1

LAW OF EVIDENCE
MODULE 1

1. What are the essentials of a 'fact'? Define the terms 'FACT' and 'FACT IN ISSUE'. 12M
2. FACT IN ISSUE. 4M, 4M

A. Introduction:
The term 'Fact' means an 'an existing thing' But under Evidence Act , the meaning of the word is
not limited to only what is tangible and visible or, is in any way, the object of senses.
B. Fact:
According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, “Fact” means and includes ––
(1) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations:
a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, is a fact.
e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.

C. Physical and psychological facts:

Physical facts are those that can be discovered through the use of a person’s senses. For instance,
observing the arrangement of certain objects, hearing the distinct sound of a horn, etc.
Beyond, physical facts lie psychological facts which are based on the mental condition of a person.
For instance, when a person commits fraud, his intention to deceive the other party is also a fact.
D. Facts in Issue:
According to Section 3, a fact in issue is a fact that directly or indirectly in connection with other
facts, determines the existence, non-existence, nature, or extent of any right or liability that is
asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding. In other words, facts in contention in a case are facts
in an issue.
Illustration: A is accused of murder, or B. In this case, the following are facts in issue –
• A caused B’s death.
• A had intention to kill B.
• A was insane.
• A received grave and sudden provocation from B.
All the above are facts in issue because they are in contention and they determine the liability of
A. Their truth increases or decreases the probability that A murdered B. Prosecution will have to
establish the facts that prove that A murdered B before A can be convicted. At the same time, the
prosecution also has to disprove that any of the exceptions do not apply to A.
 2

A fact in issue is also known by its Latin term – factum proband, which means fact to be proved.
To be a fact in issue, a fact must satisfy two requirements –
➢ the fact must be in dispute between the parties and
➢ the fact must touch the question of right or liability.
The extent of rights and liabilities of parties depend on the ingredients of an offense. In criminal
matters, the allegations in the charge sheet constitute the facts in issue, while in a civil case, it
depends on the provisions of the substantive law.
E. Relevant facts:
Relevant facts are those which are needed to prove or disprove a fact in issue. Relevant facts are
also called evidentiary facts (factum probans).
Section 3 specifies that a Relevant fact is a fact that is relevant to another when it is connected to
the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions contained in the act.
Sections 6 to 55 contain provisions that define the relationships that make a fact legally relevant
or not relevant to another.
Illustration:
‘A’ is accused of committing theft. A relevant fact would be that ‘A’ has had a history of
pickpocketing and shoplifting, and has been prosecuted before. The fact in issue would be –
whether A has committed theft.
F. Difference:

Facts at Issue Relevant facts

▪ A fact in issue is the ultimate facts ▪ A relevant fact is which helps to

in dispute, i.e., “principal facts” or prove/disprove the facts at issue, i.e.,
“factum probandum”. “evidentiary fact” or “Factum probandi”.

▪ Facts at issue are significant in ▪ Relevant facts are non-significant.

nature
▪ The facts at issue are the basis of
the “law of evidence”.
▪ These are confirmed by one party
but denied by the other party.
▪ They are part of the law of evidence.
▪ The relevant facts are the foundation of the
inferences made.

G. Conclusion:
“Knowledge of facts at issue and knowledge of how to use existing evidence and relevant facts to
prove, constitute the effective use of the rules of evidence. The identification of the facts at issue
is essential to a systematic solution of problems of evidence. It can be determined that the relevant
fact is admissible if related to the fact in issue and not by the exclusionary rule.
 3

3. Explain the DOCTRINE OF RES-GESTAE with reference to the Indian Evidence Act under
Section 6. 12M
4. Explain the doctrine of Res gestae. 7M
5. Res gestae 4M, 4M

A. Introduction:
Res Gestae is a Latin term which mean “Things done”. Under the Indian Evidence Act Section 5
to Section 55 deals with the relevancy of fact. The law which is stated in Section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act is known as the “the doctrine of res gestae”.
B. Section 6:
Section 6 of the Evidence Act lays down that the facts that are so connected with the facts in the
issue that they form part of the same transaction are relevant facts, whether they occurred at the
same time and place or at different times and places.
Illustration: A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said and done by A,
B and the bystanders during, before and after such quarrel will be relevant fact.
C. Transaction under Section 6:
The word transaction has not been defined under the Indian Evidence Act. According to Sir James
Stephen, “A transaction is a group of facts, connected together to be referred to by a single legal
name, a crime, contract, wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue.”
D. Part of the Same Transaction:
All the facts which are connected with the ‘facts in issue’ due to:
➢ Proximity of place,
➢ Proximity of time,
➢ Continuity of actions, and
➢ Community of purpose.
Then, they are said to be ‘part of the same transactions.’

