(..3..)

FACT[1] (S.3)

Table of Contents

QUESTION BANK

Define ‘fact’ and ‘fact in issue’. Distinguish between ‘fact in Issue’ and ‘Relevant fact’.
What is meant by fact?

SHORT NOTES

Conclusive proof.
‘May presence’ & ‘Shall Presence’
fact in the issue

SYNOPSIS

Introduction: –

II Fact (S.3)

a) ‘Fact in issue’ (S.3): –
b) Relevant facts (S.3): –
c) Facts – ‘Proved’, ‘Disproved’, and ‘Not proved’ (S.3): –
d) Fact – ‘May Presume’, ‘Shall Presume’, ‘Conclusive Proof’ (S.4): –

III. Kinds of Presumptions: –

a) Presumption of facts or Natural Presumptions: –
b) Presumptions of Law: –

(i) Absolute or irrebuttable presumptions which are akin to conclusive proof: –

Conclusive Proof (S.4)

Examples of Conclusive proof: –

(ii) Rebuttable Presumptions which are akin to ‘shall presume’: –

‘Shall Presume’ (S.4)

III. Difference between ‘presumption of Law’ and ‘presumption of fact’: –

Discretionary: –
‘Rebutable / non-rebuttable: –
Ignorance by the court: –

I. Introduction: –

Every case involves facts; for courts to come to a judgment, these facts need to be proved before it. Such facts are established before the court by adducing evidence.

Thus, in a murder case by stabbing, the following may be the facts: –

i) There was a long-standing quarrel between A and B on the question of ownership of land.
ii) that before the day of the murder, there was a serious quarrel between them.

iii) that A had purchased a knife from C’s shop.

iv) that D saw A moving towards B’s farm where B was working.
v) that on the way, A met E and told him his intention of killing B.
vi) that F saw A stabbing B.

vii) Bloodstains from B’s group were found on A’s dress.

The evidence of C, D, E, F, and expert blood analysts may prove these facts before the court.

Similarly, in the case of maintenance by wife, the following may be the facts – namely,

i) That ‘A’ husband had married ‘B’ wife on 30-4-2017
ii) That ‘A’ was frequently quarrelling with ‘B’ and treating her cruelly, beating her frequently.

iii) That, therefore, ‘B’ wife is not staying with her husband.

iv) That she does not have a separate income to maintain herself.

Since the Evidence Act is meant for establishing facts, it has defined under Section 3 the concepts of ‘fact’, ‘fact in issue’, ‘relevant fact’, ‘proved’, ‘disproved’, ‘not proved’, ‘may presume a fact’, ‘shall presume a fact’, and ‘conclusive proof’. All these concepts are related to facts and interlinked. Therefore, we will discuss them together for better understanding.

II. Fact (S.3)

Facts mean and include –

(1) Any –

i) thing[18],
ii) state of things[19], or

iii) relation of things[20],

– Capable of being perceived by the senses.

(2) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious[21].

Illustration: –

(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place is a fact.

(b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.

(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.

(e) That a man has a certain reputation is a fact.

This definition adapts Bentham’s classification of facts into physical and psychological facts. Clause (1) refers to physical or external facts, whereas clause (2) refers to psychological or internal facts. Every physical action of a human being is an external manifestation of internal thoughts. Thus, when he intends to beat somebody, he collects sticks (Lathis), etc., and beats him.

The senses can perceive physical facts, such as material objects, their arrangement in a particular order at a particular time and place, etc. Physical facts cover all that which one sees, hears or feels with the senses. Illustrations (a) to (c) are the illustrations of physical facts, whereas illustrations (d) and (c) are the illustrations of mental or internal facts and the subject of one’s consciousness, etc., therefore cannot be perceived by the senses. Opinions, intentions, knowledge, reputation, etc., come under the category of psychological facts. Illustrations (d) and (e) are illustrations of psychological facts. Physical facts can be proved by witnesses. However, psychological facts generally cannot be proved by direct evidence. The ‘confession’ can only be direct evidence to prove a psychological fact. Psychological facts are commonly proved by circumstantial evidence. Thus, the intention of killing may be drawn from the fact of firing or stabbing. Therefore, separate evidence as to intention may not be given.

a) ‘Fact in issue’[22] (S.3): –

‘Fact in issue’ is also called as ‘principal fact’. These are important or main facts in deciding the case.

