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 before Police officer itself con not be relevant for corroboration
rather It shall be made before JM U/S164(5) Cr.P.C.

•TIP itself is not evidence rather the identification made in the court
during trial is admissible.

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

corroboration u/S.157 IEA.
16
•What if witness/victim refuse to identify in the Court?
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
 Confession

•Section 24-30 deals with Confession.

•Section 24-26 deals with irrelevant confession.

•Section 27 -30 deals with relevant confessions which the

court will take into consideration.

•Section 17 defines Admission. Same shall be applicable

on confession also.

•As per Stephen’s Digest, “Confession is an admission

made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating
or suggesting inference that he committed that crime”.
62
 CONFESSION

•Statement made by accused admitting his guilt.

•Section 21 declares admission to be relevant. Therefore

Confession is also part of admission and hence
Confession is also relevant under Section 21.

Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007

•Held that confession is a statement made by accused

admitting offence. Communication to another is not
necessary. A accused might have been over heard
uttering to himself or he might keep note in writing.

63
In Pakala Narayana Swamy v. King Emperor, 1939
P.C.

•Confession must either admit in terms the offence, or

•At any rate substantially all the facts which constitute

the offence.

Privy Council’s judgement was relied by S.C. in

Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952, SC354

•Court held that statement that contains self exculpatory

matter can not amount to confession, if such statement if
true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed.

64
65
Section 28 - Confession made after removal of
impression caused by inducement, threat or promise,
relevant.

If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is

made after the impression caused by any such
inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the
Court, been fully removed, it is relevant.

Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra,

(2012) 9 SCC 1

66
Section 25 - Confession to police-officer not to be
proved

No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as

against a person accused of any offence.

Section 26 - Confession by accused while in custody

of police not to be proved against him

No confession made by any person whilst he is in the

custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as
against such person.
67
• Letter of confession posted to Police Officer not hit by
Section 25.

Sitaram v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1906

• A person committed murder of his wife and kept a letter

near body stating that I have committed murder and
after some time, I will surrender myself to police. It was
held to be admissible.

Nasar Ali v. State of U.P, AIR 1957 SC

• S.25 only excludes confession. Person lodged FIR

regarding murder. Later on he was found to be accused.
FIR lodged by him is not confession but is an admission.
68
Nishikant Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC

•Murder committed in running train compartment.

Accused stated that he was also in same compartment,
stranger entered and started assaulting deceased. He
tried to save deceased but could not. SC upheld High
Court judgement and accepted inculpatory statement and
rejected exculpatory statement.

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119

•Sometimes person after lodging FIR becomes accused, if

his FIR amount to confession, it would not be relevant as
confession as protected under Section.25.
69
Section 27 - How much of information received from
accused may be proved

Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered

in consequence of information received from a person
accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer,
so much of such information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved.

70
 Essential ingredients of Section 27

1.Discovery of material object on the basis of

information received from the accused.

2.The person giving the information must be accused of

an offence.

3.He must be in custody of police.

4.The portion which helps in discovery can only be

proved, rest of the admission is inadmissible.

71
• I killed Mr. B and I hide the weapon behind the temple
under the rock.
 Section 27 acts as an exception to Section 24, 25 and
26.

Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR

2002, SC 739

Section 27 was enacted as proviso. To S.25 & 26.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC

1808

Section 27 is not violating Article 20(3) of Constitution

because information is given by person without threat. .
72
 Section 27 applies only on those accused who give
discovery statement in police custody and not on those
who are not in police custody.

State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyay, AIR 1960SC 1125

• There was altercation between respondent and
deceased. He borrowed sharp edged weapon. Next
morning he was seen hurrying towards tank and taking
bath and then absconded. The dead body recovered
same day. Respondent convicted by trial Court.
• Acquitted by High Court on the ground that statement
was inadmissible u/S.27 as it violates Article 14 of
73
Constitution.
• Acquitted by High Court on the ground that statement
was inadmissible u/S.27 as it violates Article 14 of
Constitution, since it discriminate between person in
custody and those who are not in custody.
• Supreme Court convicted him by stating that such
classification is not violative of Article 14 of
Constitution.

Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 P.C.67

• Accused charged with murder and when arrested made
statement that “spear with which I stabbed, I hid in
particular place”. The High Court convicted accused on
74
such statement.
• Accused charged with murder and when arrested made
statement that “spear with which I stabbed, I hid in
particular place”. The High Court convicted accused on
such statement.

