Fact, fact in issue, relevant

fact, document, proved,

disproved and not proved
Sec 3
QUESTION
⚫ Define and discuss fact, fact in issue and relevant fact.
(S3)
FACT, FACT IN ISSUE AND
RELEVANT FACT
FACT, FACT IN ISSUE AND
RELEVANT FACT
⚫ SEC 3 of the Act defines “Fact”
⚫ “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.

⚫ Fact’ means an ‘existing thing’.

⚫ Under the Act this is divided into two categories:
⚫ A) Physical facts and psychological facts
⚫ B) Positive and negative facts.
⚫ Physical facts
⚫ They are facts perceived by senses.
⚫ Illustrations a, b and c given above are physical facts.
⚫ 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.
⚫
⚫ A person saw something,
⚫ smelt something,
⚫ tasted something,
⚫ felt something against his skin,
⚫ heard something being said are all physical facts.
⚫ Psychological facts
⚫ These are the facts that exist in the minds of people.
⚫ Illustration
⚫ (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts
in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a
particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a
particular sensation, is a fact.
⚫ (e) That a man has a certain reputation is a fact.

⚫ A particular person has a reputation.

⚫ ‘A’ has a good opinion about ‘B’, or
⚫ Where ‘B’ had a fraudulent design in his mind to sell his barren
land to ‘A’.
⚫ Such opinions and feelings etc., which cannot be perceived by the
senses but felt by the mind are psychological facts.
⚫ Positive facts
⚫ ‘A’ killed ‘B’.
⚫ There are blood stains on the floor.
⚫ There is a knife in the hand of ‘A’ or
⚫ ‘B’ screamed not to kill him.
⚫ These are positive facts i.e., there is an existence of a certain
state of things.

⚫ Negative facts
⚫ The non-existence of it is a negative fact.
⚫ Nothing is heard from ‘B’.
⚫ ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not seen together since so many days.
⚫ There is no weapon found in the house of ‘A’.
They are negative facts.
“Facts in issue”
⚫ The expression “facts in issue” means and includes—
⚫ any fact from which,
⚫ either by itself or in connection with other facts,
⚫ the existence, non-existence, nature, or
⚫ extent of any right, liability, or disability,
⚫ asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding,
⚫ necessarily follows.

⚫ Explanation — Whenever, under the provisions of the law for

the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, any Court
records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in
the answer to such issue, is a fact in issue.
⚫ Facts in issue mean the matters which are in dispute or
which form the subject matter of investigation.
⚫ Facts in issue are facts out of which some legal right,
liability or disability necessarily arises and upon which
a decision must be arrived at.
⚫ They are affirmed by one party and denied by the
other.
⚫ When a case comes before the court, it is important that
the facts in controversy which the plaintiff in a civil action
or the prosecutor in a criminal proceeding must prove in
order to succeed, together with any further facts that the
defendant or accused must prove in order to establish a
defence.
⚫ All the ingredients of the offence with which the accused is
charged are ‘facts in issue’ in a criminal case.

⚫ Illustration
⚫ A is accused of the murder of B.
⚫ At his trial the following facts may be in issue:—
⚫ That A caused B's death;
⚫ That A intended to cause B's death;
⚫ That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B;
⚫ That A at the time of doing the act which caused B's death,
was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing
its nature.
⚫ In the same manner, in civil cases, issues are to be framed
before the trail begins. The court frames issues on all the
disputed facts which are necessary for the decision of a
case.

⚫ Facts in issue are the principal facts and are determined

by the substantive law and the pleadings.
Sec 3 - “Relevant”
⚫ Indian Evidence Act does not give any specific definition of
‘relevancy’ or ‘relevant fact’. It simply describes when one fact
becomes relevant to another fact.

⚫ Relevant – “One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one

is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the
provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.”

⚫ All facts are relevant which are capable of affording any reasonable
presumption as to fact in issue or the principal matter in dispute.

⚫ If a fact is not so connected, it is not a relevant fact.

