Unit – 2

Relevancy of Facts

1
Section 6 –
Relevancy of facts forming part of same transection.
Continuity of event

Event in continuity, no planning

May be at different places

Ex- cases of cruelty by husband.

Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, 1974, SC

House is there, two children are standing outside the door

and crying “save my mom”. A man is standing on roof of
another building watching all this. Thereafter man saw
smoke from the house and some person coming out from
2
room.
Section 6 – Relevancy of facts forming part of same
transection.

R. v. Bedingfield, (1879)

A women with her throat cut ran out of the house and
shortly before she died said “Oh Dear aunt, see what
Harry has done to me”. Statement was not considered
admissible due to time gap. And statement was so
separated by time and circumstances.

Ratten v. The Queen, (1971) 3 W.L.R. 930

A man prosecuted for murder of his wife. He took the

defence that shot went off accidently. Soon after shooting
victim telephoned and said “get me the police please”.3
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI, (2010) 9
SCC 747
1.Accused after killing and raping the victim came to ILI
and insisted peon to note his timing at 6 pm whereas he
came at 06:15pm.
2.Chasing the victim. (several FIRs to show)
3.Seen in the locality of victim.
4.Watchmen saw him going inside victim’s house.
5.Helmet visor was broken when he came out and pieces
found at victim’s house.
6.Injury on hand.
7.Semen found on the body of victim.

4
Section 7 – Facts which are occasion, cause or effect
of Fact in Issue or Relevant fact.

Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate

or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which
constitute the state of things under which they happened,
which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or
transaction, are relevant.

5
Effect – Priyadarshini Matoo case
•Marks on helmet

•Visor pieces

•Fracture on head and ribs

•Heter wire on the neck

•Marks on the neck

Ex – Dead body found in pond. After postmortem, water

was not found in lungs.

6
Section 7 – Facts which are occasion, cause or effect
of Fact in Issue or Relevant fact.

Occasion & Opportunity

Occasion is circumstance which creates opportunity to

commit wrong.

Ex – There is house outside jungle. A man stays alone in

the house. Another man came to his house and asked for
shelter as his car is broken down. A man allowed him to
stay. (it is an invitation/occasion)

•Deepak Chandrakant Patil v. State of Maharashtra,

2006 SC 7
State of UP through CBI v. Rajesh Talwar and Anr,
2012 CBI Court
•4 person in the house, at 09:30, they had dinner and
went to sleep.
•In the morning servant came and found 2 people dead.
•No forced entry in the house.
•No blood stain found on clothes of Mr. & Mrs. Talwar.
•Terrace was locked however terrace was never locked
before – testimony of neighbor.
•Body of hemraj found on terrace.
•Door of Arushi’s bedroom was click shut lock. Key was
with Talwars.
•Weapon used for killing was very sharp. Generally used
by dentist.
8
State of UP through CBI v. Rajesh Talwar and Anr,
2012 CBI Court
•Mattress and bedsheet thrown on terrace.

•Sexual intercourse evidence was found.

•Floor was washed, police informed late.

•Internet router was on. Mails were deleted.

9
Section 8 – Motive, preparation and previous or
subsequent conduct

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or

preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

Motive is larger goal for committing act/crime.

Cause is immediate reason or factor which pushes a

person to commit act/crime.

Intention is desire manifested by the design of committing

act.

Ex – H & W want to kill A. they went to market for buying

poison. They called A for dinner and mix poison in his
10
food.
 Section 8, para 2
Conduct of any party conduct of victim
or agent in

suit or proceeding; or
F.I; or
R.F
Influences or influenced by

R.F or F.I

•The conduct to be relevant must be done under the influence of

Relevant fact or Fact in Issue.

11
• A is suspected to have caused dowry death of his wife.
When police recovered the body, A made all possible
efforts to avoid post mortem.
• P is suspected to have killed his guest. When police
tried to dig his garden, he made all efforts to prevent
police from digging.
• Discovery statement made by accused u/S.27 of IEA.

Paras Ram v. State, 1970 ALJ

After getting arrested, accused had key of co-accused’s

house and recovered dead body is relevant u/S.8
against him. 12
Explanation I-
•It excludes statement if such statement is not explaining
conduct.

Ex- person running down the street in wounded

condition and calling the name of his assailant and
circumstances in which injuries were inflicted.