• The Privy Council reversed the high Court judgement

and held that Under S.27 only that much portion
which helps in discovery of relevant fact is admissible
and rest is inadmissible.

75
Section 29 - Confession otherwise relevant not to
become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.

•By deceiving,

•Under intoxication;

•Cheating,

•Promise of secrecy.

– Confession is not irrelevant, if otherwise relevant.

76
Section 30 - Consideration of proved confession
affecting person making it and others jointly under
trial for same offence.

•Tried jointly and for the same offence;

•Confession if duly proved, will be applicable :-

– against the maker as substantive piece of evidence.

– Against Co-accused, it is considered as weak

evidence, requires corroboration with other
circumstantial evidences.

•Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159

– Confession by co-accused is weak type of evidence. In order to
77
be admissible, it shall be corroborated.
Retracted Confession

•Confession made by party.

•Later on at the stage of trial, accused denies having

made the confession or he asserts that confession was
recorded under compulsion.

In Bharat v. State of UP, AIR 1974,

•Hidayatullah, CJ observed that in such cases, the Court
will strictly examine :
• whether confession was made or not?
• Whether it was voluntary or not?
•BOP lies on the accused to prove the ground for
retraction.
78
Statements by persons who can
not be called as witnesses

79
Section 32 - Cases in which statement of relevant fact
by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is
relevant.
•Oral evidence must be direct as per Section 60.
A was murdered by B. C was present at the time of
murder. B faced trial. C may appear as witness.
•Section 32 & 33 are considered as exception to this
general rule.
•Allowing hearsay is based upon two considerations :
– Necessity;
– A circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.
80
Section 32 - Cases in which statement of relevant fact
by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is
relevant.

1.Statement, oral or written;

2.Relating to relevant fact;

3.Made by person who is -

i. Dead;

ii. Can not be found;

iii. Incapable of giving statement;

iv. Who’s attendance can not be procured without

delay or expanse. 81
Section 32 (1) – Dying Declaration

Validity of dying declaration is based upon several principles –

•Principle of necessity;

•“Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri”

– A man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth

 Dying declaration can be in verbal form or in written

form.
 Oral D.D. is exception to exclusion of hearsay rule.
(Sharad B. Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984
 SC 1622)

82
• The circumstances of transactions which resulted in
the death can also be considered as Dying Declaration.
The principle was laid down in –

Pakala Narayan Swamy v. King Emperor, AIR 1939

Deceased received a letter from accused. He told her wife

that he is going to meet accused to take his money
back. He boarded a train. And later on was found dead
at accused’s house. This statement was considered as
dying eclaration.

Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010

• Deceased made statement month prior to death.

83
Best kind of Dying Declaration

• It should be recorded in same language as it was made.

• The declaration should be signed by victim.

• It should be recorded in question answer form.

• It should be recorded by executive or judicial

magistrate.

• The doctor’s fitness certificate shall also be obtained

about victim’s fit status to make statement.
• It should be voluntarily.

84
Judicial prnouncements on Dying Declaration

• If court is satisfied about veracity of DD, the Court may

base conviction on it without corroboration. (State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav, AIR 1985).

• If DD is suspicious, the Court shall not rely on it

without corroboration. (Rasheed Beg v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974).

• DD should be voluntary and true. (Shakuntala v.

State of Harayana, AIR 2007)

85
Judicial pronouncements on Dying Declaration

• DD recorded by Doctor in presence of other witnesses is

reliable. (Malik Ram Bhai v. State of Orissa, AIR
1993).

• DD can also be given by signs. (Queen Empress v.

Abdullah, ILR 7 ALL 385).

• Declarant must be in fit state of mind. (State of

Haryana v. Harpal, AIR 1978)

• Proximity of time between statement and death. (sharad

Birdhchand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1984) – young married women lost life after 4 months of
86
statement.
 Opinion of third person, when relevant
(Section 45-51)
• General principle of law of evidence is every witness is
witness of fact and not of opinion.

• If we allow witnesses to give opinion, they may mislead

the court or it may amount to delegation of judicial
power.

Example - Bystander witnessed the accident. He may

give the statement in Court regarding what exactly he
saw. He can not be allowed to give his opinion that one
of the party was negligent.
87
• Generally opinion of third person is irrelevant and
inadmissible in evidence. But U/S. 45 – 51 of IEA talks
about opinion of third person, when relevant.