S.3 defines ‘fact in issue’ means and includes –

Any fact from which –

a) either by itself, or
b) in connection with other facts –
i) the existence
ii) non-existence

iii) nature or extent –

– of any –

a) Right
b) Liability, or
c) Disability

– asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.

Illustrations: –

A is accused of the murder of B.

At this trial, the following facts may be in issue:-

That A caused B’s death;

That A Intended to cause B’s death;

That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B;

At the time of doing the act that caused B’s death, A was incapable of knowing its nature by reason of unsoundness of mind.

In other words, ‘facts in issue’, out of which some legal right, liability, or disability involved in the inquiry necessarily arises and upon which a decision must be arrived at. The fact in issue may, by itself or in connection with some other facts, constitute such a state of things that the existence of the disputed right or liability would be a legal interference from them. Thus, the expression ‘fact in issue’ means the matter which is in dispute or which forms the subject of an investigation by the court.

The ‘facts in issue’ are those facts alleged by one party and denied by the other in the pleading in a civil case or alleged by the prosecution and denied by the accused in a criminal case. Thus, in a civil suit, the court determines the ‘facts in issue’ by ‘framing the issues’, whereas in criminal cases, the charge itself constitutes ‘facts in issue’.

b) Relevant facts[23] (S.3): –

‘Relevant fact’ is called as ‘evidentiary fact’ or ‘factum probans’. One fact is said to be ‘relevant’ to another –

i) when the one is connected with the other,
ii) in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act (i.e. under S.5 to S.55) of the relevancy of facts.

Thus, the Act does not give a definition of the word ‘relevant’; it simply describes when one fact becomes relevant to another. Normally, facts relevant to an issue are those facts that are necessary for proof or disproof of a ‘fact in issue’. S.5 provides that evidence must, in all cases, be confined to the facts in the issue and facts relevant to the facts in the issue. Evidence cannot be given of any other facts.

In Stephen’s Digest, the word ‘relevant’ has been defined as ‘any two facts to which it is applied are so related to each other, that according to the common course of events, one either by taken itself or in connection with other facts, proves or renders probable the past, present or future existence or non-existence of other’.

Evidence given to prove or disprove ‘fact is an issue’ is called ‘direct evidence’, and the evidence given to prove or disprove ‘relevant fact’ is called ‘circumstantial evidence‘. (Therefore, the contents in the topic ‘direct and circumstantial evidence’ are relevant here for a better understanding of the concept of ‘relevant facts’.)

c) Facts – ‘Proved’, ‘Disproved’, and ‘Not proved’ S.3: –

The word ‘proof’ means ‘anything which serves, either immediately or mediately, to convince the mind of the truth or falsehood of a fact or proposition. ‘Proof’ does not mean proof to rigid mathematical determination because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to conclude.

i) Facts ‘Proved’[24] –

A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought (under the circumstances of a particular case) to act upon the supposition that it exists.

The extent to which particular evidence aids in proving the fact in controversy is called ‘Probative Force’. This probative force must be sufficient to induce the court either –

a) To believe in the existence of the fact sought to be proved or
b) To consider its existence so probable that the prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists.

In other words, such evidence is to be brought as would induce a reasonable man to come to a conclusion of either of the above two.

ii) ‘Disproved’[25]

A fact is said to be ‘disproved’ when, after considering the matter before it, the court either,

(i) believes that it does not exist, or

(ii) considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought (under the circumstance of the case) to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.

