Relevancy of Facts
Questions Covered:
Q. What facts are relevant under the Indian Evidence Act?
Q. Are those facts also relevant which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in the issue?
Q. When do facts not otherwise relevant become relevant?
Q. How far is character relevant and admissible in evidence in civil and criminal cases?
Relevant Facts
Sections 6 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act describe the facts that are deemed relevant. These are as follows:
Section 6 – Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction – Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. For example – (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
Section 7 – Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue – 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.
For example – a) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.
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 –
For example – (a) A is tried for the murder of B – The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant –
Section 9 – Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts – Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or a person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose –
For example, (a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A – The state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts –
Section 10 – Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design – Where there is reasonable round to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offense or an actionable wrong, anything said, done, or written by anyone of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when the 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 –
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 –
For example, (a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day – The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant –
Section 12 – In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine the amount are relevant – In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the number of damages that ought to be awarded is relevant –
Section 13 – Facts relevant when right or custom is in question – Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant:-
(a) any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence:
(b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted, or departed from –
For example – The question is whether A has a right to a fishery – A deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, or a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular instances in which A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts –
Section 14 – Facts showing the existence of the state of mind, or of body, of bodily feeling – Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant –
For example, (a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen – It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article – The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many
other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession to be stolen –
Section 15 – Facts bearing on the question whether the act was accidental or intentional – When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with 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 –
For example, (a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured – The facts that A lived in several houses successively each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of
which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental –
Section 16 – Existence of course of business when relevant – When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact –
For example, (a) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched – The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant –
Sections 17 to 31 – Admission of facts by particular persons is relevant.
Sections 32 and 33 – Statements by persons who cannot be called witness in specified circumstances are with definite conditions are relevant.
Sections 34 to 38 – Statements made in an extra ordinary circumstance, any statement made on any law which is inserted in some books, is relevant.
Sections40-44 – Judgments of courts are relevant in certain situations.
Sections 45-51 – Opinion of third person is relevant in certain situations.
Sections 52-55 – Character of a person is relevant in certain situations.
Q. Are those facts also relevant which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in the issue?
Yes, facts because of which facts in the issue take birth, or facts which take birth because of facts in an issue are also considered relevant facts. Evidence can be given for the set of circumstances under which the principal facts occurred. As per Section 7 – 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.
Illustrations –
(a) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.
(c) The question is, whether A poisoned B. The state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and the habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.
This section includes the following types of facts –
1. Occasion – Occasion means the circumstances in which an event occurred. Evidence of such circumstance is eligible to given. For example, in the case of R vs Richardson, where a person was charged with the rape and murder of a girl, the fact that the girl was alone in her cottage at the time of her murder is relevant because it provided the occasion in which the crime happened.
2. Cause – Facts that form the cause of facts in issue are relevant. For example, A is charged of criminal misappropriation of funds from a bank. The fact that A was hugely in debt at the time of committing the crime is a relevant fact because it indicates a possible cause of the commission of the crime. This is similar to motive as given in Section 8. However this may not always be the case. For example, in the case of Indian Airlines vs Madhuri Chaudhury AIR 1965, the report of an Inquiry Commission relating to an air crash was held relevant under Section 7 as establishing the cause of the accident.
3. Effects – Every act causes some effect that leads to some other happening. These effects not only record the happening of the main act but also throws light upon the nature of the act. For example, where a person is poisoned, the symptoms produced are effects of the fact in issue and so are relevant.
4. Opportunity – Circumstances which provide an opportunity for the happening of a fact in issue are relevant. For example, a break from the daily routine of a person may be the opportunity that is used the person to commit the crime. For example, in R vs Richardson, the fact that Richardson left his fellow workers at about the time of murder under the pretense of going to a smith’s shop is relevant because it provided an opportunity for the fact in issue, namely her rape and murder, to happen.
5. State of Things – Facts which constitute the state of things under which or in the background of which the principle facts happened are relevant. For example, in the fact ore Rattan vs Reginum, AIR 1971, a person shot his wife and his plea was that it was an accident. The fact that he was unhappy with his wife and was having an affair with another woman, was held to be a relevant fact.
Q. “Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation and conduct of any fact in issue or relevant fact”. Explain.
This statement is taken from Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, which is as follows –
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. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1 – The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation 2 – When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
Illustrations
(a) A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond. The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.
(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.
(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A. The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate, that he consulted vakils in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts of other wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favorable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A’s presence- “the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B,” and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000. The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C in A’s presence and hearing- “I advise you not to trust A, for he owes B 10,000 rupees,” and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts.