Explanation II-

A is accused of committing murder. One person makes a

statement that police is coming here. Soon after that A
starts going out.
13
14
Emperor v. Abdul Ghani Bahadur Bhai, AIR 1926

Accused managed to get 4 drafts from some bank. He

presented one draft and get it cashed. Before he
presented second draft, a telegram was received at bank
stating that drafts were stolen and need not be cashed.
Clerk informed the police and police arrested accused.
Telegram was considered relevant to explain conduct.

Support and Rebut

A is accused of committing robbery. Soon after incident

he ran away to Calcutta. A can rebut this inference if he
proves that he had urgent work in Calcutta. 15
Facts establishes the identity of thing or person
•Stolen mobile – can be identified by IMEI

TIP (Test Identification Parade)

•TIP (Identity of accused recognized by witness on oath is

relevant).

•TIP is to be conducted during investigation stage as per

Section 54A.

•TIP is not substantial piece of evidence, can be used for

corroboration.

16
Facts establishes the identity of thing or person
•Syed Darain Ahsan v. State of WB, AIR 2012
SC1286
– TIP not necessary if accused and witness stays in
same locality and know each other.
•Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab,

– In case of dacoity, accused was seen by A in the

night by using light of lantern.

– Accused was identified by A in TIP as well as in

Court. Evidence was considered admissible.
17
Facts establishes the identity of thing or person
•Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., 2005 SC

– It was held that TIP can also be done through

photograph.

Facts shows relationship of parties

•A & B staying together. B wants to show that A is her

husband. How to prove?

•Marriage certificate, marriage photograph, witness,

invitation card of marriage, conduct, people’s opinion etc.

18
Section 10 - Things said or done by conspirator in
reference to common design.
Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons
have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong,
anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in
reference to their common intention, after the time when such
intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact
as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well
for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.

19
• Section 10 is based upon Doctrine of Representation or
doctrine of agency.
• Once the conspiracy is formed, each conspirator is said
to represent other and whatever is said or done by any
of them will be applicable against other also.
• There can be conspiracy to commit crime or actionable
wrong.

20
Pre-conditions for Criminal Conspiracy

1.Prima facie case (Reasonable Ground) against

conspirators.
– Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admin), AIR 1988 SC 1883

2.The act must have done after the time when Intention
to conspire was entertained by any of them.

3.The act must have done in reference to common

intention.
– Md. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9
SCC 1

21
Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 146

Privy Council discussed the essentials of conspiracy by

stating that –
•It was held that once the intention to commit wrong has
been harboured or entertained, thereafter things said or
done by any of such person in furtherance of common
intention will be considered as relevant u/S.10.
•If anything said or done after the conspiracy is over will
not be considered as relevant u/S.10.

22
Section 11 - When facts not otherwise relevant
become relevant.

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –

(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or

relevant fact;

(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they

make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue
or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

23
• Inconsistent – two things can’t stand together.

• Probable – something which is more than possible.

• Highly probable – something more than probable.

 A & B were together in room in night and it was locked. In

the morning A was found dead by stabbing.
• Last seen together – B

• If it is proved that B is paralyzed, he can not move his hand

– Highly improbable that B can stab.
 Allegation on B that he forged document by himself. It is
proved that B is illiterate. – Highly Improbable.

24
Evidentiary value of plea of Alibi
•For complete defence it must be proved beyond doubt.

•The BOP is on accused and its very strict depending upon the
value of circumstantial evidence.

Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of UP, 1981 SC

•Widow along with her three daughters and one son used to reside
in bunglow in Stanely Road Allahabad. Accused used to live as
tenant in outhouse.

•Accused had evil eye on widow’s daughter Ranjana.

25
Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of UP, 1981 SC
•On a fateful day, accused caused death of ranjana’s brother.
Crime was witnessed by family servant. Ranjana registered
FIR, accused was arrested outside the factory, where he used
to work.
•Accused took plea of alibi. SC rejected the same as the
distance between crime scene and Factory was very less and
could be covered in 20-25 minutes.

26
Section 12 – In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to
determine amount are relevant.
•Principle – it enables the court to admit any fact which enables the court
to determine amount of damages, which has to be awarded to party.
•When damages are claimed in the suit, the amount of damages becomes
Fact in Issue.

•Cases of maintenance u/S.125 Cr.P.C.