Thus, the definition of ‘disproved’ is converse to the definition of the word ‘proved’.

iii) ‘Not Proved’[26]: –

A fact is said to be ‘not proved’ when neither proved nor disproved.

In other words, a fact is said to be ‘not proved’ when neither its existence nor non-existence is proved. It shows a state of mind in a dilemma where one cannot say whether a fact is proved or disproved. It negatives both proof and disproof.

d) Fact – ‘May Presume’, ‘Shall Presume’, ‘Conclusive Proof’ (S.4): –

A presumption means a rule of law that courts and Judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact or particular evidence unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved.

In other words, ‘presumption’ is an inference drawn by the court to the truth of a particular fact from other known or proved facts. It is the rule of evidence that the burden of proving fact (burden of proof) lies on him who asserts the fact positively or upon him, who will fail if the evidence is not brought as to the existence of that fact. Therefore, in civil cases, the plaintiff has to prove his case, whereas, in criminal proceedings, the prosecution has to prove a case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when a law allows presumption, the party does not need to prove that fact. According to S. 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, it is presumed that when one person issues a cheque or negotiable instrument in favour of another, it is issued for the discharge of some liability. Accordingly, Matrimonial Laws presume that when the child is born out of valid wedlock, it is a legitimate child of his father. In these cases, the person in whose favour the cheque is drawn (drawee) need not prove the liability of the drawer of the cheque in his favour. Similarly, the wife who has filed suit for maintenance for herself and a child need not prove that the child has begotten from sexual relations with her husband and nobody else.

III. Kinds of Presumptions: –

Presumptions may be classified as –

Presumptions[27]

1) Presumptions of fact[28];

(Natural Presumption)

(May presume)

(Ss.86-88, 90 and 114)

2) Presumptions of law[29]

or (Artificial presumptions)

i) Rebuttable Presumption

(Shall Presume)[30]

Ss.79-85, 89 and 105

ii) Irrebutable Presumption[31]

(Conclusive Proof)

Ss.41, 112, and 113)

(a) Presumption of facts or Natural Presumptions: –

Presumptions of facts or natural presumptions are those which our mind logically draws without the aid or direction of law. These are the presumptions drawn spontaneously by the operation of our reasoning faculty. These presumptions are generally rebuttable[32]. They are akin to the expression ‘may presume.’[33] S.4 Defines ‘may presume’ and suggests that whenever the Evidence Act proves that the court ‘may presume’ a fact, it may either (i) regard such fact as proved. (Unless and until it is disproved) or (ii) may call for proof of it.

For example. under S.114 ‘Illustration a’, the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either a thief or has received such goods with the knowledge that they are stolen.

It is a discretionary power of the court either to presume that the possessor is the thief or has received goods with the knowledge that they are stolen or may refuse to presume the guilt of the accused and ask the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

This Act deals with Presumptions of fact in Ss.86 to 88, 90, and 114.

(b) Presumptions of Law: –

Presumption of law or artificial presumptions is an inference of prepositions established by law. In the case of ‘Presumption of law’, no discretion has been left to the court, and it is bound to presume the fact as proved until evidence is given by the party interested in rebutting or disproving it. These presumptions are of two types, viz. –

(i) Absolute or irrebuttable presumptions which are akin to ‘conclusive proof’: –

The conclusive or irrebuttable presumptions of law are those legal rules which are not overcome by any evidence.

Conclusive Proof[34] (S.4)

S.4 of the Act defines ‘conclusive proof’ as ‘when one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.

Whenever it is mentioned that a fact is ‘Conclusive Proof’ of another fact, the court has no discretion. It cannot call upon the party to prove that fact by adducing additional evidence, nor can it allow the opposite party to disprove it by adducing evidence. Conclusive proof is the strongest among all the other presumptions.

