Author:- Kumar Prabhakar

Student at Presidency University

The Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, is a comprehensive legislation that lays down the rules for what evidence is admissible in Indian courts. One of the key aspects of this Act is the concept of ‘Relevancy of Facts’. In the Indian Evidence Act, Chapter II(S.5 to S.16)mentions the relevancy of facts in the court in both civil and criminal cases. The Provisions in Chapter II ensure the categorization of the pieces of evidence into relevant and irrelevant conditions. Let’s dive into the depth of understanding the relevancy of facts given under different circumstances.

INTRODUCTION

The term “relevancy of facts” refers to the significance or relevance of specific bits of information in a given situation. In a variety of professions, including law, journalism, research, and ordinary communication, assessing the relevance of information is critical for making informed judgments, drawing accurate conclusions, and presenting a coherent argument. It entails determining if specific facts are closely relevant to the problem at hand and how they help to comprehend or address it.

Here is the breakdown:

Relevancy refers to how intently something is connected with something different. In this situation, the emphasis is on how a reality interfaces with a specific subject or circumstance.

Facts are snippets of data that are introduced as evident.

IMPORTANCE OF “RELEVANCY OF FACTS”

So “relevancy of facts” is essentially asking “does this piece of information matter to the issue at hand?” This concept is particularly important in law where evidence needs to be relevant to the case being tried. Irrelevant evidence can confuse the issue and isn’t allowed.

Illustration-We can understand the concept of ‘RELEVANCY OF FACTS’ through the following scenario as an illustration

Person “A” Hits his car on a busy road while driving causing damages, to prove, the following relevant facts are required-

1. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY–

• Statements from the people who saw the accident happen.
• Their accounts of what happened, the position of the car, and other relevant details.

2. TRAFFIC CAMERA FOOTAGE–

• Video evidence caught by traffic camera.
• This footage could show the sequence of events leading to the collision.

3. SKID MARKS AND DAMAGE PATTERNS-

• Physical evidence like skid marks on road or damage to the vehicles.
• These facts can help reconstruct the accident and determine the fault.

4. WEATHER CONDITIONS–

• Information about the weather condition at the time of the accident.
• Rain, fog, icy road could be relevant factors.

5. DRIVER’S SPEED AND BEHAVIOUR-

• Facts related to how fast the driver was going and whether he was following traffic rule.
• For instance, if driver was speeding, it could be highly relevant.

*In this car accident case, these facts directly impact the outcome of legal proceeding. Irrelevant details such as colour of the car or unrelated events would not be considered.

 Section 5– Section 5 is the underpinning of the Demonstration. It expresses that evidence might be given in any suit or continuing of the presence or non-presence of each and every reality in issue and of such different realities as are hereinafter pronounced to be important.

• We can understand this by the following illustration-

A is pursued for the murder of B by beating him with a club to purposefully cause his passing. At A’s preliminary the accompanying realities are in issue: A’s beating B with the club, A’s causing B’s passing by such beating, A’s goal to cause B’s demise.

CASE- Kannagi vs K.Kandasamy on 11 January, 2016: [1]This case involved a dispute over the authenticity of a document. The petitioner, Kannagi, challenged an order under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send documents Ex.A2 and Ex.B2 to an expert for comparing the signature of the second defendant and her sons. The court dismissed the applications, stating that as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court is empowered to compare the admitted signature with the disputed signature

Section 6- Section 6 handles with the realities that are however not in issue, still realities in issue to shape part of similar exchange in any case they happened simultaneously and place or at various settings.

•    The accompanying representations make sense of this arrangement

1. A is blamed for the homicide of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by An or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so without further ado previously or after it as to frame a piece of the exchange, is an important truth.
2. A is blamed for taking up arms against the [Government of India] by partaking in a conspiracy in which property is obliterated, troops are gone after and goals are torn open. The event of these realities is significant, as framing part of the overall exchange, however A might not have been available by any means of them.

