UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

LAW OF EVIDECNE PROJECT WORK ON THE CONCEPT OF:

FACTS, RELEVANT FACTS AND FACTS IN ISSUE

Submitted to: Mr. Purshottam (Teacher

charge)

Submitted by: Sejal Grover

Roll No. 293/19
Section: E
B.Com.LL.B.(H)
7th Semester

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In preparation of my assignment, I had to take the help and guidance of some
respected people, who deserve my deepest gratitude. As the completion of this
assignment gave me much pleasure, I would like to show my gratitude in Mr.
Purshottam for giving me good guidelines for assignment throughout numerous
consultations. I would also like to expand my gratitude to all those who directly or
indirectly guided me in writing this assignment. Many people especially my
classmates have made valuable comment suggestions on my paper which gave me an
inspiration to improve the quality of the assignment.

SEJAL GROVER

2
 INTRODUCTION
The primary objectives of the law of evidence are to aid the courts in ascertaining
the truth, to prevent inquiries from becoming drawn-out and prolonging the judicial
process, and to ensure that judges do not grow confused or muddled due to irrelevant
or inconsequential evidence. The origin of the law of evidence in India can be traced
to the concepts enshrined in English law. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (henceforth
referred to as the Act), which governs the rule of law of evidence in India is not
exhaustive, therefore, English law can be used as a reference while interpreting the
provisions of the aforementioned Act. However, principles of English law
inconsistent with the Act cannot be applied.

Evidence which does not fall under the Act, is not admissible in court, even if it is
the key to determining the truth of the matter. Furthermore, the parties cannot opt-
out of following the provisions of the Act through means, such as contracts, nor do
courts have the power to neglect relevant facts using the pretext of conforming to
public policy.

Evidence law is supported by three main pillars:

1) Evidence should only consist of matters in issue;

2) Hearsay evidence does not have evidentiary value;

3) There should be an effort to provide the best evidence in all cases.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an important clause that provides the
definition of important terms that appear throughout the Act. Section 3 clearly
defines what constitutes a court i.e., who is authorised by this Act to collect evidence
and reach a decision. Section 3 also states what is a fact, what is relevant, the
different types of evidence, documents, how a fact is proved, disproved and not
proved. The significance of Section 3 lies in how it sets up the reading of the rest of
the Act, and the interpretation of evidence law according to it.

3
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Interpretation clause

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contains details on the interpretation of
the terms – Court, Fact, Relevant, Facts in issue, Document, Evidence, Proved,
Disproved, Not Proved, India – unless the context implies a contrary intention.

To ensure that a judicial process does not linger on for too long, courts cannot waste
their time on things that are not important to the case. While there can be many things
for which evidence can be given evidence that does not bear on the case at hand, and
has no use for the court. This is the concept behind Section 5 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, which says that in any suit or proceeding, evidence may be given of the
existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are
hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others. A person is not allowed to
bring forward any evidence to prove or disprove a fact that is neither a fact in the
issue nor a fact that is relevant to the facts in the issue. This statement refers to two
kinds of facts – facts in issue and relevant facts.

4
 FACTS
‘Fact’ may be defined as:

Any thing, state of things, relation of things, that can be sensed (external fact).

For instance –

 When certain things are placed in a certain way/pattern, it is a fact.

 When a person sees or hears something, it is a fact.
 The words spoken by a person, is a fact.

Any mental condition of which any person is conscious (internal fact).

For instance–

 The opinion of a person.

 The intentions of a person.
 A person acting in good faith/fraudulently.
 The deliberate choice of a person’s words.
 Feeling a certain sensation at a certain time.
 A person’s reputation.

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. However, the law of evidence is not restricted to physical facts “only”.
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.

5
Bentham gave the following as important examples of psychological facts:-

1. Sensations: feelings having their seat in some one or more of the five senses-sight,
hearing, smell, taste and touch. Sensations, again, may be sub-divided into those
which are pleasurable, those which are painful, and those which, not being attended
with any considerable degree of pleasure or pain, may be called indifferent.

