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to determine whether he is guilty or not.4
Previous or subsequent . - A conduct to be relevant under Section 8 need not be contemporaneous. It
may be antecedent or subsequent to the fact in issue or relevant fact) In an adoption case deed of
adoption found not to be clinching but as evidence of subsequent conduct of the parties is relevant.
Complaints of the deceased to the police expressing apprehension of death made two months before
death are acceptable. The conduct of accused. - The conduct of an accused is relevant under Section 8 ,
The immediate reaction of the accused having some bearing of the issue is relevant. Where the accused
took the police and pointed out the article it was acceptable as conduct of the accused. " Sadho was
tried for the murder of Srimati Manni . After arrest by the police he made a statement that he had the
key of the house of co - accused Parasram and that he would recover the dead body of Srimati Manni
from the house of co - accused where it was buried . Sadho opened the lock of the house of co -
accused with a key which was in his possession and Sadho went inside the house and dug out the body
of Smt . Manni from a corner of the Kothri . The opening of the lock by accused and digging out the
body of Smt . Manni are relevant as conduct . ? The accused were tried for the murder of Boru under
Section 302 1.PC and also under Section 201 , LPC for burying the dead body of Boru , in a sugarcane
field. The accused were arrested by Investigation Officer who took them inside a Primary School where
they gave information that they had murdered Boru , and would also produce his dead body, after
digging it out from the field of Boru. accused took the SO to the field of Boru , and they dug out his
dead body which had been placed in a gunny bag , though the statement by the accused was not
relevant under Section 27 of the Act as recovery , if any . conduct of the accused.10 was on a joint
information but the fact of digging out the dead body is relevant as the 1 . 2 3 . King Emperor v. Bhagi
and Others , AIR 1941 Oudh 359 , Sardul Singh v. State of Bombay , AIR 1957 SC 747 . Deshraj Sharma v.
State , AIR 1951 Punjab 14 . 4. 5. Anant Lal v. State of Bombay , AIR 1960 SC 500 . Bishwanatha v.
Dhapa Devi , AIR 1960 Cal . 494. Alijon Munshi v. Stale , AIR 1960 Bombay 290 . 6. 7. Maha Singh v.
State of Delhi, AIR 1976 SC 449. 8. 9. Paras Ram v. State , 1970 ALJ 149 . Parkash Chand v. State of
Delhi , ATR 1979 SC 400 , Kuldeep v. State of Punjab , 1980 Cr LJ 71 10 Robu

OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS 53 5. 87 It will be opposed to human conduct that an accused involved in
a serious crime like murder would still be wearing blood tained clothes even four days after the murder .
Similarly, sharing of plan to kill deceased with a stranger is opposed to normal human conduct, and also
choosing a busy place to commit a crime of murder.² F.I.R. by accused conduct. - If the first information
is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as
evidence of his conduct. A Threat by accused . - A threat to do a criminal act, is relevant. The accused
was disinherited by his father. His father was killed. The evidence that the accused did declare his
intention to kill were held relevant. A woman and her paramour were charged for murdering her
husband . Her statement , she lived a ' most unhappy life with her husband and she wished him dead or
if that would not be she wished herself dead " made before the murder , were held relevant . Previous
attempt . - Previous attempt to commit crime is relevant. Absconding . The running away of an accused
just after occurrence is evidence against him . But the absconding can never prove the guilt of the
accused . A person though innocent may become nervous and run away.7 Through a deed one R
purported to gift some property to the plaintiff. The document was presented to Sub - Registrar for
registration. The document was received by R by post. He was illiterate. a will but a gift was taken to be
practicing fraud upon him . n respect of contracts which were made between the plaintiff and the firm
in 1922 written by him to the agent of Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China. In that letter P said
that he was writing to confirm that he had severed his connection with the firm Dawn and Co. , from
first of May , 1922. It was held to be relevant. (ii) Bhamara - One Bhagirath was ploughing his field.
Bhamara was passing that way. He called Bhagirath to chat . During the talk the parties flared up.