CASE- Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra on 24 JULY, 1962[2]

The court held that Ramesh’s articulation, “This is frenzy! Somebody call the police!” was allowable as a component of the Res Gestae of the episode. It noticed that the explanation was made preceding the blast, mirroring his veritable response to the unfurling occasions. The court saw that the assertion was unconstrained, made with practically no time for reflection or control, and it was firmly connected with the occasion being referred to. In this way, it qualified as a Res Gestae proclamation. Moreover, the court depended on section 6 of the Indian evidence act to help its choice. It underlined that Ramesh’s proclamation about the continuous franticness and the need to call the police was pertinent to the exchange (the blast) and was an assertion a not be called as a made by an individual observer (since Ramesh was the blamed). Hence, it fell inside the domain of Section 6 and was permissible as proof.

Section 7-Relevant facts are those that directly or indirectly contribute to the occurrence or transaction in question. Section 7 expands the scope of relevancy to include facts that are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue. It also includes facts that constitute the state of things under which the facts in issue happened.

• This provision can understood by following illustrations:

1)      The inquiry is, whether A robbed B. The realities that, in practically no time before the burglary, B went to a fair with cash in his control, and that he showed it, or referenced the way that he had it, to third people, are pertinent.

2)      The inquiry is, whether A killed B. Marks on the ground, created by a battle at or close to where the homicide was committed, are significant realities

Case– Dr. Jainand vs Rex. on 8 October, 1948[3]

 Accused took money from the deceased and on the day of offence deceased went to accused to ask for the return of the money. It was held that those facts were relevant showing the occasion, cause or effect of the fact in issue.  

Section 8- S.8 allows the admission of any fact that shows the motive or preparation of any fact in issue or relevant.

We can grasp by the accompanying representations:

1)      A is pursued for the homicide of B. The realities that A killed C, that B realize that A had killed C, and that B had attempted to coerce cash from A by taking steps to unveil his insight, are pertinent.

2)      A is pursued for the homicide of B by poison. The way that, before the demise of B, A secured poison like what was managed to B, is important.

CASE-KUNDULA BALA vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ON 26MARCH 1993[4]

In this situation, prior to marriage, the son-in-law claimed the deceased’s land. Mother-in-law’s connivance existed prior to this demand. The marriage took place, but the deceased refused to transfer the property in the name of the accused, preferring to give it to her daughter. That incensed the accused, and the crime was committed. It was determined that the accused had a solid motive to conduct the offense.

Section 9- S.9 lays the foundational concept on how the relevant facts for the purpose are necessary to get explained or  fact in issue introduced. It also deals with the facts that must be explained or introduced as an issue of an argument in a lawsuit.

• For illustrations:

1) The inquiry is whether the presented report is desired by A. The province of A’s property and of his family at the time of the alleged will may be crucial realities.

2) A is blamed for robbery and allegedly gives the stolen stuff to B, who then provides it to A’s significant other. As he transmits it, B says, “A says your are to conceal this.” B’s argument is relevant since it logically represents a fact that is necessary for the conversation.

CASE- EMPEROR vs ABDUL GHANI BAHADUR  AIR 1926[5]

In this case accused stole 2 demand drafts from bank and while cashing out with one demand draft, bank received telegram about the theft and cashout from one of the stolen demand draft. When second time accused went to cash out with stolen demand draft, police was informed through bank clerk and arrested accused, later on it was held that telegram was relevant to explain bank clerk’s conduct and was admissible under section 9.

Section 10- Section 10  expresses that once intrigue to commit an offense is demonstrated. The demonstration of one conspirator turns into the demonstration of another.

• Illustrations- Two companions robbed a store. A note found at the scene, composed by one companion enumerating the arrangement, can be utilized as proof against both under Section 10. It shows them conspiring normal arrangement for the wrongdoing.

CASE- Esher Singh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 March, 2004[6]

It was held that the policy behind creating the offence of criminal conspiracy is to prevent immoderate power whicj a person may gain by accommodation of many people. A person may not be able to commit the offence  by himself alone  but if he enters in agreement with other, the others may give him support to commit offence.

Section 11– Insignificant realities become pertinent in the event that they go against significant realities.

• Realities that render the presence or non-presence of a significant truth profoundly plausible or impossible, alone or in blend.

illustrations:

 1) The inquiry is whether A serious a wrongdoing in Calcutta on a particular day. The way that A was in Lahore that day is essential. The way that A was a significant distance away from the location of the crime at the time makes it really far-fetched, on the off chance that certainly feasible, that he got it done.