⚫ The word ‘relevant’ has two meanings,
⚫ on one hand it means ‘connected’ and
⚫ on the other it means ‘admissible’.

⚫ But there is a subtle difference between ‘relevance’ and

‘admissibility’.

⚫ All the evidence which is relevant need be admitted in

the court. (eg: privileged communication, professional
communication etc)

⚫ But all the evidence admitted in the court must be

relevant.
⚫ Chapter II of the Act (Sec 5-55) deals with relevancy of facts.
⚫ If a piece of evidence is to be admitted in the court of law, it
must relate to any of these 50 sections. Then only they will be
admitted. They are:
⚫ Facts logically connected with the facts in issue or relevant
facts
⚫ Admissions and confessions
⚫ Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses
⚫ Statements under special circumstances
⚫ Judgments in other cases
⚫ Opinion of third persons
⚫ Evidence as to character
⚫ Sir Stephen opines that the ‘relevancy’ means connection
of events as cause and effect.
⚫ Generally the facts relevant to an issue are those facts
which are necessary for proof or disproof of a fact in
issue. Such facts may be given in evidence directly or
inferentially.
⚫ What is really meant by ‘relevant fact’ is a fact that has
a certain degree of probative force. They themselves are
not facts in issue but may affect the probability of fact in
issue.
⚫ Relevant facts are subsidiary or collateral in nature, but
pertinent or probable in giving rise to an inference of right
or liability by a process of reasoning.

⚫ Facts which are not themselves in issue, in the sense above

explained, may effect the probability of the existence of the
fact in issue may be called collateral facts. Facts relevant to
the issue are evidentiary facts which render probable the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or some relevant
fact.

⚫ Evidence of collateral facts having no connection whatever

with the principal transaction must be excluded.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT IN
ISSUE AND RELEVANT FACT
FACT IN ISSUE RELEVANT FACT
⚫ A fact in issue is called the ⚫ A relevant fact is called the
principal fact or factum evidentiary fact or factum
probandum probans/facta probantia.

⚫ A relevant fact is not a

⚫ A fact in issue is a necessary
ingredient of a right or liability.
necessary ingredient of a right
or liability. It merely renders
probable the existence or
non-existence of any ingredient
of a right or liability.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT IN
ISSUE AND RELEVANT FACT
FACT IN ISSUE RELEVANT FACT
⚫ Fact in issue are the matters ⚫ Relevant facts are not
which are in dispute. They are themselves in issue, but they
facts out of which some legal are the foundations of the
right or liability necessarily inference regarding them.
arises and upon which a
decision must be arrived at.
They are matters which are
affirmed by one party and
denied by the other
DOCUMENT
Document - Section 3
⚫ “Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any
substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one
of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the
purpose of recording that matter.

⚫ Illustrations
⚫ A writing is a document;
⚫ Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents;
⚫ A map or plan is a document;
⚫ An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document;
⚫ A caricature is a document.
⚫ Generally the term document means any matter written on
paper in some language.
⚫ But according to the Act, document means any matter
expressed or described upon any substance, paper, stone,
or anything by means of letters or marks.
⚫ Hence a banner with inscription, musical composition,
letters or marks on trees and intended to be used as
evidence that the trees have been passed for removal by a
Ranger, are documents.
PROVED, DISPROVED
AND NOT PROVED
PROVED, DISPROVED and NOT
PROVED
⚫ “Proved”— A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the
matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers
its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the
circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that
it exists.

⚫ “Disproved”— A fact is said to be disproved when, after

considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it
does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a
prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to
act upon the supposition that it does not exist.

⚫ “Not proved”— A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither

proved nor disproved.
PROVED
⚫ “Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration
because that it impossible. It means such evidence as would induce a
reasonable man to come to a conclusion” – State of West Bengal
v/s Orilal Jaiswal.

⚫ The true questions in trials of facts are not whether it is possible that
the testimony may be false but whether there is sufficient
probability of its truth.