Scuffle ensued, Bhamara struck a stone against the head of Bhagirath. Ratiram and Lachhiman ran to
the conduct of accused was held to be admissible. spot. The accused seeing these persons ran away
but was caught by one Panna Lal . This ( iii ) In re Murugan . " Where the accused took the police to a
spot and pointed out a place from where incriminating articles were recovered , the conduct of the
accused in taking the police and showing the spot is admissible . L Khalil Khan v. State of MP AIR 2003 SC
4670 2 Maasam Singh Roy v. State of W.8, (2003) SCC 377. 3. A Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC
119. 4. Vinayak Dana v. State, AIR 1970 Goa 96. 5. Appu v . State , AIR 1971 Mad 194. 6 . Darbari Kumar
v. State , AIR 1970 Orissa 54. 7. & Sardal Singh v. State of Bombay , AIR 1957 SC 747 . Matruv . State of
UP , AIR 1971 SC 1050 , Rahman v. . State of UP AIR 1972 SC 110 . 9 . Bhamara v. Saste of MP , AIR 1953
Bhopal 1 . 10. In se Murugan AIR 1958 Mad 43 : Jagdamba Prasad v. State , AIR 1957 MB 33 .

34 EVIDENCE ACT ( iv ) Mistri's case - A was charged with the murder of a girl . During the investigation
Af took the police to a place and pointed out and produced certain ornaments which the deceased was
putting on at the time of her death. In the trial of M , the fact that he showed the police the place
where the ornaments were hidden and the fact that he handed over the ornaments to the police will be
relevant and allowed to be proved under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as it is the conduct of the
accused after the occurrence. (v) N was tried for the murder of Srimati Shiama. No body saw Shiama
being murdered. Her corpse was found in a well. When the police was investigating that matter the
accused took the sub - inspector to a place , took out silver ornaments and coins amounting to Rs. 2.8
and handed them over to the police. He then took the 5.0 . to the sugarcane field where he picked out
a bundle containing balance , chaddars , weights and other things . All these things the deceased had in
her possession prior to her death. In the trial all these facts of taking out the ornaments and handing
them over to the police and finding out the clothes from the sugarcane field and giving them to the
police were allowed to be admitted as a conduct of the accused . K ( vi ) Emperor v , Moti Ram.3 - One
Moti Ram and Rai Singh were tried for murder of Sita. She was found injured on her neck in a room.
One Bhika reached the house and found the door chained from outside . On entering the house he
found Sita reclining on the floor with her throat cut and bleeding profusely. By her side lay a vili. Bhika
locked the door and went to the police station to make a report . When the sub-inspector entered the
house with witnesses he found Sita reclining on the floor and holding her throat. When questioned as
to who has cut her throat she tried to speak and with a great effort uttered the word " Moti ". When
asked further whether she meant Moti Ram she nodded her head in assent. She also pointed out her
finger at the vili , and explained by signs that " Moti Ram " has cut her throat with it after putting his foot
on her chest. Later on Sita was transferred to hospital where her condition became serious. In the
hospital she answered the Magistrate's questions by signs and pointing at the accused explained that it
was he who had cut her throat with the vili at 10 a.m. All these facts were held to be admissible as
conduct of the person an offense against whom was an inquiry under Section 8.3 (vii) The accused was
charged with the offense of bribery. It was deposed by the witnesses. Evidence was to the effect that at
the time of raid by the police officer and trap witnesses , on the question "whether you have accepted
bribe " the fact that the accused was stunned and did not reply , he was confused and began to
appologise , or that he began to tramble were held relevant. (viii) A was accused of murdering his wife.
The burnt dead body of the wife of accused was found in a closet. There was no direct evidence. The
case depended on circumstantial evidence. The accused stated that he had gone for a morning walk
with Dharmbir Mahajan and it was in his absence within short span of half an hour that his wife
committed suicide. The facts that he had gone for a walk and that his wife committed suicide were
found to be false. The statement of the accused was held relevant . Statements of a party to a
proceeding accompanying and explaining acts - Exp . 1. - Explanation 1 of Section 8 excludes the
admissibility of 1. Mistry King Emperor , 6 ALI 839 . 2 . Emperor v. Moni Ram Rai Singh AIR 1936 Bom.
372. The facts of this case are simitar Queen v. Abdullah , ILR 7 ( A ) 345 3 . 4. Parakash Chand v. State
of Delhi , Ad , 1979 CrLI . 329 , AIR 1979 SC 400 Shiva Bahadur Singh v State of U. P. AIR 1954 SC 322 ,
State of Madrar v. Vaidyanath lyer, AIR 1958 SC 61. Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab , 1980 Cr LJ . 71

S. 81 OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS 55 the statement distinguished from conduct . But it allows the
statement to be admitted under this section if the statements accompany and explain acts other than
the statements. This explanation points to a case in which a person whose conduct is in dispute mixes
up together actions and statements . In such a case those actions and statements may be proved a as a
whole . For instance suppose that a person is running down the street in a wounded condition calling
out the name of his assailant and the circumstance in which the injuries were inflicted. Here what the
injured person says and what he does may be taken together and proved as a whole. Here the
statement of the person wounded explains his conduct. The conduct of running away and the cry of the
person both show that he has been wounded by such and such person and in such and such condition.