2) The inquiry is whether A has perpetrated a wrongdoing. The conditions show that the wrongdoing was executed by one or the other A, B, C, or D. Each reality that demonstrates that the wrongdoing could never have been finished by any other individual and that it was not perpetrated by one or the other B, C, or D is significant.

CASE- MUNSHI PRASAD vs STATE OF BIHAR 2001(SC)[7]

The Supreme Court of India held that the accused person’s reasonable distance  from the place of occurrence is necessary to prove the plea of alibi and the distance should be atleast 500 metres.

Section 12- Any fact presented in a court determines the fact that damage has been claimed and determines the amount of damages that ought to be awarded is relevant

• Illustration-

1) Imagine a car accident lawsuit. To determine fair compensation (damages), Section 12 allows evidence that might not directly prove fault, but helps assess the impact.

• Relevant fact: Medical bills show the extent of the injuries.
• Not relevant fact: The other driver’s poor driving record (focuses on fault, not damages).

2) Here’s another illustration for Section 12 of the Indian Evidence Act in a few lines:

• Case: Defamation lawsuit against a newspaper article.
• Section 12: Allows evidence of the plaintiff’s reputation before the article (relevant fact) to determine the extent of damage to their reputation.
• Not Relevant: Evidence of the newspaper’s history of publishing inaccurate articles (focuses on the newspaper’s actions, not the damage caused).

CASE LAW- NARAYANACHARYA vs KRISHNAMURTHY 1974

In this case, plaintiff was a car owner who got injured in car accident. The defendant was the driver of another car. The plaintiff sued defendant for damages. The court held plaintiff was entitled to damages for loss of future earnings. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s injuries was likely to prevent him from working in future leading to lose income.

Section 13-Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of facts when a right or custom is in question. It basically helps determine what evidence is admissible in court cases where a right or custom is being disputed.

• Illustrations: The inquiry is whether A has the option to a fishery. Pertinent realities incorporate a deed giving the fishery on A’s precursors, a home loan of the fishery by A’s dad, a resulting award of the fishery by A’s dad that is contrary with the home loan, and explicit occasions in which A’s dad practiced the right or was kept from doing as such by A’s neighbors.

CASE- Amar Singh v. Thakur Udaybhan Singh (1965)[8]

 The court ruled that evidence of past instances where Amar Singh’s family had fished in the river (relevant fact under Section 13) was admissible.This past practice could help establish the existence of a customary fishing right for Amar Singh’s family.

Section 14 -Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of facts related to a person’s mental state or physical condition. In short, it says:

• Evidence showing a person’s:
  • Intention
  • Knowledge
  • Good faith/bad faith
  • Negligence
  • State of mind (e.g., anger, fear)
  • Bodily feelings (e.g., pain)
• Is relevant when that mental state or physical condition is important to the case.

Illustrations:

 1) A is charged of getting taken things realizing they were taken. It is demonstrated that he was in control of a particular taken thing. The way that he was in control of a few other taken things simultaneously is huge on the grounds that it shows that he realized every single thing in his control was taken.

2) A is accused of deliberately shooting and killing B. The way that A has recently taken shots at B shows his aim to shoot B. 18 The way that A had an act of taking shots at people with the expect to kill them is immaterial.

CASE- Emperor vs Abdul Wahid Khan on 25 October, 1911[9]

On account of Emperor v. Abdul Wahid Khan, chose by the Allahabad High Court on October 25, 1911, the blamed, a representative with the Metropolitan Leading body of Pilibhit, was blamed for duping candidates for wheel barrow grants. The indictment gave proof demonstrating that he requested and gathered extreme expenses from different people. The court verified that proof exhibiting a precise succession of fakes by the blamed was permissible under Section 14 for the Evidence act.

Section 15

• S.15 mentions thatwhen determining whether an event was accidental or intentional, it’s important to consider whether it was part of a pattern of similar occurrences involving the same person.

Illustrations-

1) An is associated with torching his home to acquire protection cash. The way that A dwelled in numerous properties in progression, every one of which he safeguarded, in every one of which a fire happened, and in every one of which A got repayment from an alternate protection organization, is vital since it will in general demonstrate that the flames were not coincidental.