2. Recollections: the recollections or remembrances of past sensations.

3. Judgments: that sort of psychological fact which, has place when we are said to
assent to or dissent from a proposition.

4. Desires: which, when to a certain degree strong; are terms passions.

5. Volitions: or acts of the will etc.

Positive and negative facts

When the existence of a situation or state of things can be confirmed, it is a positive

fact. For instance, in a property dispute case, the deceased left a will to bequeath his
property. The existence of the will is a positive fact. On the other hand, the non-
existence of a situation or state of things is a negative fact. For instance, the lack of
a weapon at the scene of a murder.

6
 FACTS IN ISSUE
Facts in issue are those facts that are sought to be proved and are also called
“principal facts” or factum probandum. When the rights and liabilities of the parties
are dependent on a fact that is in dispute or controversy, that fact is in issue.

For example, ‘X’ is accused of defaming ‘Y’ through libel. The possible facts may
be in issue: that ‘X’ caused damage to ‘Y’s reputation; ‘Y’s business suffered losses
due to ‘X’s defamation; ‘X’ wrote and published defamatory statements about ‘Y’
out of malice, etc.

Facts in issue determine the arguments of both the plaintiffs and defendants. The
parties must prove that the facts in issue lean toward their pleadings in order to sway
the court’s decision in their favour. The substantive law applicable to the offence
determines what constitutes the facts in issue. In criminal cases, facts in issue depend
on the contents of the charge-sheet, whereas, in civil cases the framing of issues
takes place.

Facts in issue form the foundation upon which the parties argue their case, and when
these facts are proved to the satisfaction of the court, a decision can be made.

Section 3 defines facts in the issue. According to this section, 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. For example, A is accused of murder, or B. In this case, the following are facts
in issue –

1. A caused B’s death.

2. A had intention to kill B.
3. A was insane.
4. A received grave and sudden provocation from B.

7
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. A fact in issue is also known by its Latin term
– factum probandum, which means fact to be proved.

A fact will be considered as a fact in issue only if the fact is such that by itself or in
connection to other facts it is crucial to the question of a right or liability. 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.

8
 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 probandi). These facts are
not in issue – they are not the main issue of controversy or dispute between the
parties. Rather, relevant or evidentiary facts dig deeper into the context or
circumstances of the facts in issue, and help to draw inferences about them.

Admissions and confessions, statements by those who are not witnesses, precedents
from case laws, statements made under special circumstances, facts which form a
chain of logic with facts in issue, third party opinions, and evidence as to the
character of a person – all these fall under the category of relevant facts.

Relevant facts indicate a relationship between facts, which according to a sound

chain of logic and common sense, either prove or disprove the existence of each
other. Relevant facts act as supplementary material to sway the opinion of the court
in favour of the party making the argument with respect to the facts in issue.

For example, ‘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.

The word relevancy as such is not defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
however, the meaning of the word is quite clear. The word “relevancy” means the
property of a thing that makes it connected to the matter at hand. A thing is relevant
to other when it has a relation to the other thing that tells something appropriate
about the other thing. Relevancy of a Fact means that the fact has a significant
relation to another fact that is under consideration. When two facts have a direct
relation, they are relevant to each other. For relevancy, it is necessary that if we take
one fact, the other will be relevant only if there is a certain type of relationship
between them, which is pertinent in the given circumstances.

A relevant fact is also known by its Latin term – factum probans, which means a fact
that proves. Thus, if facts-in-issue are the facts to be proved or disproved in a trial,

9
relevant facts are the facts that help prove or disprove facts-in-issue. A fact is
relevant if belief in that fact helps the conclusion of the existence or non-existence
of another.