Only those statements which accompany and explain acts other than statements can be regarded as
conduct . The relevancy of statements as to the facts stated . - Under Section 8 a statement would be
relevant only if it explains a conduct. It would not be relevant as evidence of a fact stated . The
statement must amount to complaint. - Illustrations ( 1 ) and ( k ) make statements of persons against
whom an offense has been committed relevant but a mere statement is not relevant .. The statements
must amount to complaints to be admissible. A me statement is not relevant. Statement in the shape
of complaint is only relevant . There may be sometimes a difficulty in distinguishing a statement from a
complaint. The essential difference between the two is that a complaint is made with a view to redress
or punish and must be made to someone like the police , a parent or some other person to whom the
complainant looked for assistance and protection . If A is running out besmeared with blood and crying
helplessly to the people of vicinity to save his life from B who had wounded him and is about to beat
more. This is certainly a complaint. But , if A leisurely walks down from a place with injuries on his
person and when intervened and asked by a bystander he says that B has assaulted him , this is only a
statement and not a complaint and is inadmissible. A woman was raped on 26th of August , 1929 ,
when her husband was away . The husband came home on the 28th and then she told him that she had
been raped. This was held not impossible . The applicant was staying in a hotel . Early in the morning
he took brandy and upon being annoyed fired a gun on the bearer J. He crouched down and the shot
missed him . Afterwards people gathered and J related the story on being asked. It was held not
acceptable . Complaints in answer to questions . The complaints to be admissible must be volunteered
and not in answer to question . ) But it must be borne in mind that the questions of a leading or
suggestive character exclude the evidence. But the questions such as this put by mother or other
persons " what is matter " , " why are you crying " would not make the answer inadmissible. Statement
of another affecting conduct of a party to a proceeding - Expl.II. - Under this Explanation another class
of statements i.e. , the statements , affecting the conduct of a person , whose conduct is relevant under
this section is acceptable . In such cases the conduct of person shows nothing and becomes
meaningless unless the statements are put before the court. Here the statements made in Prisam Singh
v. Sta , 1972 AWR 521 ; Bhagwan Das v. State of Kajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 898. Dwingly Ariel v. State of
MP , AIR 1954 SC 15 : 1954 Cr LJ 930 . Ram Swami Redli v. Emperor , AIR 1931 Mad 235 . Rameshwar
Prasad v. Rex , 1951 ALJ 149 . 1234

EVIDENCE ACT ( S. 956 the presence of the party are admissible as the ground - work of that conduct .
The conduct in such cases is equivocal and the statements are admissible to explain the conduct . The
question is whether A murdered B. During the enquiry one C said in the presence of A " the sub -
inspector is coming to arrest the man who has murdered B. Hearing these words of C , A runs away . At
trial of A , the words spoken by C that the sub - inspector was coming to arrest the murderer , and after
hearing that the conduct of A's running away are relevant together. If the words "The sub - inspector
was coming to arrest the murderer" was said to A is not proved, merely saying that A ran away will be
meaningless . Illustrations ( 1 ) . ( g ) and ( h ) of the section are examples of such statements . If the
statement has no bearing on the conduct it is not relevant . Illustrations ( 1 ) Emperor v. U. Daranpara -
Shortly after B rebuked C for having murdered A. B said " you have murdered A without any cause . You
are to be damned for it " . C keeps silent . This conduct of C keeping silent together with the words
spoken to him are relevant . ( ii ) The accused was charged with the murder of his wife who was missing
for some time . A The photograph of a dead body recovered by the police was published in a
newspaper. Soon after the photograph was published the accused said to B." People are saying that the
photograph is that of my wife. Please go and see " . The accused appeared to be in a disturbed state of
mind and tried to away from office taking leave . It was held that the statement of the accused was
admissible under explanation . S ECTION 9. - Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts .
