(..4..)

THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS[1] (S.5 to 55)

Table of Contents

(Refer to the earlier topic of Relevancy)

QUESTION BANKS

Evidence may be given of facts-in-issue and relevant facts. Discuss with reference to the theory of relevancy.
Explain the theory of relevancy adopted in the scheme of The Indian Evidence Act.
Write a note on the principle of Res-Gestae.

SHORT NOTES

Res-Gestae.

SYNOPSIS

INTRODUCTION: –
a) Relevancy’ and ‘Admissibility’: –
b) Distinction between ‘Relevancy’ and ‘Admissibility’: –
c) Facts relevant as being connected with a fact in an issue or relevant facts

(Ss.6 to 16 and 55)

Relevancy of facts forming part of same transactions (S.6)
a) The Doctrine of Res-Gestae: –
b) Illustrations of statements forming part of the transaction-
c) Illustrations of statements not forming part of the transaction: –

2) Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in an issue (S.7): –

3) Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct (S.8): –

4) Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts (S.9): –

Facts necessary to explain fact in issue or relevant fact: –
Facts necessary to introduce fact in issue or relevant fact: –
Facts supporting or rebutting an inference: –
Facts establishing the identity of anything or a person: –

Identity of a thing: –

Identity of a person: –

Facts fixing time and place: –
Facts showing a relation of parties: –
Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design (S.10): –
Facts inconsistent; probable or improbable (S.11): –

Inconsistent fact: –

i) Alibi: –
ii) Absence or non-access of husband: –

iii) Survival of the alleged deceased: –

iv) The commission of a crime by a third person: –
v) Self-inflicted crime: –

Facts showing probability: –

Facts enabling the court to determine the amount of damages (S.12): –
Facts relevant when right or custom is in question (S.13): –
Facts showing the existence of a state of mind, or of the body or bodily feeling (S.14):
Facts bearing on the question whether an act was accidental or intentional (S.15): –
Existence of course of business when relevant (S.16): –

I. INTRODUCTION: –

S.3 provides that one fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act under the topic ‘Relevancy of facts’ (Sections 6 to 55).

Thus, it is not the definition of ‘relevant fact’; it only refers to when one fact becomes relevant to another. It further provides that one fact is relevant to another in any of the ways referred to in this Act under the topic “Relevancy of facts”. The provisions as to the relevancy of facts run through Ss.5 to 55 of the Evidence Act.

S.5 provides that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of –

(i) the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue, and

(ii) of such other facts which are expressly declared relevant in any of the provisions of this chapter relating to the relevancy of the facts (i.e. Ss.6 to 55) and

(iii) of no others

The evidence of the existence or non-existence of a fact in an issue may be given under S.5, and the evidence about the relevant facts is given under sections 6 to 55.

Illustrations: –

(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death.

At A’s trial, the following facts are in issue:

A’s beating B with the club;

A’s causing B’s death by such beating;

A’s intention is to cause B’s death.

(b) A suitor does not bring with him and has in readiness for production at the first hearing of the case a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce the bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings otherwise than in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure

The object of this section is to restrict judicial investigation into specific boundaries, prohibit irrelevant facts from coming on record, and save valuable time for the court.

‘Relevancy’ and ‘Admissibility’: –

‘Relevancy’ and ‘Admissibility’ are neither synonymous nor co-extensive, nor is one included in the other. Every fact declared to be relevant by the Act may not be admissible in evidence.

Thus, a statement made by a client to his Advocate or by a husband to his wife may be relevant under many provisions of this Act. (i.e. from Ss.6 to 55) but are not admissible under different Acts.

On the contrary, there are facts which are admissible but not relevant. Accordingly, we cannot call them relevant under any of the sections of ‘Relevancy of facts’, e.g. questions permitted to be in cross-examination to test the veracity or to impeach the witness’s credit, though not relevant or admissible. Similarly, the previous statement of a witness may be used to contradict the witness under section 155 or to corroborate him under section 157, though such previous statements are not mentioned as relevant under sections 6 to 55.

The chapter on the examination of witnesses makes the number of facts admissible in evidence that would not be relevant under sections 6 to 55.