E. Test for Admission of Evidence under Res Gestae:

The test to be used in deciding whether a statement made by a bystander or a victim indicating an
attacker’s identity is admissible can be submitted as-
o Was that spontaneous?
o Was the identification relevant?
o Has there been any real possibility of error?
o Was there a concoction opportunity?

F. Do act or statement form part of the same transaction or not?

In light of various judgements, it has been established that there must be nexus (connection)
between words spoken and the transaction in issue. The statements should be spontaneous, and no
opportunity for fabrication should be available.
❖ R v. Bedingfield A woman with her throat cut came suddenly out of a room and said to her
aunt, “oh aunt see what Bedingfield has done to me”. It was held that this statement was not
admissible as she said this statement after the act was over.
 4

❖ Rattan v. the Queen

It was held that there should be a close association in place and time between the statement
and act. If there is no close association, then it cannot be part of the same transaction.

G. Relevant Case Laws:

❖ Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao v. Puna Satyanarayana and Ors.
The accused killed his wife and his daughter. The father of the accused made a call to the police
station and said that his son has killed his daughter-in-law and granddaughter. The court held
that the statement by the father is inadmissible under the principle of res gestae because it was
unable to determine the time of the call, and it was unknown whether the phone call was
simultaneously done immediately after the commission of the crime.

❖ Bishna v. State of West Bengal

The two witnesses came to place of occurrence immediate after incident had taken place. The
evidence of these two witnesses corroborate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also
the allegations made in the F.I.R. Their evidence is admissible under section 6.

❖ Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The witness said that he went into the scene of occurrence immediately when he heard the
sound of firing and there he found the injured lying on the ground. The injured said to the
witness that the accused shot him. The court held that the fact is admissible under section 6 as
it forms the part same transaction.

H. Exception of hearsay evidence:

The principle of res gestae is an exception to the rule that hearsay evidence is no evidence. In R v.
Foster, the witness did not see the accident but only the speeding truck. The deceased stated to
the witness what happened to him. The statement of deceased given to the witness was admissible
as evidence in res gestae.
I. Conclusion:
Usually, evidence is brought under Res Gestae when it cannot be brought under any section of the
Indian Evidence Act. The intention of the law makers was to avoid injustice, where cases are
dismissed due to lack of evidence. Courts have always been conscious that this doctrine should
never be expanded to an unlimited extent.

6. MOTIVE: 4M
The word 'motive' means “the reason behind the act or conduct or an act to be achieved in doing
an act." As per Section 8 of the Evidence Act, any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a
motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
❖ Illustration:
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.
 5

❖ State of M.P. v. Dhiredra Kumar

In this case, a person named “Munni Bai” was killed. Here, the respondent named “Dhiredra
Kumar” had an evil eye on her and was the tenant in the house of the father-in-law of the
deceased (Munni bai). When Munni bai reported the matter to her mother-in-law who in turn
told her husband, who told her to vacate the house. Hence, this may be taken as a motive of
the murder.

7. Difference between RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY: 7M

Relevance Admissibility
At the point when certainties are so related At the point when facts have been
as to render the presence or non-presence of announced to be lawfully significant under
different facts likely as indicated by the I.E.Act, they become admissible.
normal course of occasions or human
conduct, they are called relevancy.
It is found on the basis of the rationale and It is established on law, not on the rationale.
human experience.
The provision regarding relevancy is The provision regarding admissibility is
discussed under Section 5 to 55 of the discussed under Section 56 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Evidence Act.
It mainly emphasis on what facts are Between relevancy and proof, it acts as a
necessary to prove before the court and not? decisive factor.
It basically implies the relevant facts. It mainly focuses on what facts are
admissible and what facts are not
admissible.
Relevancy is basically a cause. It is mainly an effect.
The court has the power to apply discretion The discretion cannot be applied by the
in relevancy. court in admissibility.
Admissible facts can be relevant. Relevant facts are not admissible. Legal
relevant facts are admissible.