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. property and of his family at
the date of the alleged will be relevant facts. party es 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 affected the relations between A and B. alleged libel are irrelevant, though
the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it (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 . L Bal Khatija v. State , AIR 1962 Gujarat 1 . 2 3 . Emperor
v. Daranpara , AIR 1937 Rangoon 83 ( FB ) . Arun Kumar Banerji v. Stale , AIR 1962 Cal . 504. Dayesingh
vs. State

EVIDENCE ACT 72 " common intention in the section signify common intention existing at the time when
the thing was done , written or said . ECTION 11 - When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant .
- Facts not otherwise 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. 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. he 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. COMMENTS Principle . The object of a trial is to
prove or disprove, by evidence, a particular claim or charge, therefore any fact which either disproves or
tends to disprove that claim or charge is relevant. Section 11 attempts to state in popular language the
general theory of relevancy and may therefore be described as the residuary section dealing with
relevancy of facts . The words of Section 11 are very wide and it may be safely laid down that all
evidence which would be held admissible by the English Law, would be properly admitted under this
section of the Act. Collateral facts which by way of contradiction are inconsistent with a fact in issue or
another relevant fact , that which make the existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact impossible or
highly improbable or which by way of corroboration are consistent with the existence of the fact in
issue or a relevant fact , ie , tend to render the existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact highly
probable are themselves made relevant by the section. Where two appeals are from two different
forums namely the City Civil Court and the Family Court have been heard together for convenience of
Court and parties , it would be impermissible as a matter of procedure to read the evidence recorded by
one court in relation to the proceedings that has emanated from the other one.

sort of facts which the section was intended to include are facts which either exclude the fact in issue or
relevant fact highly probable ( clause 2 ) issue or another relevant fact ( clause 1 ) or make the existence
or non - existence of the fact ' Highly probable ' or improbable - Meaning of . - The words highly
probable point out that the connection between the facts in issue and the collateral facts 1 Mirsa Albar
v. Emperor , AIR 1940 PC 176 2 Ranaparyar v. Irella Afadali , (1959) 2 MLJ 68, 3 . Sangeeta Balkrishna
Kaden Bad Krish Ram Chandra Kaden , AIR 1994 Bom 1 .

OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS 73 . s. 11 ] sought to be proved must be so immediate as to render the co

- existence of the two highly probable . No doubt, a fact admissible under this section is collateral to the
fact in issue or a relevant fact, but all collateral facts having some remote and conjectural probative
force are not to be admitted under Section 11. There are limitations to the admission of facts under this
section. The Courts must exercise a sound discretion and see that the connection between the facts
sought to be given in evidence under Section 11 to the facts to be proved must be so that the existence
of the facts to be given in evidence excludes the possibility of the existence of the fact to be proved or
the relation and connection between the facts to be proved and the facts to be given in evidence must
be so immediate as to render the co - existence of the two highly probable. The section makes
admissible only those facts which are of great weight in bringing the court to a conclusion one way or
the other , as regards the existence or non - existence of the fact to be proved . The admissibility under
this section must , in each case , depend on how near is the connection of the facts sought to be proved
with facts in issue and to what degree do they render facts in issue probable or improbable when taken
with other facts in the case . Section 11 controlled by other section . The terms of Section 11 are no
doubt wide, but they must be read subject to the other sections of the Act and, therefore, the fact
related on must be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If the fact is a statement made
by a person who is not called or cannot be called the statement cannot be admitted unless it comes
within the subsequent sections of the Act (Le., Sections 32 and 33). Illustrations Bela Rani's case - One
Beni Ram, who died in 1866, owned the property in dispute. He was succeeded by his wife Mst.
Mathuri who died in 1878 and was succeeded by her daughter Mst. Dasoda. Mst. Dasodari transferred
the property in dispute to the ancestors of defendants. The plaintiffs purchased the property from the
persons who would be entitled to the property on the death of Mst. Dasoda. The plaintiff filed the suit
for possession . The main defense was that Mst. Dasodari died more than 12 years prior to the filing of
the suit which was accordingly barred by limitation . At the death of Mst. Dasodari applications were
made for mutation of some of the property in possession of which she had been . These applications
were supported by deposits of the reversioners. Copies of the applications and the deposits were filed
by the plaintiff in the present suit. In all these copies the date of the death of Mst. Dasodari was stated
to be the 16th of March , 1898. It was argued that the deposits make it highly probable that Dasodari
died on the 16th of March , 1898 and therefore they were admissible under Section 11 of the Evidence
Act. It was held that the statements were simply the statements of persons who were dead and such
statements are not relevant unless they come under one or more of sub - sections of Section 32 of the
Evidence Act . The statement being not acceptable under Section 32 of the Act were held inadmissible
under Section 11 of the Act. Controlled by Section 32. - As a general rule Section 11 is controlled by
Section 32 where the evidence consists of the statements of persons who are dead or cannot be found .