Section 45 – opinion of experts.

Court has to form opinion on the point of –

1. Foreign law,

2. Science; or

3. Art; or

4. Handwriting or finger impressions;

The opinion of person who is expert is relevant. Such

persons are called experts. 88
Situation

Whether A had broken the lock or not? Fingerprints

found on handle and lock. Finger prints are relevant
u/S.9 to show the identity of person. So here expert
opinion can be taken to match finger prints.

Essentials for taking opinion of experts.

1. The subject should be such that expert testimony is

required;

2. The witness in question shall be an expert and truthful

witness.

89
Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P, 2008

Opinion of expert is not absolute and binding on the Court.

Abdul Rehman v. State of Mysore, AIR 1972

Opinion of professional gold smith as to the purity of gold

was held relevant even though the goldsmith was not
having any qualification.

Alamgir v. NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003

Lady found dead n guest house. Two piece of paper were

recovered. It was revealed that handwriting was of her
husband. Was held relevant as it corroborated with
circumstantial evidences. . 90
Dipawita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, AIR 2015

When infidelity is ground of divorce, The legitimacy of child

can be checked.

Nandlal Basudev Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, AIR

2014

It was held that DNA test report has been accepted as

accurate scientific piece of evidence.

Anmol Chauhan v. Jyoti Chauhan, AIR 2012

Divorce on ground of husband’s impotency. Examination of

husband is allowed. It is no infringement of Article 21
and 20 (3) of Constitution. 91
Section 46 – facts bearing upon opinion of experts.

Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or

are inconsistent with the opinion of experts, when such
opinions are relevant.

Illustration – Whether A was poisoned by certain poison.

The fact that other persons were also poisoned by same
poison exhibited certain symptoms, which expert affirms
or denies to be symptom of same poison is relevant.

92
Section 47 – opinion as to handwriting when relevant.

When the opinion as to certain document written or signed

by a person is to be taken, the person who is acquainted
with the handwriting can be taken into consideration and is
relevant fact.

Kishor Chandra v. Ganesh Prasad, AIR 1954

It was observed by SC that the Court may rely upon expert

opinion only when Court himself is satisfied with veracity of
opinion.

93
Following persons are considered to be acquainted with
another’s hand writing

1.Who has seen that person’s write; or

2.Who has received documents written by that person in

answer to documents written by him or under his
authority; or

3.Who has in ordinary course of business received

documents written by that person or such documents are
habitually submitted to him.

94
Modes of proving handwriting

1.By the evidence of writer himself;

2.By the opinion of an expert;

Ram Narayan v. State of U.P., AIR 1973

3.By the evidence of person acquainted.

4.By the Court it self.

Section 47-A – Opinion as to electronic Signature when

relevant

The opinion of certifying authority who issued digital

signature is relevant.
95
Section 48 – Opinion as to existence of right or custom,
when relevant -

The opinion of person who are aware about the existence of

general right or custom can be taken into consideration to
ascertain or deny the existence of such right or custom.

Illustration – the right of villagers to use the water of

particular well is general right.

96
Section 49 – opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when
relevant –

When the Court has to form as opinion as to –

1.The usages and tenets of any body of men and family;

2.The constitution and governments of any religious or

charitable foundation;

3.The meaning of words or terms used in particular

districts or by particular class of persons –

the opinion of persons having special means of

knowledge thereon, are relevant facts.

97
Section 50 – opinion on relationship, when relevant –

When the Court has to form as opinion as relationship of

one person to another –

The opinion expressed by conduct, as to the existence of

such relationship, of any person who, as a member of
family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the
subject is relevant facts.

Proviso – such opinion shall not be sufficient if any

proceeding is going on under Section 494, 495, 497 or 498
or Under Indian Divorce Act 1869.

98
Illustration –

•The question is, whether A and B, were married. The fact

that they were usually received and treated by their friends
as husband and wife, is relevant.

•The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B.

The fact that A was always treated as such by members of
the family, is relevant.

Ram Adhar v. Janki, AIR 1956

Opinion can be given by family member or an outsider

provided he is having special knowledge about the alleged
relationship. 99
Section 51 - Grounds of opinion, when relevant. –

Whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, the

grounds on which such opinion is based are also relevant.

Illustration

An expert may give an account of experiments performed by

him for the purpose of forming his opinion.