The distinction between ‘Relevancy’ [2] and ‘Admissibility[3]‘: –

Relevancy is based on logic and probability, whereas ‘Admissibility’ is based on strict rules of Law and not on logic.
The rules of ‘Relevancy of fact’ run through Ss.5 to 55 of the Evidence Act, whereas the rules of ‘Admissibility’ are described under S.56 of the Evidence Act.
The rules of ‘relevancy’ declare what is relevant, whereas the rules of admissibility declare whether a certain type of relevant evidence is admissible or not, or the fact that is not relevant is when admissible.
‘Relevancy’ is related to facts. Sometimes, though the fact is relevant, it is not admissible in evidence before the court. E.g., communications between husband and wife, client and Advocate, etc., whereas ‘Admissibility’ is related to facts to be taken as evidence by the court. The facts which are not stated as relevant in either of the sections of ‘Relevancy of facts’ (i.e. 6 to 65) may be admitted in evidence by courts. For example, questions are permitted in cross-examination to test the credibility and veracity of witnesses.

The facts expressly declared in this chapter to be relevant and of which evidence is to be permitted may be classified as –

Facts connected with the facts in the issue (Ss.6 to 16)
Admissions and confessions (Ss.17-31)
Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses. (Ss.32,33)
Statements made under special circumstances (Ss.34 to 30)
Relevancy of Judgment of courts (Ss.40 to 44)
Relevancy of the opinions of witnesses (Ss.45 to 51)
Relevancy of character. (Ss.52 to 55)

We will discuss some points first on this topic, and other points will be discussed at appropriate places.

Facts are relevant as being connected with the facts in the issue / Relevant facts (S. 6 to 16 and S. 55)-

1. Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transactions (S.6)[4]

It provides that-

i) facts even though they are not in issue but if they are so connected as to form part of

the same transaction

ii) they are relevant –

iii) whether they occur at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Illustrations: –

(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or by the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transactions, is a relevant fact.

(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.

(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained are relevant facts though they do not contain the libel itself.

(d) The question is whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.

The Doctrine of Res-Gestae[5]: –

This section incorporates the English Law doctrine of Res-Gestae. The doctrine of ‘Res-Gestae’ means things done, including words spoken, forming part of the same transaction (Crime, Tort, Contract, etc.). A transaction is a group of facts so connected as to be called by a single legal name as a crime, a contract, wrong, or any other subject of inquiry that may be in issue.

Ss.6, 7, 8, and 9 give various ways in which the facts are so related to each other as to form components of the fact in the issue. Sections 7, 8, and 9 illustrate S. 6 in detail. The core of these sections in English Law is described by the doctrine of ‘Res-Gestae’.

Each case before the court consists of several facts. These facts may be in the form of acts, opinions, and statements. When evidence is given of such acts, opinions or statements, although they are not in issue, can throw some light upon the nature of the transaction. Such Acts, opinions, or statements are considered part of the same transaction (i.e. crime, tort, etc.). The court admits these facts in evidence.

To get an idea of the doctrine clearly, we will discuss it by illustration (a). When one is beating another in the spurt of a moment, one may utter to the other, “I will kill you,” and the other may be crying,” Save me, save me,” or “Don’t kill me.” Some bystanders appearing on the scene may be remarking, “Oh! Don’t beat; he would die.”

In fact, these remarks of A, B, and bystanders are not in issue, but they are so connected with the fact in issue as to form the same transaction of beating, therefore becoming admissible under S.6.

While applying the principle of Res-Gestae to the statements, the statements should have been made so soon before, after, or at the time of the incident so that there can be hardly any time to deliberate and fabricate a false story. The statements not accompanying the incident are rejected and not allowed in evidence under S.6.

Illustrations of statements forming part of the transaction-

i) A was tried for the murder of B by shooting him with a gun. The fact that the person, who was at that time in the same room with B, saw a man with a gun in his hand pass through a window opening into the room where B was shot, and thereupon exclaimed there is a butcher (a name by which A was known) were held to be relevant.
ii) A husband, his father, and his mother were prosecuted for the murder of his wife. She cried out for help as soon as she was pushed into the room. Her children, who were playing outside on the veranda, exclaimed at the same time that the accused were killing their mother. This exclamation of children was received in evidence by the person who heard them[6].