But this rule is subject to certain exceptions. The test whether the statement of that person who is dead
or cannot be found is relevant under Section 11 though not acceptable under Section 32 , is that it is
acceptable under Section 11 when it is altogether immaterial whether what the dead man said was true
or false , but highly Bella Rant and ethers. Mohster Singh and others , 19 AL 311 1 .

( S. 11 EVIDENCE ACT 74 material that he did say it . There is difference between the existence of a fact
and statement as to its existence . Section 11 makes admissible the existence of facts and not the
statements as to such existence unless the facts of making that statement is in itself a matter in issue.
For example suppose that the person who died in 1885 can be proved to have said any time before he
died : " A was mad when he made his will " , that is material to show that there was a will of some sort
before 1900 ; and it makes not the slightest difference whether the statement that A was mad when he
made it is true or false. person had said " A was not mad when he made his will " . Where the fact that
is relevant under Section 11 is not what a deceased person chose to predicate about a thing , but that he
i mentioned it at all whether he predicated of it were true or false , then and then only it is a case
outside Section 32 . Statements. - From the wording of this section it seems that facts not relevant
under any of the section in the Chapter of Relevancy of Facts ( Sections 6 to 10 and 12 to 55 ) are
relevant under Section 11. A statement is included in the definition of the The term " Fact " and
statements can , therefore , be relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act . Sections 17 to 39 deal
with the admission in evidence of the statements of persons . If a very wide interpretation is to be given
to the words of Section 11 , the statements of persons inadmissible under Sections 17 to 39 would be
acceptable under Section 11 , for instance at a trial of ' B ' of a crime it may be said by a witness that he
heard A to declare that he had seen B committing the crime for which he had been charged. This
statement of A certainly makes it highly probable that B did commit the crime. Therefore A's
declaration may be said to be relevant under Section 11 ( 2 ). But this was not the intention of the
section. Sections 17 to 39 deal with the relevancy of the statements. Statements not relevant under
those sections cannot be said to be relevant under Section 11. The statement of A referred to above is
not relevant under any of the Sections 17 to 39 and so it cannot be relevant under Section 11. Stephen ,
in his introduction has very rightly remarked that "the meaning of this section would have been more
fully expressed if the words of the following effects had been added to it." No statement shall be
regarded as rendering the matter stated highly probable within the meaning of this section unless it is
declared to be relevant fact under some other section of this Act". a matter of common experience that
statements in common conversation are made so lightly , and are liable to be misunderstood or
misrepresented , that they cannot be dependent upon for any important purpose unless they are made
in special circumstances. The statements not acceptable under Sections 17 to 39 are not acceptable
under Section 11. Section 11 makes the existence of ' fact ' admissible and not ' statements ' as to such
existence, unless of course the fact of making that statement is itself a matter in issue.² Analysis of the
section . - Section 11 contains two clauses. The first clause lays down that the facts, which are
inconsistent with the facts in issue or relevant facts, are relevant. Under the second clause the facts
which by themselves or in connection with other facts make the existence or non - existence of any fact
in issue or relevant fact highly separately. probable or improbable are relevant . We shall take up these
two parts of the section 1 . 2 Thakurji v. Permeshwar Dayal , AIR 1960 All . 839 Ambika Charan Kundu
v. Kumud Mohan Chaudhari, AIR 1928 Cal. 893; Mit. Naima Khatun v. Basant Singh , AIR 1934 All .