(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The fact that A absconded after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being made for the criminal, and the contents of the letter, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
(j) The question is, whether A was ravished. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that, without making a complaint, she said that she had been ravished is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
(k) The question is, whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that he said he had been robbed without making any complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
This section provides for the relevancy of three principal facts which are very important in connection with any case, namely, Motive, Preparation, and Conduct.
Motive – Motive is the power that impels one to do an act. It is a kind of inducement for doing the act. Motive by itself is not a crime but is helpful in establishing guilt. Evidence of motive helps the court connect the accused with the deed and is so very relevant. For example, on the murder of an old widow, the fact that the accused was to inherit her wealth was held as relevant as it showed that the accused had the motive to kill her. In another case, a woman who a good swimmer had drown and the fact that the accused, her husband, was having an affair with another woman was held relevant as it explained the motive behind the murder.
Preparation – The acts of preparation for a crime are relevant. Preparation by itself is not a crime (except in certain offenses such as waging a war against Govt. of India) but the facts that show the preparation tie the preparer to the actual crime and so are relevant. For example, act of purchasing a poison shows the preparation of the murder by administering poison.
Conduct – The state of mind of a person is often reflected in his conduct and so conduct of a person is a relevant fact. This section makes the conduct of any party to a civil suite or their agents relevant. In a criminal case, the conduct of the accused before, while, or after doing the act is deemed relevant. However, two conditions must be fulfilled for the conduct to be relevant –
1. The conduct must be in reference to the facts in issue or the facts related to them.
2. The conduct is such as influences or is influenced by the facts in issue or relevant facts.
Q. When do facts not otherwise relevant become relevant?
A fact, which does not have any such relation as defined in Section 6 to 55 to the fact in issue is not a relevant fact and ordinarily, evidence cannot be given for such a fact. However, when an irrelevant fact is such that it makes the existence or non-existence of a fact in an issue highly probable or improbable, it becomes very important for the case because it helps the court to determine the truth. Such a fact ought to be brought before the court. This is the concept embodied in Section 11. It says the following: Section 11 – 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.
Illustrations (a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.
The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore, is relevant.
The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else and that it was not committed by either B, C, or D is relevant.
As given in the illustrations above, an alibi is a very common example of an irrelevant fact becoming relevant. Indeed, if a person is proved to be not at the location of the crime at the time of the crime, he cannot have committed the crime. However, the burden of proof is on the accused and strict evidence is required to establish such pleas For example, in case of Mithilesh Upadhyaya vs State of Bihar, 1997, the accused stated that he was in the hospital at the time of crime but did not give any supporting documents. His plea was not accepted.
It must be noted that this section is quite wide in its scope. It does not place any restriction upon the range of facts that can be admitted as showing inconsistencies or probabilities. Any fact that makes the existence of a fact in issue highly probable or improbable is covered. JAMES FITZAMES STEPHEN, the author on Indian Evidence Act in his book Introduction To The Indian Evidence Act, observed that the facts relevant under S. 11 would, in most cases, be relevant under other sections. The object of drawing the act in this manner was that the general ground on which facts are relevant might be stated in so many and popular forms as possible, so that if a fact is relevant its relevancy may be easily ascertained.
However, many facts can be connected to facts in an issue or relevant facts through a long chain of ratiocination but that will unnecessarily complicate the trial and will be detrimental to speedy justice. Thus, to limit the facts which are covered in this section, we need to understand which facts are not relevant. Irrelevant facts are the facts that come under the rules of exclusion, namely – facts that come under hearsay and facts that come under the principle – a transaction between two parties ought not to operate to the disadvantage of the third. Example of facts under hearsay is, “Mr. X said that Mr. Y is corrupt” or “Everybody says a certain officer is corrupt.” This fact is hearsay and is legally irrelevant. Examples of the second type of facts include – statements made behind the back of a person against whom they are sought to be used as evidence, similar unconnected transactions, and opinion of third parties. The rule in section 11 makes such facts relevant if they are inconsistent with the facts in the issue or make their existence or nonexistence highly probable. Thus, the only criteria for giving evidence of fact under section 11 is that it should make the existence of a fact in an issue highly probable or improbable. In Ram Kumar Panday vs State of MP, 1975, it was held that important omissions would be relevant under this rule.
Q. How far is character relevant and admissible in evidence in civil and criminal cases?
A character of a person is a very vague and subjective aspect. It is at best imprecise and at worst dangerous to draw an inference about the liability of a person from his character. Therefore, the general rule is that character of a person is not relevant for establishing guilt. However, there are certain exceptional situations where the character of a person is important for the case. Provisions regarding the relevancy of character are specified in Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55. There are different rules about the relevancy of character in civil and criminal cases.