Illustrations of statements not forming part of the transaction: –

i) One chotka was tried for the murder of one Bhutai by stabbing. The deceased Bhutai was taking tea, and the accused chotka came there and inflicted stab injuries on him. The body of the deceased fell in an open drain from where it was picked up and placed on a Kutcha Many people came at that time. One Kiran Bala went there and was told by one of the bystanders that Chotka stabbed Bhutai. The evidence of the statement deposed by Kiran Bala was held to be inadmissible as there was no proof to show that she has herself witnessed the incident. Her evidence was held to be ‘hearsay’.
ii) The statements of persons who were injured by burns by the act of the accused in setting fire to the bus in which they were travelling, though recorded by a magistrate under the expectation of death, were held not relevant, there being a gap of time between the incident and the recording of the statements[7].

Res-Gestae and hearsay evidence:-

Hearsay evidence means the statement of a person who has not seen the happening of the transaction but has heard of it from others, e.g. a person who has himself witnessed an accident can give an account of it to the court. Still, his wife, who heard of accident from him, cannot give evidence of what her husband told her, knowledge being hearsay. However, such evidence can be given if it is part of the transaction. Thus, the doctrine of Res-Gestae constitutes the exception to the rule of hearsay evidence.

2) Facts, which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in the issue[8] (S.7): –

It provides for the relevancy of the following kinds of facts: –

(i) Facts constituting the occasion[9].

(ii) Facts which show the cause[10].

(iii) The effects of the principle facts[11].

(iv) Facts which provide the opportunity[12] for the happening of the principal facts and

(v) Facts which constitute the state of things under which the principle facts happened.

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 a third person is 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.

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 admits a large class of facts connected with a fact in issue or relevant facts, though not part of the transactions provided under section 6. The reason for the admission of such facts is to better appreciate the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.

Occasion: –

i) The fact that the deceased girl was alone in her cottage at the time of the murder is relevant as it constitutes the occasion for the murder[13] (Illustration (a) above.

Cause: –

The cause is the reason why a particular act (crime, etc.) was committed. It helps the court connect a person with the crime, tort, contract, etc.

i) A person running short of money may cause him to take a loan, and if he denies the fact of taking a loan, the cause may be established.
ii) If a person says that he has received injuries due to the cause of a defective staircase. The evidence that 50,000 persons passed from the staircase and none of them received injuries is relevant.

Effect: –

Every fact leaves behind certain effects which not only record the happening of the act but also throw light upon the nature of the act, thereby making the act evident;

(Illustration (b) speaks of this).

Opportunity: –

The circumstances provide an opportunity for the incident to happen. Illustration (c) is related here.

State of things: –

Facts constituting the state of things under which or in the background of which the incident (crime or tort) happened is relevant. Thus, the relations between the parties, the state of the deceased’s health, habits, etc., are relevant. The husband is unhappy with his wife, and carrying an affair with another woman is relevant in instigating his wife’s suicide.

(3) Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct[14] (S.8): –

This section makes those facts relevant, which are connected in any of the following ways –

(i) If they show or constitute motive.

(ii) If they show or constitute preparation of any fact in issue or relevant fact.

(iii) If they constitute the conduct of any party to the suit or proceeding or of an agent of any party. Such conduct may be previous to or subsequent to the facts in the issue or some relevant fact.

Explanation 1 – Provides that the ‘conduct’ does not include statements except where they accompany and explain acts other than statements of the explanation. However, this explanation does not affect the relevancy of statements under any of the sections 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.

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 or 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 that would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable 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, 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 an 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 the 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 (I), 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. However, it may be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 32, clause (I), or as corroborative evidence under Section 157.

This section provides for the relevancy of three principle facts that are very important in connection with every kind of civil or criminal case: motive, preparation, and conduct.

Illustrations (a) and (b) deal with motive, illustrations (c) and (d) with preparation, and illustrations (e) and (i) with conduct. Illustrations (j) and (k) illustrate the scope of the first explanation, and illustrations (f), (g), and (h) illustrate the scope of the second explanation.

(4) Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts[15] (S.9): –

S.9 makes admissible the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts such as place, name, date, identity of parties, circumstances, and relationship of parties.

According to S.9, the following facts are relevant –

a. Facts necessary to explain fact in the issue or relevant facts: –

Illustrations (c), (d), and (f) appended to this section, explain this section, explain this head. We will discuss them one by one.

Illustration (c): –

‘A’ is accused of a crime.

The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house is relevant under Section 8 as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.

The fact that at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.

The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.

Illustration (d): –

A sues B for inducing C to break his contract of service with A. On leaving A’s service, C says to A, “I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer.” This statement is a relevant fact as an explanation of C’s conduct, which is relevant as a fact in the issue.