406. Naima Khatun v. Basant Singh , AIR 1934 All . 436 : 1934 ALJ 318 .

75 OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS S. 111 (1) Facts inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant facts. -
One fact is said to be inconsistent with the other when it cannot co - exist with the other Let us take
examples . The question is , whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that A
was at Lahore on that day is relevant as they cannot co - exist . A is illiterate is a fact, similarly A wrote a
defamatory article damaging the fame of B. is another fact. Now these two facts are inconsistent with
each other. They cannot co - exist . If A is illiterate, he cannot write an article, vice versa if he can write
an article he cannot be illiterate. Therefore , if A charged with writing a defamatory article against B the
fact A is illiterate is relevant under Section 11. So under the first clause of Section 11 facts are relevant
only because they cannot co - exist with the relevant facts in issue . If their existence is proved the
existence of fact in issue or relevant facts are negative. In the above mentioned example the fact in
issue is ' whether A wrote a defamatory article against B '. A is entitled to lead evidence of the fact that
he is illiterate because illiteracy and writing of article cannot co-exist. There are generally five classes of
cases that arise for consideration under this clause: (a) Alibi; (b) Non - access of husband to show
illegitimacy of issue ; (c) Survival of the alleged deceased; (d) Commission - of an offense by a third
person: (e) Self - infliction - of harm. (a) Alibi. - 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 . Plea of Alibi - When can be raised - Statements under Section 161 not acceptable . - If the plea of
alibi is raised by the accused, the burden to prove it lies on him which he could do by leading evidence in
the trial and not by filing some affidavits or statements purported to have been recorded under Section
161 Cr. P. C. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. are wholly inadmissible in
evidence which cannot be taken into consideration . No finding of plea of alibi can be recorded by the
High Court for the first time in a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C.¹ Where an alleged offense has been
committed and the prosecution accuses a person of having committed the same, it would be a complete
answer to the allegations for that person to plead that he was at that time elsewhere; this has of course
no reference to offense in which time or place are not material factors; and if that person succeeds in
establishing that plea technically called the plea of alibi, he will be entitled to an acquittal. Of course for
the purpose of arriving at that conclusion, namely, the conclusion that the plea of alibi has been
established not only to the defense evidence in support of the allegations should be examined. The
reason is that what may appear on examination of the defense evidence alone to be proved may turn
out really not to be so, viewed in the light of the evidence to the contrary added by the prosecution. On
the other hand , even though the defense evidence may by itself fail to reach the standard of positive
proof , yet the evidence taken along with the evidence laid by the prosecution may raise a reasonable
doubt as to whether the accused was really present at the time when or at the place where the offense
was committed in which case the accused would still be entitled to an acquittal. That being so where an
accused pleads alibi it would be taking in their natural sequence to examine the defense evidence
relating to the plea first. 1. Rajindra Singh v. State of U. P. AIR 2007 SC at p. 2791.

EVIDENCE ACT [ S. 11 76 . In Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar , 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 and also at panchayat meeting. Where the accused
set up a plea of alibi that he was on duty at another town on the date of occurrence , the burden of
proof lies on him under Section 103 , Evidence Act , to establish the plea and it is not for the prosecution
to prove that the accused was absent from duty on the date of occurrence , of course , if there were
anything on the record to support the allegation of the prosecution having tampered with the defense
witnesses that might be taken along with the other fact and the circumstances of the case have raised a
doubt that after all the plea of alibi may be well founded and in that case the defense would be entitled
to the benefit of that doubt but a mere allegation in an application without evidence in support of that
allegation is of no consequence whatsoever. In order to establish the plea of alibi the accused must lead
evidence to show that he was so far off at the moment of the crime from the place of occurrence that
he could not have committed the offence. Failure of plea of alibi does not help the prosecution. Where
the case of defense was that at the time of incidence the accused was injured at 1.30 p.m. ( noon ) . He
was taken to another village in a tractor . The injured was admitted in the hospital at 7.00 p.m.
( evening ) and not in the afternoon and he lodged the report of incidence on next day . The statement
that the assault was on said time was not correct. The plea of alibi cannot be accepted. In Suraj Pal v.
State of U.P. , the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and mainly relied on PWs 1 to 4 who figured as
eye-witnesses. Even examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. all the accused denied their participation and
pleaded that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. The appellant however pleaded alibi and DWs
1 and 2 were examined in support of his plea of alibi. DW I produced register Ex . kha 3 to prove an
entry dated November 20 , 1974 to show that appellant went to district jail Fatehgarh to meet one
Rajendra Kumar an under - trial prisoner . The evidence of PW 1 and DW 2 would only at the most show
that the appellant visited the jail to see DW 2. DW2 concealed that the appellant had no special reasons
to meet him . The High Court had rightly rejected the evidence in support of plea of alibi holding it to be
flimsy . We have also presumed the evidence of D.W.1 and 2 and we do not think that any importance
can be attached to the same . Burden of Proof. - In Binay Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar , it was
held by Supreme Court that , it is basic law in the criminal case in which the accused is alleged to have
inflicted physical injury to another person , the burden is on prosecution to prove that the accused was
present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessen by mere fact
that the accused has adopted the plea of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be
considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the
prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden it is incumbent on accused who adopts plea of alibi to
prove with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence .
When the presence L AIR 2001 SC 3031 . Satyavir v. State , AIR 1958 AIL . 746. 2 3 . Doodhnath Pandey
v. State of U.P. , 1981 SC 911 , State of Maharashtra v. Nar Singh , AIR 1984 SC63 State of Haryana v.
Prabhu , AIR 1979 SC 1019 . 4. Amarappa v. State of Karnataka , AIR 1989 SC 2004 . 3. AIR 1994 SC 748

77 OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS S. 111 of the accused has been established satisfactorily by the
prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court will be slow to believe any counter evidence
to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence added by the
accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt
regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place , the accused , would no doubt , for
that purpose it would be sound proposition to be laid down that in such a circumstance the burden on
accused is heavy. It follows , therefore , that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi . In
Brij Lal Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar , the police officers were charged with murder in encounter. The
plea was that the accused was transferred to some other places at the time of occurrence. The
prosecution witness gave the evidence that the accused was present at the place of occurrence . There
was no attempt by the accused to prove that he was present at another place on the relevant date. Plea
of alibi was rejected . ( a - 1 ) -When the defense of alibi fails - Failure on the part of accused to establish
plea of alibi does not help the prosecution and it cannot be held that de accused was present at the
scene of occurrence , the prosecution must prove it by positive evidence. Thus the mere failure on the
part of the accused to establish the plea of alibi , shall not lead to an inference that the accused was
present at the scene of occurence.³ In a murder case under Section 300 LP.C. the defense of alibi and
suicide raised by the accused cannot be taken as circumstances against him . Simply because the pleas
of suicide and alibi have failed at the trial no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. (b)
Non - access of husband to show illegitimacy of issue. - Since legitimacy of a child implies a begetting by
the husband , in disproving legitimacy , it would be relevant to prove that the husband had no access to
the wife at the probable time of begetting . (c) Survival of the alleged deceased. - A is accused of
murdering B on the 6th of August , 1951 , A tries to prove that B was alive till 31st August , 1951. This
fact is relevant under Section 11 , clause ( 1 ) , only because this is inconsistent with the fact in issue
that A murdered B on the 6th of August 1951. It is acceptable to a simple common sense that a man
alive on the 31st of August, 1951, cannot be said to be murdered on the 6th of August, 1951. (d)
Commission of a crime by third person. - A is charged with the murder of B. A can prove that one C
murdered B. Because the fact C murdered B is inconsistent with the fact that A murdered him . (e) Self -
infliction of harm. - A is charged with the murder of B. Here A can Jead evidence under Section 11 (1) to
prove that B committed suicide. (f) Plea of alibi in relation to co-accused. - The plea of alibi cannot be
accepted in favor of an accused merely on the ground that the same was accepted in relation to co -
accused . Where there was no material to show that on the date of occurrence , 1 . AIR 1998 SC 2443 .
2 . 758. Shankar Lal v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1981 SC 765 : Salharam v. State of M.P. , AIR 1952 SC
3 4 . Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v. Public Prosecutor , High Court AP , AIR 2004 SC 4383 . Sakkaram v.
Stale of M.P. AIR 1992 SC 758 .