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. The relationship makes one fact more
probable or improbable because of the other. For example, Fact A is that a person
was given a certain medication and died. Fact B is that the person was suffering from
TB. Here, fact B is relevant to the fact A because it throws light on the possible
causes of his death. Fact B makes it probable that he might have died because of TB
instead of the given medication.

In DPP vs. Kilbourne, 1973, Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, “Evidence is relevant
if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof.
Relevant evidence is evidence that makes the matter which requires proof more or
less probable.”

As is evident from Section 5 stated above, only those facts that are related to the
facts in the issue through relationships defined in Sections 6 to 55 are legally relevant
and evidence can be given only for those facts in a trial. It must be noted, however,
that a relevant fact may not necessarily be admissible.The concept of relevancy is
based on logic and human experience. Relevancy merely implies the relevant facts
and signifies what facts are necessary to prove or disprove a fact in an issue.

Admissibility is the concept in the law of evidence that determines whether or not
the evidence can be received by the court. Under the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, when any fact has been declared to be legally relevant then they become
admissible. All admissible facts are relevant but, all relevant facts are not
admissible. Admissibility is a decisive factor between relevance and proof and only
legally relevant facts are admissible.

10
There are two kinds of relevancy -

(i) Logical Relevancy

(ii) Legal Relevancy

(i) Logical Relevancy - A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when by

application of our logic it appears that one fact has a bearing on another fact.

(ii) Legal Relevancy - A fact is said to be legally relevant when it is expressed as

relevant under Section 5 to 55 (Relevancy of Fact).

11
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN FACTS IN ISSUE
AND RELEVANT FACTS
Facts in issue are the matters which are in dispute or which form the subject of
decision in the suit. They are facts out of which some legal right, liability, or
disability, involved in the inquiry, necessarily arises and upon which a decision must
be arrived at. They are matters affirmed by one party and denied by the other.

Thus, if A is accused of the murder of B, the facts in issue will be that A caused B’s
death, that he intended to cause B’s death, and so on. Relevant facts, on the other
hand, are facts so connected with each other as to prove or disprove the facts in issue.
Relevant facts are not themselves in issue, but are foundation of inferences regarding
them.

One can, therefore, distinguish between ‘fact in issue’ and ‘relevant fact’ thus:

1. A fact in issue is a necessary ingredient of a right or liability. It is from such fact,

either by itself or in connection with other facts, that the existence or non-existence
of a right or liability necessarily follows. A relevant fact, on the other hand, is not a
necessary ingredient of a right or liability.

2. A fact in issue is called the “principal fact” or factum probandum. A relevant fact
is called the “evidentiary fact” or factum probans.

Facts in Issue Relevant facts

1) A fact in issue is the ultimate facts in A relevant fact is which helps to prove/disprove
dispute, i.e., “principal facts” or “factum the facts at issue, i.e., “evidentiary fact” or
probandum”. “Factum probandi”.

2) Facts at issue are significant in nature Relevant facts are non-significant.

12
3) The facts at issue are the basis of the
They are part of the law of evidence.
“law of evidence”.

4) These are confirmed by one party but The relevant facts are the foundation of the
denied by the other party. inferences made.

5) It is a necessary ingredient of a right or

It is not a necessary ingredient of a right or
liability.
liability.

13
 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. They provide the organizational structure and they operate at the highest
level of versatility because solving almost all problems related to a particular
evidence depends on maintaining a vivid understanding of the final evidence. Once
the facts at issue in a particular case are clarified, one can focus on the exact way in
which the evidence involved testifies against it. For relevant facts, since the thought
is related to something, it can be determined that the relevant fact is admissible if
related to the fact in issue and not by the exclusionary rule. One can focus on the
exact way in which the evidence involved testifies against it.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 http://indiankanoon.org/
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031309/
 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1872-01.pdf
 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/reformofjudicial/80.php?T
itle=&STitle=The%20Law%20of%20Evidence
 Ashok Jain, Law of Evidence, Ascent Publications, 2014
 Bare Act on Indian Evidence Act 1872 by Universal.

15