INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT Flashcards
Section 3
relevancy of facts-
A fact may either be logically relevant or legally relevant. Where a fact bears such casual relation to the other that it renders probable its existence or non-existence, it is said to be a logically relevant fact. For instance, where it is to be determined whether A has placed the
murder weapon in the field or not, the fact that B saw A walking towards the field with the
murder weapon is relevant.
what is facts in issue
The expression “Facts in issue” refers to facts out of which a legal right, liability or disability
arises and such legal right, liability, or disability is involved in the inquiry and upon which the
Court has to give the decision
proved, disproved and not proved
Proved
A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either
believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable
Disproved
A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either
believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence
Not proved
A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.
A fact is said to be not proved when either its existence nor its not existence is proved. It also
indicates a state of mind in between the two, that is one cannot say whether a fact is proved or
disproved. It negatives both proof and disproof
Proof does not mean proof of rigid mathematical demonstration (absolute certainty or accuracy of statements), because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence (such degree of probability) as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion [Hawkins v Povells Tillary Coal
Ram Bihari Yadav v State of Bihar
the Supreme Court explained the point of difference between relevancy of evidence and its admissibility. The court said that frequently the expression ‘relevancy’ and ‘admissibility’ are used as being synonymous with each other but their legal implications are different, because facts which are relevant may not be admissible. For example, the communication made by spouse during marriage, the communication between an advocate and his client may be very much relevant but as a matter of policy they are not admissible.
three main principles which underlie the law of evidence
(i) Evidence must be confined to the matters in issue.
(ii) Hearsay evidence must not be admitted.
(iii) The best evidence must be given in all cases.
State of U.P. v Ravindra Prakash Mittal
i) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully established.
(ii) The circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
(iii) All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of the accused.
(iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused.
In the absence of direct evidence,
a person can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone if the conditions mentioned above are satisfied **(Umedbhai v State of Gujarat AIR 1978 SC 424). **
concept of res gestae
.Facts forming part of a transaction are described by English and American writers as being part of res gestae, i.e., things done in the course of a transaction
The term res gestae is equivalent to the ‘facts’ mentioned in Sec. 6.
guide;ines:
(i) Spontaneous and simultaneous utterance is a part of the transaction, e.g. what a person states during an occurrence in respect of the occurrence itself.
(ii) Statement must be contemporaneous with the fact, i.e., statement made either “during or immediately before or after its occurrence”,
(iii) If the statement is made after the act is over and its maker has had the time for reflection and deliberation (fabrication); and/or it is a mere narration of past events, then it is not relevant. The statement should be an exclamation “forced out of a witness by the emotion generated by an event” (G. Vijayavardhan Rao v State ofA.P
illustrations of res gestae
- A, while running in street, crying that B has stabbed him, is a relevant fact. Similarly, the statement of a raped woman ‘crying for help’, is a relevant fact.
- Where shortly after a murder, the person suspected of it explained away the absence of the deceased by saying that he had left the village, the court held the statement to be a part of the transaction and thus relevant [Basanti v State ofH.P.]
- A man was prosecuted for the murder of his wife. His defence was that the shot went off accidentally. There was evidence to the effect that the deceased telephoned to say: “Get me the police please”. Before the operator could connect the police, the caller, who spoke in distress, gave her address and the call suddenly ended. Thereafter the police came to the house and found the body of a dead woman. Her call and the words she spoke were held to be relevant as a part of the transaction which brought about her death6 **[Ratten v The Queen **
R. v Foster
The doctrine of res gestae is applicable to ‘hearsay’ evidence also, which is not considered a good piece of evidence. In R. v Foster (1834) 6 C & C, the witness had seen only a speeding vehicle, but not the accident. The injured person explained him the nature of the accident. He was allowed to give evidence of what the deceased said, although it was only a derived knowledge, it being a part of res gesta
section 6
SUKHAR V STATE OF UP.
Facts and Issue - This case inter alia revolved round the scope of Sec. 6 of the Evidence Act. The victim was shot at by the accused and he raised an alarm. When a witness rushed to the spot, the victim told him that it was the accused who shot at him. The victim survived and so the accused was charged with an offence under Sec. 307, IPC. However, during the pendency of the trial, the victim died, because of some other cause. The question arose whether the witness could give evidence of what the victim told him?
held: yes admissable
similar to R vs Foster
Rattan Singh v State cfHimachal Pradesh
of Rattan Singh v State cfHimachal Pradesh (AIR 1997 SC 768). In this case, the act of the assailant intruding into the courtyard at dead of night, the victim’s identification of the assailant, her statement that the appellant was standing with a gun and that he fired at her were so intertwined with each other by proximity of time and space, that they formed part of the same transaction and therefore held relevant under Sec. 6.