Examples of Conclusive proof: –

Final judgments in probate, matrimonial matter, and admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction are conclusive proof of the matters stated in them (S.41)
Birth during a marriage is conclusive proof of the child’s legitimacy. (S.112)
An infant under the age of 7 years cannot be guilty of a crime. (S.82 of the Indian Penal Code)

(ii) Rebuttable presumptions which are akin to shall presume: –

This rebuttable presumption is also called a ‘disputable presumption’. Rebuttable presumptions of Law are dealt with in Ss.79 to 86 and 105 of this Act.

‘Shall Presume’ (S.4)

Whenever there is a direction (Provision) in this Act that the court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.

Thus, if there is a provision in the Evidence Act that the ‘court shall presume a fact’, it shall have no option but to presume the existence of that fact. But in this case, the court will be at liberty to allow the opposite party to adduce evidence to disprove the fact so presumed. If the opposite party is successful in disproving it, the court shall not presume the fact, e.g. S.89 provides that the court shall presume that every document called for and not produced after notice to produce was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by the law.

IV. Difference between ‘presumption of Law’ and ‘presumption of fact’: –

(Difference between ‘may presume’ and ‘shall presume’ and ‘conclusive proof’: –

1. Discretionary[35]: –

Presumption of fact is discretionary. A court can exercise its discretion while drawing presumptions of fact. These presumptions are based upon the court’s logic, human experience, and the law of nature.

Whereas presumptions of law are mandatory. It is obligatory for the court to draw a presumption of law. It is based on provisions of law.

2. ‘Rebutable / non-rebuttable: –

Presumptions of fact are always rebuttable.[36]It disappears when rebutted by positive evidence, whereas the presumption of law is conclusive and not rebuttable.

3. Ignorance by court: –

A court can ignore presumptions of fact, however strong they may be. However, the court cannot ignore the presumptions of law.

*****

[1] वस्तुस्थिती घटना परिस्थिती [तथ्य घटनाएँ परिस्थितियाँ ]

[18] घटना/गोश्ट [घटना/बात ]

[19] घटनेची स्थिती [घटना की स्थिति ]

[20] घटनांचा एकमेकांषी संबंध की जो इद्रियांनी मणुश्यास जानता येतो [ घटनाओं का अंतर्संबंध जो इन्द्रियों द्वारा मनुष्य को ज्ञात होता है ]

[21] घटनेच्या वेळी व्यक्तीच्या मनस्थितीची माहिती [घटना के समय व्यक्ति की मानसिक स्थिति के बारे में जानकारी]

[22] वदातील महत्वाची घटना परिस्थिती [विवाद में महत्वपूर्ण घटना स्थिति है]

7 वादातील घटनेषी संबंधीत घटना [विवाद में घटना से संबंधित घटनाएं ]

[24] न्यायालयासमोर सिध्द झालेली घटना [कोर्ट के सामने मामला साबित हुआ ]

[25] न्यायालयासमोर घटनेच्या अस्तित्वाचे खंडन होणे/घटना चुकीची सिध्द होणे. [अदालत के समक्ष घटना के अस्तित्व से इनकार/घटना को झूठा साबित करना।]

[26] सिध्द न झालेली घटना [अप्रमाणित घटना ]

[27] गृहिते [मान्यताओं ]

[28] घटने संबंधिचे गृहित [घटना के बारे में अनुमान ]

[29] कयदया संबंधीचे गृहित [कयादया से संबंधित धारणाएं ]

[30] खंडन केले जावू शकते असे गृहित [एक खंडन योग्य अनुमान ]

[31] पुरावा आणून खंडन न करता येण्याजोगा म्हणजेच निर्णायक गृहित [एक निर्णायक परिकल्पना जिसे साक्ष्य द्वारा खंडित नहीं किया जा सकता है ]

[34] निर्णायक गृहित [निर्णायक धारणा ]

[35] मे. न्यायल्ययाचे अखत्यारीत अथवा ईच्छेवर अवलंबून [मई न्यायाधीश के अधिकार क्षेत्र या विवेक के अधीन ]

[36] I.e. Disprovable by adducing evidence.