Case- Ram Bihari v State of Bihar In this case, the supreme court observed that relevance and
admissibility are synonyms to each other but their legal implications are different from each other,
and the admissible facts may not be relevant.

8. Explain the concept of 'ALIBI' under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. 12M
A. Introduction:
The term “Alibi “is a Latin word which means – elsewhere or somewhere else. In criminal law
this plea is used by accused against the commission of an alleged offence. When the accused
pleads the alibi in court of law, he or she attempts to prove that he or she is somewhere else at the
time when the offence is committed.
 6

B. Section 11:
The Plea of Alibi deals with Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It talks about that the
accused will have to provide the relative evidence to prove that accused was so for the scene of
the crime any the time of the incident happened. The accused was not committing any crime, and
he is not liable for any offences.
C. Burden of Proof:
The fundamental rule says that the burden of proof in the criminal cases always lies on the accused
to show or prove itself that accused was not present at the time of offence and did not involve in
Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
D. Who may take a plea of alibi?
In a general sense, we may assume that at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, the
accused of an actual offence must register his presence elsewhere and on the behalf of the court
assume that the accused was not involved in the crime.
E. Failure to establish Alibi:
The failure establishes on part of the accused that the accused takes a plea of alibi would not
support the prosecution’s side because, accused not be concluded that he was present at the place
of the crime, the prosecution will have to show relative evidence that accused was not occurred
any crime.
F. Essentially of the alibi:
Some of the ones to be followed, in general, are:
➢ It needs to be a felony punishable by statute.
➢ The one who argues the alibi must be convicted of the crime.
➢ This is a defensive plea in which the defendant claims that the crime was committed elsewhere.
➢ This claim must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the act of the crime,and
accused must to be physically present at the place of offence/crime.
➢ The petition must file by the offender and proof that supports on the behalf of the defendant's
argument.

G. Raising of a false plea of alibi by the accused:

In the criminal proceedings against the accused, if the defendant raises a false plea of alibi as a
defence in the case. Giving false alibi evidence leads to the accused's suspicious act, and the court
will be more vigilant in the case 's trial. When a false alibi plea is presented, it also changes the
investigation process.
H. Is alibi a good defence or not?
If this appeal is made with clear and independent evidence in preliminary hearings, the accused
are more likely to be convicted or emancipated. In this case that it is a claim to createfair doubt in
the court that whether the accused is a wrongdoer of the offence or not, the statement of alibi is
not substantive.
 7

I. Case Laws:
❖ Dudh Nath Pandey v.State of U. P.
The plea of alibi can only be entitled that it is clearly shown that the accused was a presence
so foe the place of crime at the relevant time and he was not present at the place where the
offence was committed”

❖ Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra

It was held that “plea of alibi has to be proved with the absolute certainty of facts to show that
the complete possibility of the accused was not present at the place of crime at the relevant
time when such crime happened”

❖ Binay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

It was held that Plea of alibi is not an exception (special or general) enumerated in the Indian
Penal Code or any other law. It is rule of evidence provided in Section 11 of Indian Evidence
Act that fact which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant.

J. Conclusion:
The defence of proving the plea of alibi means that the accused is present somewhere else at the
time when the crime has been committed at the same time. Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act
1872, does not only talk about the Plea of Alibi but it also deals with the inconsistent fact. The
burden of proof lies on the accused and the plea should be made as earliest as possible.

9. STATEMENT OF AN ACCOMPLICE: 4M
The word ‘accomplice’ has not been properly defined under the Indian Evidence Act but it refers
to a person who is a guilty associate and has either been convicted or has confessed his guilt in
relation to a charge or a trial. The legality of evidentiary value of accomplice evidence is dealt
with by two provisions: Section 133 and Section 114
Section 133 states: ‘Accomplice. —An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an
accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice.’
Section 114(b) states: That an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in
material particulars.
Illustration — A crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals, are
captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating
D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly
improbable.
❖ Sitaram Rao v. State of Jharkhand SC was held that conviction on the basis of accomplice’s
evidence is not illegal or unlawful but the question of believing the credibility of the
accomplice’s testimony is highly dependent on the Court’s perspective.