Illustration (f): –

A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant and explain the nature of that transaction.

b. Facts necessary to introduce fact in issue or relevant fact: –

(Illustrations (a) and (b) of S. 9 explain this point well).

Illustration: –

(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.

(b) A sues B for libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A: B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true.

The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts, such as an introduction to the facts in the issue.

The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant. However, the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.

c. Facts supporting or rebutting an inference[16]: –

Facts which support or rebut inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact are relevant under this section: –

Illustration (c) explains this, where A is accused of committing a crime.

The fact that A absconded from his house soon after the commission of the crime is relevant under section 8 as conduct subsequent to the fact in issue. This fact is also relevant under S.9 as it supports the inference that he committed the crime. However, the fact that he had a sudden and urgent business at the place where he went is also relevant as it rebuts (nullifies) the inference that he has committed a crime.

d. Facts establishing the identity of anything or a person[17]: –

The identity envisaged under this head is the identity of a thing or the identity of a person.

Identity of a thing: –

In a crime, the identity of a thing is often necessary to establish. For example, in cases of theft, when the stolen property is recovered, the identity of such property is required to be established. Similarly, in the case of murder, the identity of the weapon with which the murder was committed is required to be established.

Identity of a person: –

A person’s identity is also necessary; e.g. the identity of the accused who committed robbery or murder must be established through an identification parade. It helps in deciding the direction of the investigation of a crime and the conviction of the accused.

e. Facts fixing time and place: –

All facts that help fix the time and place of some fact in issue or relevant facts are relevant. Fixing the fact of the time or place of offence becomes very important when the accused pleads an alibi[18].

f. Facts showing a relationship between parties[19]: –

The fact that shows the relation of the parties by whom a fact in issue or relevant fact was transacted is relevant.

Illustration (b) is relevant here.

(5). Things said or done by conspirators in reference to common design[20] (S.10): –

It provides that anything done or written by one of the conspirators in respect of their common intention is admissible against all the conspirators for the purpose of proving (i) that the conspiracy existed and (ii) the person was party to it.

Illustration

Reasonable grounds exist for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India. The fact that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy. C collected money in Calcutta for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, and E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra. F transmitted from Delhi to G at Kabul the money which C had collected at Calcutta. The contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy and to prove A’s complicity in it. However, he may have been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.

(6). Facts inconsistent; probable or improbable[21] (S.11): –

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –

(1) If they are inconsistent with any fact in the 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 in 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 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 that 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.

The facts that are not otherwise relevant, i.e., those that do not fall within S.6 to 10 and 12 to 16, may become relevant under S.11(i) if they are inconsistent with any fact in the issue or relevant fact.

(1) Inconsistent facts: –

One fact is said to be inconsistent with the other when it cannot co-exist with the other, e.g., has A committed a crime in Mumbai on a certain day? The fact that A was in Bangalore that day is relevant as they cannot co-exist. Similarly, if A sued B for writing a defamatory article, the fact that B is illiterate is inconsistent with his writing a defamatory article.

Following are the instances of inconsistent facts: –

i) Alibi[22]: –

Alibi is a Latin word that means ‘elsewhere’. According to this defence, the accused in a criminal case alleges that at the time of the commission of the crime, he was far away from the place of the crime so that he could not be guilty (above illustrations)

ii) Absence or non-access of husband: –

If the question is whether ‘S’ is the legitimate son of ‘F’. The fact that ‘F’ had no access to the mother of S for more than 270 days before the birth of S is inconsistent with the fact that S is the legitimate son of F.

iii) Survival of the alleged deceased: –

Where the fact in the issue is whether A was murdered by B on a certain day, the fact that A was seen alive subsequent to that day is highly inconsistent with the fact in the issue that B killed A and also makes the fact in the issue highly improbable.

iv) The commission of a crime by a third person: –

Where A is charged with a crime committed by himself alone, any evidence indicating that B might have committed the crime is receivable.

v) Self-inflicted crime[23]: –

Where if the fact in issue is whether X committed the murder of Y by administering poison, the fact that Y committed suicide by consuming poison is relevant as it is inconsistent with poison to Y.

(2) Facts showing probability: –

Evidence can be adduced of every fact which by itself or in connection with other facts makes the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

In Santa Singh V. State of Punjab[24].

Facts: – The witness deposed that he saw the deceased being shot from a distance of twenty-five feet. The medical report showed that the distance was less than a yard.