•Fraudulent promise of marriage.

•Contract to sell house, later on breached by party.

27
Section 12 – In suits for damages, facts tending to
enable Court to determine amount are relevant.
•Criteria for determining damages is provided U/S.73 of
ICA, 1872.
•Can the character of person be a relevant fact for fixing
the amount of damages?

•yes, Section 55, IEA, 1872.

28
Section 13 – Facts relevant when custom or right is in question :
Following facts are relevant

•Any transection by which right or custom in question was created,

claimed, modified, recognised, asserted or denied or which was
inconsistent with its existence.
•Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed,
recognised or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted
or departed from.

Example: prohibited degrees of relationship not allowed to marry each

other by virtue of HMA, 1955.

29
• Example : there is a pond in the property of Mr.A. he
allowed villagers to take water from pond. Son of Mr. A
stopped villagers from taking water. Mr. A again allowed
villagers in front of Punch. Mr. A died. Again after 30
years, Son of Mr.A stopped villagers from taking water.
• Issue: whether villagers have right to take water from
pond or not?

30
Section 14 – Facts showing existence of state of
mind, state of body or bodily feeling
•State of mind : Intention, knowledge, good faith,
rashness, negligence, ill-will or good-will towards any
person
•Existence of state of body

•Existence of state of bodily feeling

– are relevant if above mentioned facts are relevant

fact or fact in issue.

31
State of mind :
•Illustration (a) & (b) – A accused of receiving stolen
property knowing them to be stolen.
– When asked about particular good, A said no. on
search particular article along with several other
stolen article found.
– It shows the knowledge of stolen goods.
– A asked his wife to hide such articles, or was ready
to sell at throwaway price.
•A shoots B on his forehead, here intention to cause
death can be inferred facts such as
– Body part where bullet hit
– Distance between accused and deceased
– Motive
– Statement made before shooting
32
– Earlier also A tried to kill B.
State of mind :
•Example of Vijay Mallya case, fraud of Rs.9000/- crore
– Left the country, refused to return and then agreeing
to pay principle amount can prove his knowledge.
•Illustration (c) – keeper of dog would not be liable for any
hurt done by dog, if he did not have knowledge about
bitten tendency of dog. (Masson v. Keeling, 1699)
– If it is proved that previously dog bitten X, Y & Z and
they made complaint to keeper can prove the
knowledge.

33
State of body:
•Statement made by person in respect his health at a
particular time is relevant fact.
•It becomes a part of Res Gestae.
•Statement shall be contemporaneous with the act it
describes.

•Illustration (m) & R. v. Thompson, 1912, KB

•Aveson v. Kinnaird, 1805 KB, issue was with regard to

Life insurance policy and veracity of statement of good
health made at the time of taking policy.
•During the same period, lady made a statement to a
visitor that she was in a bad state of health. statement
was held relevant. 34
State of body feeling:
•Statements made by a person about one’s state of bodily
feeling shall be contemporaneous.
Example - Whether person’s death was caused by poison?
•Statement made by a person during his illness stating
symptoms are relevant.
•They are relevant because they were made at a time
when that condition of body existed.
Explanation I – Evidence must show that state of mind
exists, not generally, but in reference to a particular
matter in question.
•Emperor v. Haji Sher Mohomed, 1921, accused was
charged with belonging to gang of dacoits, evidence was
sought to prove that he was previously convicted for theft.
It was held inadmissible.
35
Explanation I – Evidence must show that state of mind
exists, not generally, but in reference to a particular
matter in question.
•Emperor v. Haji Sher Mohomed, 1921, accused was
charged with belonging to gang of dacoits, evidence was
sought to prove that he was previously convicted for theft.
It was held inadmissible.

Explanation II – Previous offences or conviction can be

given when it is necessary to prove particular state of
mind or body.
Example – A intended to kill B by shooting.
The fact that A earlier also tried to kill B and was
convicted for grievous hurt. Such previous conviction can
be proved here to state of mind.
36
Section 15 – Facts bearing on question whether act
was accidental or intentional.
When there is a question whether act was accidental or
intentional or done with a particular knowledge or
intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of
similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing
the act was concerned, is relevant.

