MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) Five-Year Integrated Degree Course

Year-IV, Semester-VII: Academic Year : 2022-2023
Mid-Semester Examination, August-2022

(Students are strictly prohibited from writing their names, UIDs or any other indicator(s) of
identity in the Answer File)

Course Code and Name: Law of Evidence

Answer to Question No. (2)

The expression “Facts in issue” refers to “facts out of which a legal right, liability or
disability arises and such legal right, liability, or disability is involved in the inquiry and upon
which the Court has to give the decision.”

The facts in issue in the given case are:

1. Whether the accused persons commited house tresspass by entering and dragging Suleman
out of his house thereby comminting the offence under section 448 of IPC?
2. Whether the accused persons commited the murder by killing Suleman and thereby
committed the offence under section 302 of IPC.

Relevancy of facts :
“Relevancy of facts” is considered as a tool for the identification of facts, as appropriate to
the case, from plethora of them. “Relevancy means what facts may be proved before the court
and that facts allowed to be proved under sections 5 to 55 of the Evidence Act, are called
relevant.”

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about relevancy of facts forming part of the
same transaction. It states that:
“Facts which though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form the part of
the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at
different times and place.”

The term “transaction” is need to be taken into considereration to determine the relevancy in
the given question.
There “is a working test for decidng what transaction is as under:
1
  Unity or proximity of place,
 Proximity of time,
 Continuity of actions, and
 Community of purpose.”

Continuity of action and community of purpose must be the key test. The condition for
admissibility of a statement made by a person at the occurrence scene is time proximity,
police station proximity, and continuity of action.

Section“6 underlies the principle of res gestae. It may be defined as:

“Those circumstances which are the automatic and undesugned incidents of a particular
litigated act which are admissible when illustrative of such act.”
They“are the acts talking for themselves not what people say when talking about the acts.
The reason behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such a statement that for
concoction there is hardly any time. Res gestae contains facts that are part of the same
transaction. It is, therefore, appropriate to examine what a transaction is, when it begins and
when it ends. If any fact does not connect to the main transaction, it is not a res gestae and
therefore inadmissible.”

Illustration of res gestea :

Following facts are needed to be considered for the purpose of illustration:
1. “A” picks up keroscene can.
2. “A” goes near a bus and sprinkles keroscene.
3. “A” light up the lighter.
4. “A” sets the bus on fire.
If we consider the fact 1 alone, it is not relevent at all. But if we consider the fact 1 along with
the facts 2, 3 and 4, it becomes very relevant.

“Ratten v. The Queen

A man was prosecuted for the murder of his wife. His defence was that the shot went off
accidently. There was evidence to the effect that the deceases telephone to say:
“Get me the police please”. Before the operator could connect the police the caller who spoke
in distress gave her address and the call suddenly ended. Thereafter the police came to the

2
house and found the body of the dead women. Her call and words she spoke were held to be
relevant as a part of the same transaction which brought about the death. Her call in distress
showed that the shooting in question was intentional and not accidental. For no victim of an
accident could have thought of getting the police before the happening. This then is the utility
of the doctrine of res
gestae. It enables the court to take into account all the essential details of a transaction.”

Similarly, in the given case the facts are as under:

1. Suleman had quarrels with the other people of the village due to the old enmity about
their ancestral property. Name of his enemies were Rahgu, Kavi, and Ravi.
2. One day Raghu, Kavi and Ravi went to the house of the Suleman, challenged him to
come out and there was an exchange of abusive words between them.
3. Zainbi, the wife Suleman, intervened and requested them to leave him alone, but
without considering her request they dragged Suleman out of the house and he was
beaten by them with sticks.
4. Though he fell on the ground, the beating continued. The helpless Zainabbi ran to the
Police Patil of the village, Laxman and requested him to save Suleman while the
beating was going on.
5. The Police Patil went to the scene of the occurrence immediately and found the dead
body of Suleman, his blood, marks on the floor, stick, blood stains etc.
6. The police also heard some mumbling from the crowd. The crowd was saying that “a
property took his life”.
7. The FIR was lodged on the same day.

Motive is covered under section 8. It states that “any fact relevant which shows or constitutes
a motive or preparation for anty fact in issue is a relevant fact.” The fact no. 1 reveals the
possible motive behind the act of murdering Suleman. Hence, as per section 8, it is a relevant
fact. Also, section 7 talks about the “facst which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in
issue.” Fact no. 1 is a possible casue and its effect is the murder of Suleman. Hence, as per
section 7 also, fact no. 1 is relevant.
Section 9 of the act talks of “facst neccesary to explain or introduce relevant facts.” In the
present case, fact no. 1 explains and introduces fact no. 2 and 3. Hence, by section 9 also, fact
no. 1 is relevant.

3
Considering facts no. 2 – 4, Zainibbi witnessed the act of the Raghu, Kavi and Ravi of
exchange of abusive words between them and Suleman, dragging Suleman out of the house
and beating him with the stick. As Zainnibi is the eye witness here witnessing everything in
front of her eyes, these facts comes under the perview of direct evidencea. And hence are
relevent. Moreover, these facst are occuring automatically and spontaneously.