Held: – That the expert opinion rendered the statement of the witnesses highly improbable.

7. Facts enabling the court to determine the amount of damages (S.12): –

In a suit in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the court to determine the amount of damages that ought to be awarded is relevant.

8. Facts relevant when right or custom is in question (S.13): –

When the question is as to the right or custom, the following facts are relevant: –

(a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted, or denied or which was inconsistent with its existence.

(b) Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised, or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.

Illustration: –

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, 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 neighbours, are relevant facts.

In Homi P. Ranina V. Eruch B Desai[25].

Facts: The custom of appointing the seniormost trustee as President of Trust existed. There is no provision in the scheme of trust for holding an election for the appointment of the President. Manner, mode of appointment, tenure of President, etc., were not prescribed in the trust deed.

Held: – Most of the senior trustees were entitled to hold the office of president.

9. Facts showing the existence of a state of mind, or the body or bodily feeling[26] (S.14): –

It lays down that –

Facts showing the existence of any state of –

i) mind, such as – Intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person or
ii) state of body, or

iii) bodily feeling

-are relevant when any such state of mind, body, or bodily feeling is an issue.

Explanation l.- A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but about the particular matter in question.

Explanation 2.-But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous convictions of such person shall also be a relevant fact.

Illustrations

(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 were stolen.

(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit.

The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of the counterfeit coin is relevant

The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit coin, knowing it to be counterfeit, is relevant.

The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y, and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.

(d) The question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that the name of the payee was fictitious.

The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner before they have been transmitted to him by the payee if the payee had been a real person, is relevant as showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person.

(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the reputation of B.

The fact of previous publications by A respecting B showing ill-will on the part of A towards B, is relevant, as proving A’s intention to harm B’s reputation by the particular publication in question.

The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A repeated the matter complained of as he heard it are relevant, as showing that A did not intend to harm his reputation of B.

(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent, whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered a loss.

The fact that at the time when A represented C to be solvent C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by persons dealing with him is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith.

(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which A is owner, by the order of C, a contractor.

A’s defence is that B’s contract was with C.

The fact that A paid C for the work in question is relevant, as proving that A did, in good faith, make over to C the management of the work in question so that C was in a position to contract with B on C’s own account, and not as agent for A.

(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which he had found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated it, he believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found.

The fact that public notice of the property’s loss was given in the newspaper of the place where A was residing is relevant, as it shows that A did not believe in good faith that the real owner of the property could not be found.

The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the property’s loss and wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant, as showing that A knew of the notice did not disprove A’s good faith.

(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show A’s intent, the fact of A’s having previously shot at B may be proved.

(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved as showing the intention of the letters.

(k) The question is whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife.

Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts.

(l) The question is whether A’s death was caused by poison.

Statements made by A regarding his symptoms during his illness are relevant facts.

(m) The question is, what was the state of A’s health at the time when an assurance/insurance on his life was affected?

Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the time in question are relevant facts.

(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire that was not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured.

It is relevant that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that particular carriage.

The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriages which he let hire, is irrelevant.

(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. The fact that A, on other occasions, shot at B is relevant, as showing his intention to shoot B.

“The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is relevant.

(p) A is tried for a crime.

The fact A said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime, is relevant.

The fact that he said something indicating a general disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.

Illustrations (a), (b), (c), and (d) relate to the state of mind, i.e., guilty knowledge. Illustrations (e), (i), (j), (o) and (p) show state of mind, i.e. intention.

Illustrations (f), (g), and (h) relate to a state of mind, i.e. good faith.

Illustration (k) refers to mental feeling.

Illustrations (l) and (m) relate to the state of body and bodily feeling.

Illustration (n) relates to negligence.

Illustrations (n), (o), and (p) also relate to explanation (1), which makes a general state of mind relevant.

10. Facts bearing on the question of whether an act was accidental or intentional[27] (S.15): –

When it is questionable whether an act was accidental, intentional, or done with particular knowledge or intention, the fact that it formed part of a series of similar occurrences in each of which the person doing the act was concerned is relevant.

(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.

(b) A is employed to receive money from B’s debtors. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion, he received less than he really did receive.

The question is whether his false entry was accidental or intentional.

The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A are relevant.

The question is whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D, and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.