2) An is blamed for providing a fake rupee to B. The inquiry is whether the rupee was conveyed unintentionally. The way that A conveyed fake rupees to C, D, and E presently previously or after the conveyance to B is urgent on the grounds that it shows that the conveyance to B was not a mishap.

CASE-Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January, 2005[10]

In the case of Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January 2005, Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act was likely invoked to assess the credibility of witnesses based on their demeanor. The court likely considered the behavior and conduct of witnesses during trial to evaluate the reliability of their testimony in reaching a decision regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Section 16 – Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the “existence of course of business when relevant.” This section pertains to situations where the regular practices or customs of a particular business or trade are relevant in determining the outcome of a legal proceeding

• Illustrations-

1) The inquiry is whether a particular letter was sent. The realities that it was standard practice for all letters set in a particular area to be conveyed to the mailing station, as well as the way that that specific letter was set in that area, are relevant.

2) The inquiry is whether a specific letter came to A. The way that it was posted on time and not returned through the Dead end Office is pivotal.

CASE- RAMCHANDRA vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ON 18 SEPTEMBER 1979[11]

It was resolved that the way that it was standard practice for a mail center to hold a record of all letters sent and got was important proof to show that a particular letter was posted and gotten.

CONCLUSION-

The Indian Evidence Act, from Sections 5 to 16, collectively underscores the principle of relevance in determining the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings. These sections outline criteria for establishing the relevancy of facts, emphasizing connections with the fact in issue, the transaction at hand, or the state of mind of individuals involved. Whether it’s the course of business, statements made under specific circumstances, or facts bearing on intentions or motives, the Act ensures that only evidence directly pertinent to the case is considered, thereby promoting fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS(FAQs)

Indian Evidence Act: Relevancy of Facts (Section 5-16) – FAQs

1. What kind of evidence can be presented in court?

The Indian Evidence Act (Sections 5 & 6) dictates that only two types of evidence are admissible in court:

• Facts in issue: These are the specific events or situations that need to be proven or disproven in the case. For example, in a theft case, the facts in issue might be whether the defendant stole the object and if so, under what circumstances.
• Relevant facts: These are facts that are not directly at issue but help establish the likelihood or unlikelihood of the facts in issue. Section 6 outlines various categories of relevant facts, such as:
  • Facts forming part of the same transaction (e.g., arguments before a crime)
  • Motive, preparation, and opportunity for a crime
  • Admissions of guilt
  • Opinions of experts

2. Can I always present evidence that I believe is relevant?

No, there are some limitations on relevant facts. Even if a fact seems connected to the case, the court might exclude it if it’s considered:

• Misleading or confusing: If the fact is likely to distract the court from the main points of the case.
• Unduly time-consuming: If proving the fact would take too much time away from the core issues.
• Unreliable: If the fact is based on hearsay (secondhand information) or weak evidence.

The judge has the discretion to decide if a relevant fact is truly helpful or should be excluded.

3. Can a witness’s character be used as evidence?

Generally, a witness’s character cannot be directly attacked to discredit their testimony (Section 54). However, there are exceptions:

• If the witness’s truthfulness is specifically relevant to the case (e.g., they have a history of lying under oath).
• If the opposing party questions the witness’s character first, the other party can offer evidence to rehabilitate their character.

It’s important to note that these are just a few examples. The Indian Evidence Act (Sections 5-16) goes into more detail about different types of relevant facts and exceptions.

---

[1] CASE-Kannagi vs K.Kandasamy on 11 January, 2016

[2] CASE- Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra on 24 JULY, 1962

[3] Case– Dr. Jainand vs Rex. on 8 October, 1948

[4] CASE-KUNDULA BALA vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ON 26MARCH 1993

[5] CASE- EMPEROR vs ABDUL GHANI BAHADUR  AIR 1926

[6] CASE-Esher Singh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 March, 2004

[7] CASE- MUNSHI PRASAD vs STATE OF BIHAR 2001(SC)

[8] CASE-Amar Singh v. Thakur Udaybhan Singh (1965)

[9] CASE- Emperor vs Abdul Wahid Khan on 25 October, 1911

[10] CASE-Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January, 2005

[11] CASE- RAMCHANDRA vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ON 18 SEPTEMBER 1979