Considering “fact no. 4, the zainnabi being helpless immediately whent to the polic station
to save him, and the police came to the scene of occurrence immediately which shows the
spontaneaty of the fact.
The fact no. 6 is related to hearsay evidence. Although hearsay evidence is not admissible, it
may be admissible in a court of law when it is res gestae and may be reliable proof. In the
present case, as soon as the police Patil came to the place of murder of Suleman, he heard the
mumbling of the crowd. It is a automatic and spontaneous fact followed by the murder of
Suleman and and the coming of the police at the place of murder. An illustration of section 6
says that A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or
B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the
transaction, is a relevant fact. “Res gestae includes elements that completely fall outside the
definition of modern hearsay, such as circumstantial evidence of a state of mind, so called
“verbal acts“, verbal parts of acts, and certain non-verbal behaviour.” The murmuring of
the crowd is the circumstantial evidence. Moreover, the the facts no. 6 also corroborates with
the fact no.1 which reveals the possible motive behind the murder of Suleman. Then
immediately, the FIR was lodged on the same day.”

Hence, taking into consideration facts no. 2 – 7 together, and condireing the proximity of time
place, the spontaniety and the automatic occurrence of the these events, these facts are
forming the part of the same transaction. are relevant as per the doctrine of res gestea
under section 6.

Also, taking into consideration all the facts, the fact no. 1 and 2 about raghu kavi and ravi
caming to the house of suleman and beating him with the stick is a reasonable ground to
reveal their commom intention to kill Suleman and is a relevant fact. Under the perview of
section 10, the facst are relevant.

4
Hence, considering all the facts of the case in question, they are the relevant within the
ambit of sec. 6, sec. 7, sec.8 and sec. 9 , sec 10. and hence are relvant.

Answer no. 3.
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, talks about Facts in issue. Fact in issue “simply
means “the disputed facts“. In litigation or proceedings, generally, one-party claims that
certain facts exist, while the other party denies the existence. In this case, the fact that it is
accused by one party but denied by the other party.”
In our case, facts in issues are as follows-
• Whether Mr. X has committed a crime at place of incident Delghat?
• Whether Mr. X can claim plea of alibi under section 11?

In the given facts, Mr. X is an active social worker and he was involved in many social
activities pertaining to helping needy people. Several times, he was booked for troubling the
local government and its officials. On 30.1.2011, the collector had passed a notification for
the acquisition of the farmer's land for the construction of a flyover in the name of
development, which, according to the farmers, was not necessarily required. The farmers
approached the collector’s office to deliberate and situation got agrrevated resulting in lathi
charge.
After the order of collector to arrest the people who were in it, Mr X also arrested who was
not even in the village at the time of incident.
Section 11(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that “when facts not otherwise relevant
become relevant i.e. the facts which are inconsistent with the facts in issue or relevant facts
are relevant.”
For example, “The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The
fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime
was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would
render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.”( Plea of
Alibi )- (Illustration from section 11(1))
There are generally five classes of cases that arise for consideration under the given clause.
One of them “Plea of Alibi” can be considered in our given facts.
“Plea of Alibi is 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.”

5
In Dudh Nath Pandey v State of UP26, “the Supreme Court said that the plea of alibi must be
proved with absolute certainty, so as to make the presence of the accused at the crime scene,
impossible.”

Essentials of Plea of Alibi

In general, “some of the factors to be adhered are as follows:
• There must be an allege offence punishable by law.
• The person making the plea of alibi must be an accused in that offence.
• It is a plea of defence where the accused states that he or she was somewhere else at the
commission of the offence.
• The plea must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was impossible for the accused to be
physically present at the time of the commission of the offence.
• Making the plea of alibi must be an accused in that offence.”

In our case, the essentials of Plea of Abili are being satisfied as After the aggravated situation
which resulted in lathi charge, Mr. X was arrested for the alleged offence which is punishable
under law in the given case. Thus Mr. X can make Plea of Alibi as it is stated in the facts that
he had gone to Mumbai which is almost 600 km away from the place of instance in his village
Delghat so it is impossible for the accused i.e. Mr X to be physically present at the time of
offence or occurrence.

In the case Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar, “the presence of the accused at the
distance of 400-500 yards between place of occureence cannot be said to be present
elsewhere. Here distance is not far so there can be a possibility to also be at place of
occurrence.
But in our case, distance of 600km is too far from the place of instance that it is impossible
for him to be present at the Delghat village. Thus Mr. X can make a Plea of Alibi.”

Now talking about the relevant facts,

According to Section 5 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, says “Evidence may be given in any
suit or proceeding of the existence of non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other
facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.”
And of no others in the section excludes everything which is not declared relevant under any
of the Sections 6 to 55.

6
Thus whatever facts which is relevant under Section 6 to 55, it is said as Relevant facts under
the ambit of section 5. Hence in the given case the Plea of Alibi which can be Claim by Mr. X
is relevant under Section 11 comes under the ambit of Section 5.

Relevancy is based on logic and probability and the facts which may be proved before the
court. It is found on the basis of the rationale and human experience
Hence in the given case the fact that he was not there at the place of instance i.e 600 km away
from there. Thus it will be a Relevant fact.
Admissibility is not based on logic but on law and strict rules. As per the Section 136 of the
Evidence Act, the final discretion of the admissibility of evidence of the case lies with the
judge. All relevant fact need not necessarily to be admissible.

Thus admissibility in the given case is to be proved in the court. The burden of Proof lies
in Mr.X.