Relevancy in Civil Cases
Section 52 lays down a general principle for civil suits that the evidence of a party’s character cannot be given to show that the conduct attributed to the party is probable or improbable. This means that a defendant cannot show his good character as evidence to prove that he would not have said defamatory things about the plaintiff and similarly the plaintiff cannot show the previous bad character of the defendant as evidence to prove that the defendant must have said defamatory things about the plaintiff. This principle was laid down in a very old case of Attorney General vs Bowman, 1771. In this case a man was tried for a penal action, and not for a criminal prosecution, for carrying false weights and offering to corrupt an officer. He called a witness to testify that he was a man of good character and conduct. This was not admitted by the court. Further, as held in Hollington vs Hewthorn & Co ltd, 1943, which is also known as rule in Hollington vs Hewthron, previous criminal conviction cannot be given to show the bad character of a person in a civil suit. In this case, an action was brought against the defendant for damages caused by the defendant’s negligent driving of a motor car. The defendant had also been prosecuted for the same accident and convicted. The plaintiff sought to give evidence of this conviction in proof of the fact that he was guilty of careless driving. However, the evidence was not accepted as admission on the ground that conviction by a criminal court is at best an opinion of that court that the defendant was guilty and such opinion is not admissible.
Exceptions –
1. When character appears from other relevant evidence – Second part of Section 52 provides that if a fact is otherwise relevant to the case then the conclusion about a party’s character may be drawn from such fact. An otherwise relevant fact cannot be excluded from evidence merely because it incidentally throws light upon a party’s character. For example, a journalist is described as an exploiter and he sues for damages for defamation and the defendant takes the defense that whatever the defendant has said is true. Now, the defendant will have to give evidence to prove the exploitation which the plaintiff has been practicing. Such evidence will also bring to light the real character of the plaintiff and the court can take note of this.
2. When character itself is in issue – Section 54 says that previous bad character is not relevant, except in reply. However, Explanation 1 to this section specifies that this rule does not apply when the character itself is a fact in the issue. For example, in a divorce case on the ground of cruelty, the cruel character of the defendant is a fact in issue, and evidence can be given in support of that previous bad character.
3. Determination of damages – Section 55 allows the character of the plaintiff to be considered as relevant for determining the number of damages that he ought to receive. An early English case on this aspect is Scott vs Sampson, 1882. In this case, a journalist was suing the defendant for libel. The defendant tried to show the character of the plaintiff but the trial judge refused to admit it. Upon appeal for retrial, J Cave held that the evidence should have been allowed to be admitted. He remarked that if the plaintiff claims an injury to his reputation, the jury should know whether he is a man of reputation or not before awarding any damages. If evidence about the character of the plaintiff is not allowed then there will be no difference between an honorable person and a cheat. A virtuous woman will be kept at the same level with a prostitute. To enable a jury to estimate the quantum of injury sustained, the knowledge of party’s character is relevant.
Relevancy in Criminal Cases
Section 53 lays down the general principle that in criminal proceedings the fact that the person accused is of a good character is relevant and Section 54 lays down that the fact that the accused is of a bad character is irrelevant in criminal proceedings. Thus, every accused is at liberty to show that he is a person of good character. As J Cockburn has observed, the fact that a man has an unblemished reputation leads to a presumption that he is incapable of committing the crime for which he is being tried. On the other hand, the prosecution cannot submit evidence to show the bad character of the accused. However, as per Section 54, if a person gives evidence of his good character then the opposite party is allowed to give evidence of his bad character as a reply. The opposite party cannot give evidence of bad character in its original case. It can do so only as a reply.
Exceptions –
1. Evidence for a bad character can be given by the prosecution but only as a reply to the evidence of good character.
2. When character itself is an issue, evidence of bad character may be given.
3. When a fact is otherwise relevant, it can be submitted even if incidentally reveals the character of the accused.
4. The prosecution is allowed to cite a previous conviction as evidence of the bad character of the accused. Regarding this provision, Lord Denning has observed in the case of Goody vs Oldham Press Ltd, 1967, that previous convictions are a class in themselves. They are the raw material upon which a bad reputation is built. They have taken place in an open court and are of public knowledge. They are very different from previous misconducts that are not tried in a court and which therefore might lead to dispute. But previous convictions offer no the possibility of such disputes and so are relevant and admissible.
Keywords: Competency of a Witness in India, Concept of Competency of a Witness, Definition of Competency of a Witness under the Evidence Act 1872.
Click here to read the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