Section 15 comes into picture in two situations:-

1.When the question whether act was accidental or
intentional and the defence of accident has been set up;

2.When the question whether act was done with

particular knowledge or intentional.
37
In Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales,
1894

•The accused husband and wife were prosecuted for

murder of adopted child.
•Body of child was found buried in backyard of their house
occupied for the time being.

Defence – child had died of natural causes.

Prosecution – produced evidence to show that “on earlier

occasions also they had adopted babies and in each case,
the body of the baby was found buried in their respective
house”. 38
Lord Herschell held the evidence admissible and observed
that “evidence tend to show other crimes does not render it
inadmissible if it bears upon the question whether acts
alleged were designed or accidental or to rebut defence
which would otherwise be open to the accused”

In R. v. Smith, 1915, it was observed that “if you find a

accident which benefits a person and you find that person
has been sufficiently fortunate to have the accident
happened to him a number of times, benefitting him each
time, you draw a very strong inference that the occurrence
of so many accidents benefitting him is such a coincidence
39
that it can not have happened unless it was designed”.
Section 15 not applicable when act is apparently
intentional and there is no suggestion of accident.
In Emperor v. Panchu Das, (1920) ILR 47
– Accused visited the lady of easy virtue by showing
himself as son of wealthy zamindar and was charged
for murder and robbery of first woman by severing her
head from body in 1914.
– In 1916, accused resumed his activities and visited 3
different woman by showing him self son of wealthy
zamindar.
– In trial of murder and robbery of first woman,
evidence was offered of subsequent similar
occurrences.
– The Court refused by stating that “there is no doubt
that act was intentional and not accidental.”
40
When the question whether act was done with particular
knowledge or intentional?
In Hales v. Kerrs, 1908
– Damages were claimed from barber for being negligent
in shaving with dirty razor, which infected plaintiff
with ring worm.
– The fact that two different witnesses were shaved at
barber’s shop and they also got infection was held
relevant.

In R. v. Mortimer, 1936
– Accused was prosecuted for causing death of woman
cyclist by driving his car against her.
– The fact that on two earlier occasions, he had driven
his car at woman was considered to be relevant.
41
 Difference between Section 14 & 15
1. Talks about any state of 1. Talks about only
mind. knowledge and intention.
2. R.F can be any fact, i.e. 2. R.F can be only
statement or previous transection, i.e. similar
conduct. occurrences.
3. Must show state of mind 3. Evidence will be relevant
towards any particular even if similar
person or offence in occurrences runs
question. against other person and
not towards victim in
question.

42
Section 16 – Existence of Course of business, when
relevant.
When question is whether particular act was done?
– Existence of course of business;
– Naturally being used to do a particular act.

43
Thank You
44
 Admission (Section 17-31)

•Statement is genus.

•Admission is species.

•Confession is sub-species.

•Every statement is not an admission.

•Whether Confession is also a kind of admission?

Types of Admission

1.Judicial admission (Section 58)

2.Extra judicial admission. (Section 17-31)

45
 Section 17 – Admission

Nature Who? Circumstances

Statement person hereinafter suggest an

hereinafter mentioned inference to mentioned (S.18-30)
F.I or R.F (S.18-20)

•Statement per se will not be admission rather later on if

any suit or proceeding is initiated then only it becomes
admission.
46
Example –
A told B that on 10/12/2016 I was with C at 09:00 pm in
restaurant. (Whether it is admission?)
Later on C was murdered somewhere and trial starts after
6 months. The C was killed on 10/12/2016 at 09:05 pm.
Now statement of A made to B becomes extra-judicial
admission/evidentiary admission.

In Thiru John v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977,

SC observed that admissions fulfilling requirement of
S.21 are substantive piece of evidence.

47
Section 18 – Admission by party to proceeding or his
agent

1.Admission by party or his agent;

2.By parties in representative character;

3.Party interested in Subject matter;

4.Person from whom interest derived.

Admission by party or his agent

•Rule of privity – first part of S.18 explains the rule of privity.

•Statement by any of partner, by karta of coparcenary family.

48
2. By parties in representative character –

• In a suit statement is made by the person who is

representing as plaintiff or defendant.
• Earlier in individual capacity he made statement.
• Such statement will not be considered as admission
unless such person proves that he made the
statement in representative capacity.