3. 198 pa 78 EVIDENCE ACT ( S. 11 the accused was present in the school , nor any appointment letter
was produced . His plea of alibi was rejected . ( 2 ) Facts making the existence or non - existence of any
fact in issue or relevant fact , highly probable or improbable. Highly improbable ' .- As we have seen
above under sub - clause (1) of Section 11 , facts are relevant because they are inconsistent with any
facts in issue or relevant fact. They are so diametrically opposed to the facts in issue that the existence
of those facts make the existence of those facts in issue or relevant fact impossible. can in no case
exist . In Brijlal Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar , the police officials were tried for murder of some alleged
perpetrators in encounter. It was alleged by police official that the occupants of vehicle used by
deceased were also firing from their firearms. But ballistic report. showed that the pistol found near
dead body , from which the deceased were alleged to have fired , were never used and also that those
arms were fecti Thus , the allegtion that the deceased had fired from pistol and the ballistic report that
pistol was never used and was ineffective , were held inconsistent fact . The ballastic reports made it
highly improbable that the deceased must have fired from alleged pistol . Thus , the ballastic report was
acceptable under this section , since it made the existence of fact in issue i.e. , whether the deceased
fired or not, highly improbable. It was more so when it was found that glasses of vehicle in which
victims were traveling were broken and there were no marks of firing in which police officials were
traveling. The accused were liable to be convicted. Under sub - clause ( 2 ) , facts are relevant because
if they are proved they make the existence or non - existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly
probable or improbable . The facts proved under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 only negative the
existence of facts in issue or relevant facts. By the proof of those facts, the existence of the fact in issue
or relevant fact is disproved. Sub - clause ( 2 ) deals with both the affirmative and negative aspects of
the fact in issue . Under this clause, the facts proved are conclusive as under clause ( 1 ). Under clause
( 2 ) the facts are relevant only because if they are proved either it becomes highly probable for the fact
in issue to exist or it becomes highly improbable for the fact in issue to exist . , " Highly probable . " - It
must be borne in mind that in this clause only those facts are relevant which make the existence of the
fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable . The words " highly probable ' are of great
importance. Whether a fact is to be admitted under the clause or not, depends upon the weight to be
given to such evidence. To be clear this clause allows the admission of those facts only , which after
being admitted will be of great help in bringing the court to a conclusion as regards the existence or non
- existence of the fact in issue. If the facts are of little importance they cannot be admitted in evidence.
than normal standard of probability . In a case of election petition on ground of mal practice , the
evidence that truck drivers who were carrying the voters for a candidate were convicted under Section
11.4 the first information report may be proved under Section 11.3 1. Bikav Pandey v. State of Bihar,
AIR 2004 SC 997 AIR 1998 SC 2443 8. Chakravarti v. WL Theatre, AIR 1957 Cal 709. 3 . Pratap Singh v.
Rajendra Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1145. Ram Kumar v. State of MP , AIR 1945 SC 1126 4 5 . 2

OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS 19 Relevancy of similar facts . - The section has been expressed in very
wide angle. But this does not mean that every fact, however remote it may be relevant only because it
is shown to have some bearing on the face in issue. Previous instances of a similar nature to one under
inquiry are not relevant , various transactions of mala fide with a third person are not relevant to prove
the male fide of the present transaction Recitals in deeds . - Recitals in a deed inters parts are relevant.
But recitals in deed between strangers are not relevant to prove the truth of the facts stated therein
Recitals about boundaries in deeds between strangers are not relevant under Section 11 . Ilhatrations 1.
Emperor v. Yaqub - A was charged with having obtained money from B by falsely representing that he
was servant of one Akbari Begum , a wealthy lady of Rampur whe was anxious so fend money on easy
terms 8 tried to lead evidence that at about the same time A made such a representation to others . It
was held that this was admissible only because the fact that A at the same time made the same
representation to others makes the fact that A made such a representation to if highly probable 24 is
charged of handing over forged currency notes to B representing them to be genuine B tries to prove
that few days after and before A handed over currency notes of the same denomination to CDE and F.
This fact is relevant because if it is proved that A handed over forged notes to a number of persons at
about the time when he is alleged to have handed over a forged note to B it will make it highly probable
that 4 might have handed over a forged note so 8 knowing it to be forged 3. The question in controversy
is whether a certain lease granted by A to B is perpetuat. B wies to prove that many teases were
granted by A to many other persons at the same time and all of which were perperual leases. This fact is
relevant because it makes the factum of the lease in question being perpetual, highly probable 4. A is
charged of forgery. It is tried to prove that the accused possessed many other forged documents. The
evidence is acceptable. SE ECTION 12 - lo suits for damages facts tending to enable court to determine
amount are relevant - In suits in which damages are claimed , any fact which will enable the Court to
determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded , is relevant . COMMENTS Suits for
damages - Damages which are the pecuniary satisfaction which a plainsi may get in a suit are always a
fact in issue. Damages are claimed either in an action based on contract or tort . The question as to
when damages may be awarded and the amount of damages to be awarded is a question of the
particular branch of the substantive law under the provisions of which such suits are broughs . In a suit
in which damages are claimed the amount of damages is always a fact in issue Section 12 taya down
thas evidence tending to determine ie , to increase or diminish the damages is Ajnde Sing 700 . 1975
Derid ATE 1935 P 161 ( PR ) Fap 15 AL 241 .