⚫ Proof here means “anything which serves either immediately or

mediately to convince the mind of the truth or falsehood of a fact
or proposition.” Absolute certainty amounting to demonstration is
not seldom to be had in the affairs of life and we are frequently
obliged to act on degrees of probabilities which fall very short of
it indeed.
⚫ Pershady v/s State - the extent to which a particular
evidence aids in proving the fact in controversy is called
‘probative force’. This probative force must be sufficient to
induce the court either:
⚫ To believe in the existence of the fact sought to be proved, or
⚫ To consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought
to act upon the supposition that it exists. The test is of
probability upon which a prudent man may base his opinion.
⚫ On the question of standard of proof there is but one rule of
evidence which in India applies to both civil and criminal
trials, and that is contained in the definition of ‘proved’ and
‘disproved’ in Section 3 of the Evidence Act.

⚫ Proof v/s Suspicion

⚫ It must be borne in mind that suspicion and conjecture cannot
take the place of legal proof.
Matters before it
⚫ Section 3 does not say that the court has to consider the ‘evidence’
before it, but ‘matters before it’.
⚫ This term does not fall within the definition of ‘evidence’.

⚫ The result of local enquiry by a court,

⚫ Material objects brought before the court,
⚫ The demeanour of witnesses,
⚫ Admissions by parties,
⚫ Confessions by accused,
⚫ Statement of the accused.
⚫ Commissioner’s reports,
⚫ Are not evidence according to the definition given in Section 3, but
they are all matters before the court to be considered while coming
to conclusion.
DISPROVED and NOT PROVED
⚫ The standard of proof for proved, disproved and not proved
should be of an ordinary prudent person, who will judge its
existence or non-existence from the standard of circumstances
before him.

⚫ Disproved is the converse of the definition of ‘proved’.

⚫ But ‘Not Proved’ indicates a state of mind in between the

two, that is, when one cannot say whether a fact is proved
or disproved. It negatives both proof and disproof.
⚫ In Naval Kishor Somani v/s Poonam Somani (AIR 1999 AP 1)
held, a fact is said to be ‘not proved’ when it is neither proved nor
disproved. On the other hand the fact is said to be ‘disproved’ when
after considering the matters before it the court either believes that it
does not exist or considers its non-existence, so probable that a
prudent man, ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon
the supposition that it does. ‘Disproved’ is akin to the word ‘false’,
but a fact that is ‘not proved’ may be true or false. A doubt
lingers about its truth merely because it is not proved or may not
jump to the conclusion that it is disproved. A fact is disproved
normally by the person who claims that alleged fact is not true. For
proving a fact, burden is always on the person who alleges that
the fact is not true.

⚫ The phrase ‘not proved’ is the result of careful scrutiny of the person
of ordinary prudence that the fact neither exists with certainty nor is
its non-existence proved with certainty. It is the provision between
existence and non-existence of the fact in the mind of a man of
ordinary prudence.
Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
⚫ This maxim means ‘if a thing is false in respect of one, it
must be taken as false in respect of all’.
⚫ Some argue that if part of the evidence of a witness has
been disbelieved, the whole of it should be disbelieved.
⚫ But this maxim does not occupy that status of law in
India. This rule is merely a rule of caution. All that it
amounts to is that, in such cases the testimony of the
witness may be disregarded and not that it must be
disregarded.
⚫ In Gallu Shah v/s State of Bihar 1958 AIR 813 – here
two of the four accused were acquitted, though evidence
against them was the same as against the appellant, held,
this would not entitle them to acquittal only on that
ground. The witnesses were disbelieved with regard to
some accused but they were believed with regard to
others. No rule of law was held to have been violated.
⚫ The entire testimony of a witness cannot be disregarded because one
portion of such testimony is false. This Court observed thus
in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381.

⚫ CR No.204519/2016 State v. Sunil Kumar Atreya And CR

No.204211/2016 Sonali Jha v. State & Anr. Page No. 24 of 32
⚫ “It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff.
Where chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the
court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence
has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused
persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or material
particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The
maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no application in
India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim
"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has not received general
acceptance..”
****