MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) IV Year Semester- VII

First Open Book Assessment

Course Code and Name: 7.5 LAW OF EVIDENCE

Name of Student: RUDRANSH. UID:UG2017-88

Answer 3.

The facts in the present case which can be categorized as relevant facts have been mentioned
here under;

a) The relationship between Rajesh who is the deceased and Mamta was not
satisfactory in the eyes of her brother who was accused for murder of Rajesh.
Mamta's Brother was opposed to the relationship between the deceased and his
sister.
Herein, application of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is indispensable , it states that
any act which shows the motive of a person can be considered as a relevant fact. Supreme
court in Vishal Yadav v. State of UP enunciated importance of motive in cases,
decision of which has to come on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The same was
reiterated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Brahm Swaroop v. State of UP
(AIR 2011 SC 280). Hence, the motive of the accused was there as he was not in
approval of the relation between the deceased and Mamta.
b) Deceased was seen leaving with one of the accused by Rohit who is the eye witness in
the present case and same was told to Varun who was the friend of the deceased.
Section 6 of The Evidence Act, 1872 comers into the picture as it describes that the facts
that are not part of fact in issue but are connected with facts in issue in such a way that
they form part of same transaction become relevant. Shyam Nandan Singh v. State of
Bihar (1991 Cr LJ 3359) Is such a decision where the person who saw the happening
made a statement soon after the incident and only then it can be relied upon .
Further in Bhaskara v. State of Kerela (1985 Ker LT 122) it was held that the
statement must be spontaneous in nature i.e. immediate reaction after the incident has
been observed. Orissa High Court in the case of Hadu v. State AIR 1951 Ori 53, a
transaction can comprise of single incident happening in few minutes or it can also be comprise
of various facts that have happened at different places.
If now we analyze the facts of the present case then first the abduction happens at a particular
time and place and then the transaction was continuing when it resulted in the murder of deceased
at different place and different time and hence, the observance by Rohit who is the eyewitness for
the abduction of the deceased and murder of the deceased at some different place formed the part
of same transaction.
Therefore, the statement of Rohit can be brought under the ambit of Section 6 of the act, as his
statement was spontaneous enough. It can be considered as a relevant fact and it can be
ascertained from the same that deceased and the accused were last seen together, and so the
doctrine of 'last seen together' is applicable here as after the same accused was murdered.
Answer 4.

The facts of the case are enlisted below:

a) Addiction of accused to ‘ganja and bhang'.
b) The accused administered a beating to his mother and wife. As a result of such violent
behavior on part of the accused, the deceased to stop such acts of the accused chained him.
He broke the chain and thereafter stopped talking to the deceased.
c) At 8:00pm on November 29, 2016 there was a demand on part of the accused for the partition
of the family , However the deceased showed his reluctance to do so.
d) The assault was inflicted on the person of deceased, and thereafter he died.

The facts that can be considered relevant are:

1). The accused was chained by the deceased and after that he stopped talking to the
deceased, and further the demand for partition was denied by the deceased.

Section 8 of the the Evidence Act, 1872 will be applicable here as it lays the importance of the
facts that form the motive and are hence the relevant facts.

When the deceased was beating his mother and wife, and to stop the same deceased chained the
accused so as to stop the violence. After this non indulgence in interaction with the deceased of
accused clearly shows that he was opposed to the deceased. Also when the demand for partition
was rejected, the accused attacked the deceased. It is clear from the above set of facts that the
accused was angry because of the fact that he was chained , and so after that he never indulged in
any conversation with the accused and directly on the particular time and date asked for partition,
the refusal to which was not sustained by the accused and so he attacked. Thus we can see that
there was a motive for murder of the deceased.

Also, Section 8 of The Evidence Act, 1872 mentions about the conduct of the deceased. The
conduct that after he was chained he stopped talking to deceased, and as soon as his demand of
property was denied he attacked the deceased. Prima facie, it is clear that motive was present and
therefore he attacked as soon as his demands were not met, and so the defence taken by him of
being insane is lacking content.
2). The accused vamoosed from the place of happening of crime, when an alarm was raised
by the people nearby

If such conduct of the accused is to be heeded it can be logically inferred that he was fully
knowing the consequences of his act and therefore he tried to flee. This act of the accused
removed the possibility of him being insane. Had it been the case of insanity, such sequential
occurrence of the facts would not have occurred. The dictum of Lakshmi v. State AIR 1959 All
534 states that if ‘reasoning and cognition’ has been found in the act of accused he cannot be
allowed the plea of insanity. He ran from the place of incident to save himself and thus he was
having knowledge of the consequences and hence, he cannot be considered as insane.
Answer 2.

Following are the facts of this case:

a) The accused worked in the shop of deceased's father.

b) The driver called the wife of deceased’s father and told her that their daughter went with
some body. Wife told the same to Makhan Lal who is the father of the deceased.
c) Soon after the phone call, the complainant went home and inquired from the watchman of
their housing society Jeevan Singh, who informed him that at about 3:45 pm, when he was
sitting near the gate of the Apartment, an unknown, fair complexioned boy, aged about 20-25
years, wearing a red half sleeves T-shirt, full white pants came to him, riding a black scooty.
d) The watchmen saw the deceased going along with the accused.
e) A call for ransom was received by deceased's father.
f) On the basis of the description given by the watchmen and analysing the voice, the
complainant suspected it to be the accused, Chaman Lal.
g) The accused led the police to the spot where the body of the deceased was found concealed
below the bridge.

Now let’s have a look at some of the relevant facts of the case;

1).The description given by the watchmen, of the person with whom the deceased went is
Relevant fact.

Section 6 of The Evidence Act, 1872 being applicable here which enunciates about facts forming
the part of the same transaction. This provision is based on the principle of Res Gestae. Res
Gestae means all those things which form the part of same transaction. The test for Res Gestae is
to check whether the facts form part of the same transaction or are too remote to form a part of
same transaction. As soon as driver saw the deceased going with someone, he reported the same
to Makhan Lall's wife who told it to Makhan Lal. Immediately Makhan Lal went to enquire from
the watchmen about the said facts. The act of giving description by the watchman can be said to
forming the part of same transaction as it happened very soon after the incident happened. The
statement forms part of same transaction if it happens immediately after and this proposition was
laid down in the case of Chain Mahto v. Emperor ((1906) 11 Cal WN 266, 271). The statement
of the eyewitness immediately after the incident was considered to be admissible in court.

So in the case on hand, the statement of watchmen was given immediately after the occurrence
and so it forms the part of same transaction and hence it is a relevant fact.

2).The fact that the deceased went with the accused on his scooty without any reluctance on
part of her is a relevant fact.

Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872 will find its applicability here. It states that any fact is a
relevant fact if it reveals the identity of the person. The deceased joined the accused on his scooty
without any unwillingness on her part gives a necessary implication that the deceased must be
acquainted with him. Had the case been otherwise, unwillingness would have been shown by the
deceased. Also the fact of pertinence here is that the deceased frequently used to visit the shop
and therefore, all the employees were acquainted with her. The fact established the identity of the
accused and hence is a relevant fact.

3). The act of the accused in telling where the body is hidden.

The apex court in A Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2005 7 iii. SCC 714) held that the
conduct of the accused in pointing to the place where dead body is hidden can also be termed as
relevant fact and is hence admissible. The act of pointing out the place where body was hidden
was of the nature so as to influence the fact in issue and hence it was a relevant fact under the
ambit of Section 8 of the The Evidence Act, 1872 and is admissible as evidence.