Example –

Statement by Trustee, receivers, the assignee of

insolvent’s estate, executors, administrators etc.
49
3. Party interested in Subject matter
• Suit is between A & B. C is not a party to the suit. C’s
statement won’t be considered as admission unless he
proves that he has some interest in S.M i.e. either
pecuniary or proprietary interest.
• Father having two sons F1 & F2. Father created charge
on the property to mother. If dispute arises between two
sons for property. Mother’s statement can be considered
as admission.
• In Sahdeo v. Board of Rev., AIR 1980, in a suit for
declaration of Title, the statement made by suitor’s father
• Hardatt Sharma v. Jaikishan, AIR 1983, Statement
by a person about his ownership after he transferred it is
not relevant.

50
4. Person from whom interest derived: Relevant only if
they are made during the continuance of the interest of
persons making it.
Example
• Father earlier made statement. Father died, property
dissolved in his two sons. Dispute started. Now the
statement of Father can be considered as admission.
• A owner made statement that C has right to passage in
property. Later on A sold property to B. Now B denies C’s
right to passage. C filed a suit against B. A statement can
be used as an admission.
• In Nirmala v. Rukminibai, AIR 1994, Deceased father of
plaintiff admitted that defendant was his second legally
wedded wife and her children were his legitimate children.
It was held admissible.

51
Section 19 - Admissions by persons whose position
must be proved as against party to suit

Example

•A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not

collecting rent due from C to B. A denies that rent was
due from C to B. C made statement that he owed B rent.
•Statement of C would be relevant if these conditions are
fulfilled:
– If a suit is brought b/w B & C, such statement is relevant as
an admission.

– C made statement while he was subject to such liability.

52
Section 20 - Admissions by persons expressly referred
to by party to suit

•The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.

A says to B--"Go and ask C, C knows all about it." C's
statement is an admission.

Admission when irrelevant (Sector 23)

In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made

either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not
to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court
can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of
it should not be given.
53
Section 23 – in civil cases, Admission is not relevant if –

1.It is made on express condition that evidence of it is not

to be given; or

2.If it is made under circumstances from which Court

infer that parties together agreed that evidence of it
should not be given.

•Based on “Interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium”.

Example – Cases of out of Court settlement. (Accident

cases, matrimonial cases)

54
 Relevancy of Admission (Section 21)

Proof of admissions against persons making them, and

by or on their behalf –

Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the

person who makes them, or his representative in interest;
but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person
who makes them or by his representative in interest,
except in the following cases:-

(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the

person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the
person making it were dead, it would be relevant as
55
between third persons under section 32.
 Relevancy of Admission (Section 21)

(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the

person making it, when it consists of a statement of the
existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in
issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind
or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct
rendering its falsehood improbable.

(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the

person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an
admission.

56
Relevancy of Admission (Section 21)

•Section 21 talks about two kind of admission –

– Self serving admission;

– Self harming admission.

Example –R told his friend A that he was in village on

14th January for pooja.

Now charge against A is that he committed murder on

14th January in Delhi. R took plea of alibi.

Suppose R wants to prove a statement made by him to A.

this statement is relevant to prove his alibi. It is Self
serving admission. 57
Self harming admission

Suppose in the same case, R told A that on 14th January

he was in delhi, and did not go to village. Now If R took
plea of alibi. The statement made by him to A can be
used against him. So it is self harming admission.

When self serving admission can be proved

1.Statement of person – if such person were dead,

statement can be proved u/S.32.

Illustration - b and c

58
When self serving admission can be proved

2.Statement showing conduct

•Statement made regarding state of body or mind;

•Showing some conduct which renders falsehood of

statement improbable.

Illustration - d and e

3.Statement relevant under some other sections of

IEA.

R v. Abdullah, ILR 1885

Injured person running down street by telling accused’s

name 59
Section 22 – when oral admission as to content of
documents are relevant

To give oral admission, requirement of Section 65 shall be

fulfilled. Conditions are –

1.When genuineness of document is challenged;

2.When original document (primary evidence) is lost; or

3.When original document is in the possession of

opposite party.

60
Section 22 A – when oral admission as to content of
electronic records are relevant

To give oral admission, requirement of Section 65 shall be

fulfilled. Condition is –

1.When genuineness of document is challenged;

Example – A executed mortgage deed in favour of B. B

files a suit for possession of mortgage property. A denied
execution of mortgage. Now how B can prove execution of
mortgage deed?

61