100
Impact of Forensic Science: Evidentiary Value in DNA
Test, Narco-analysis

Narco Analysis – Sodium Pentathol, person becomes semi

conscious. No control over his mind. In such state he
speaks truth.

Polygraph Test – particular instrument is used to check the

pulse of accused. If he speaks truth, graph is normal but if
he lies, graph shows abnormal readings.

Brain Mapping Test – Instrument is used on head and

connected with computer. Video regarding manner of death
is showed to accused. if accused has seen such manner,
101
different graph or seeing for first time, different graph.
Impact of Forensic Science: Evidentiary Value in DNA
Test, Narco-analysis

If these test are being conducted under compulsion –

they are considered as unconstitutional. No evidentiary
value.

If test conducted voluntarily –

Considered as Constitutional. However result can not be

used as evidence except as S.27.

Selvi & Ors v. State of Karnataka, 2010 SC

It was held that – Narco Analysis test conducted under

compulsion is unconstitutional and accused can refuse102
to
Undergo such test.

Section 53, 53A & 54 talks about medical test but it also
does not talk about Narco test.

Such tests are violation of Article 20 (3) of Constitution and

Section 161 (2) of Cr,.P.C.

103
 Character when relevant
(Section 52 - 55)

Character

What? how to prove? relevant Evidentiary

civil criminal

104
What is character? –

set of good or bad virtues, which has to be seen in reference

to some attribute of a person i.e. regarding woman, money,
temperament, studious, greedy, morally high etc.

How to prove? –

1.Conduct

2.Admissions

3.Opinion of third person

105
Section 52 – In civil cases character to prove conduct
imputed, irrelevant –

In civil cases the fact that the character of any person

concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any
conduct imputed to him is irrelevant, except in so far as
such character appears from facts otherwise relevant.

Example – A files suit against B for illegally possessing

house. Here A can not lead evidence about character of B
that it is very common for B to do some kind of activities.

Hollington v. Hewthorn & Co. Ltd., 1943 – case was for

damages arising out of negligent driving.
106
Exceptions to Section 52

Generally in civil cases, evidence regarding character can

not be given. But in certain circumstances character in civil
cases becomes relevant.

a)Character affecting damages. (Section 55)

b)When character itself is in issue.

a) Suit for defamation.

b) Suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

c)When character appears from other relevant evidence.

(Section 52) – journalist described as an exploiter, he sues
for defamation. The defendant can give some evidence which
107
will show the character of plaintiff.
Section 53 - In criminal cases previous good character
relevant

In criminal proceedings the fact that the person accused is

of a good character is relevant.
•In criminal case, Accused can give evidence regarding his
good character.
•Prosecution is not allowed to prove bad character of
accused.

Hubib Muhammad v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954

SC59 – Allegation against accused was that he was
following policy of Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen. His state of mind
was to exterminate hindus. He was allowed to give good
108
character.
Section 53-A – Evidence of character or previous sexual
experience not relevant in certain cases.

In case of Section 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 376,

376-A, B, C, D or 376-E –

if the consent of victim is in issue, evidence of

character of victim or victim’s previous sexual experience
with any person shall not be relevant.

State of Maharashtra and Anr. V. Madhukar Narayan

Mardikar, AIR 1991 SC

Merely because woman is of easy virtue or low moral

character, such inference can not be drawn in Rape cases.
109
Section 54 – Previous bad character not relevant, except
in reply

In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has

a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given
that he has a good character, in which case it becomes
relevant.

Explanation 1 - This section does not apply to cases in

which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in
issue.

Explanation 2 - A previous conviction is relevant as

evidence of bad character.
110
• Section 75, IPC; (Lakshman Das v. State, AIR 1968)

• Section 360, Cr.P.C – to release on probation.

When previous bad character is relevant –

a) When accused shows that he possess good character;

b) When bad character itself is in issue – S.110 Cr.P.C;

c) Where previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad

character.

Section 55 - Character as affecting damages –

In civil cases the fact that the character of any person is

such as to affect the amount of damages which he ought
to receive, is relevant. 111
Explanation
In sections 52, 53, 54 and 55, the word "character“
includes both reputation and disposition; but except as
provided in section 54, evidence may be given only of
general reputation and general disposition, and not of
particular acts by which reputation or disposition were
shown.

Evidentiary value of character

Character evidence can be used only to give extra

assurance to the Court to arrive at right decision.

Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965

Held that character evidence is very weak evidence.

112