S.15 is the particular application of the general rule laid down under S.14 that all facts that establish any state of mind, body, or bodily feeling are relevant. Whereas, under S.15, only the species of mental condition, i.e. intention, is considered. S.15 comes into operation only when there is a question of whether a particular act is intentional or accidental. Secondly, under S.15, there must be a series of similar occurrences, and in each of them, the person doing the act must be concerned, whereas such a condition is not necessary under S.14.

11. Existence of course of business when relevant (S.16): –

When there is a question of 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. Illustrations

(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.

(b) The question is whether a particular letter reached A. The fact that it was posted in due course and was not returned through the Dead Letter Office is relevant.

*****

[1] घटनांचा संबंध/संबंधित घटना [ घटनाओं/संबंधित घटनाओं का संबंध ]

[2] स्विकार्यता [स्वीकार्यता ]

[3] स्विकारण्या जोगा [ स्वीकार करें ]

[4] घटना क्रमाचा भाग असणारी घटना [एक घटना जो घटनाओं के अनुक्रम का हिस्सा है ]

[5] घटना चक्राषी संबंधित घटना/वाक्य, विचार इ. [घटनाचक्र से संबंधित घटनाएँ/वाक्य, विचार आदि। ]

[6] Savaladas V. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 779

[7] Gentela V. Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2791.

[8] मुख्य घटनेचे निमित्त कारण व परिणाम दाखविणा-या घटना [घटनाएं जो मुख्य घटना के कारण और प्रभाव को दर्शाती हैं। ]

[9] प्रत्यक्ष घटण [वास्तविक घटना ]

[10] घटणेचे कारण [घटना का कारण ]

[11] घटणेचा परीणाम [घटना का नतीजा ]

[12] घटना घडण्याची संधी निर्माण करणा-या घटणा [ऐसी घटनाएँ जो किसी घटना के होने का अवसर पैदा करती हैं ]

[13] R.V.Richardson

[14] घटनेसाठी/गुन्हयासाठी इ. हेतू, त्यासाठी तयारी व गुन्हा इ. पूर्वी व नंतरची वर्तवणूक [घटना/अपराध आदि के लिए इरादा, तैयारी और अपराध आदि। व्यवहार से पहले और बाद में]

[15] संबंधित घटनेचे स्पश्टीकरण, निर्मिती सांगणारी घटना [संबंधित घटना की व्याख्या, घटना जो सृष्टि को बताती है ]

[16] तक्रास पुष्टी देणारी अथवा खंडण करणारी घटना [शिकायत की पुष्टि या खंडन करने वाली घटनाएं ]

[17] एखादया वस्तुची अथवा व्यक्तीची ओळख पटविणारी घटना [एक घटना जो किसी वस्तु या व्यक्ति की पहचान कराती है ]

18 गुन्हा घडला त्या वेळी तेथे उपस्थित नसल्याचे किंवा दुस-या ठिकाणी उपस्थित असल्याचे आरोपीचे प्रतिपादन [भियुक्त का यह कथन कि वह अपराध किए जाने के समय उपस्थित नहीं था या वह किसी अन्य स्थान पर उपस्थित था ]

[19] व्यक्ती/पक्षकार यांच्यात असणारा संबंध दाखविणारी घटना [व्यक्तियों/पार्टियों के बीच संबंध दिखाने वाली घटना]

[20] कट रचणा-या व्यक्तींनी कटाची संकल्पना दर्षविणारे वाक्य किंवा कृती [षड्यंत्रकारियों द्वारा वाक्य या कार्य जो साजिश की अवधारणा को दर्शाते हैं ]

[21] मुळ घटनेषी/गुन्हयाषी विरूध्द, षक्य अथवा अषक्यता दाखविना-या घटना [मूल अभियुक्त/अपराधी के विरुद्ध असम्भवता या असम्भवता के मामले ]

[22] दुसरीकडे उपस्थित असने [वहीं, मौजूद रहेंगे ]

[23] स्वत विरूध्द गुन्हा [खुद के खिलाफ एक अपराध ]

[24] AIR 1956 S.C.525

[25] AIR 1996 ON 141

[26] मनस्थिती, षारिरीक स्थिती अथवा षारिरीक जाणीव [मन की स्थिति, भौतिक स्थिति या भौतिक चेतना ]

[27] एखादे कृत्य हे अपघाती की ऐच्छिक हे दर्षविणा-या [निरूपित करें कि क्या कोई कार्य आकस्मिक या स्वैच्छिक है ]