is res gestae an exception to the rule of heresay
yes, Res gestae has come to be a rule of exception to the hearsay evidence. A fact or a statement of fact or opinion, which is so closely associated in time, place and circumstances with some act or event, which is in issue, that it can be said to form a part of the same transaction as the act or event in issue, is itself admissible in evidence.
section 7
Facts which are the Occasion, Cause or Effect of Facts in Issue (Sec. 7)
According to Sec. 7, the following facts are relevant-
(j) facts which are the occasion, cause or effect (immediate or otherwise) of facts in issue or relevant facts,
(ii) facts which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or
(lii) facts which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction. \
illustrate section 8 motive, preparation, conduct
(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 (Motive).
(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 relevant12 {Preparation).
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 favourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of witness or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant {Conduct).
Queen-Empress v Abdullah
The accused was prosecuted for the murder of a young girl, a prostitute. She was attacked while asleep in her home. It was already morning and there was sufficient light to enable her to identify her assailant, who cut her throat with a razor. She was taken to a police station and thence to a hospital where though she could not speak she made signs to identify the victim, when abdullahs name was stated she made positive signs. later she died. it was stated that this does not come under section 8 s to attract Sec. 8 the conduct must be influenced directly by the facts in issue/relevant facts and not by the interposition of words spoken by third persons. instead it qualified under sec 32 dying declaration
section 9
Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts (Sec. 9)
Sec. 9 declares the following kinds of facts to be relevant:-
(i) facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact,
(ii) facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact,
(iii) facts which establish the identity of anything or person,
(iv) facts which fix time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, and
(v) facts which show the relation of parties.
section 11
When Facts Not Otherwise Relevant become Relevant (Sec. 11)
According to Sec. 11, facts not otherwise relevant are relevant:-
(I) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact,22
(ii) if by themselves or in connection with others facts they made 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.
what are inconsistent facts
Inconsistent Facts (Plea of Alibi)
Evidence can be given of facts which have no other connection with the main facts of a case except this that they are inconsistent with a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Their inconsistency with the main facts of the case is sufficient to warrant their relevancy.
(This section enables a person charged with a crime to take the plea of alibi which means his presence elsewhere at the time of the crime. presence is inconsistent with the fact that he should be present at the place of the crime
Munshi Prasad v State of Bihar
it was held that the
presence of a person at a distance of about 400-500 yards from the
place of occurrence cannot be termed as “presence elsewhere”. The plea
of alibi is based on physical impossibility of being at the scene of crime
and so the distance is a very material factor.
does failure to prove alibi help prosecution
In Dasari Siva Prasad Ruddy v Public Prosecutor, High Court, A. P. (AIR 2004 SC 4383), it was held that failure on the part of accused to establish plea of alibi does not help the prosecution and it cannot be held that the accused was present at the scene of occurrence, the prosecution must prove it by positive evidence. Thus by merely failure on the part of the accused to establish the plea of alibi shall not lead to an inference that the accused was present at the scene of occurrence. In Bikam Pandey v State of Bihar (AIR 2004 SC 997), it was held that the plea of alibi cannot be accepted in favour of an accused merely on the ground that the same was accepted in relation to co-accused.
Santa Singh v State of Punjab
he witnesses testified that they saw the deceased being shot from a distance of 25 feet, rhe medical report showed that the nature of wound was such that it :ould have been caused only from a distance less than a yard. Thus, the expert opinion rendered the statement of the witnesses highly improbable. section 45 IEA- expert opinion
Kalu Mirza v Emperor
where the question was whether a person was a habitual cheat, the fact that he belonged to an organisation which was formed for the purpose of habitually cheating people was held to be relevant, and it was open to the prosecution to prove against each person that the members of the gang did cheat people.
section 11 relevant
- Thus, Sec. 11 makes admissible only those facts which are of great weight (degree of probability immediate and high) in bringing the court Co a conclusion regarding the existence of fact in question. Such collateral facts are highly valuable to the accused in support of his defence,
section 14
Facts showing Existence of State of Mind/ Body/ Bodily Feeling (Sec. 14)
“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
Fact in Issue: A sues B for damage done by a dog of B which
B knew to be ferocious.
Relevant Facts: The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant knowledge).
sec 15
Facts Bearing on Question whether Act was Accidental/ Intentional (Sec. 15)
“When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant
A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The fact that A lived in several houses successively, in each of which a fire occurred and A received payment from a different insurer, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
admission defined
section 17 - An admission is a confession or voluntary acknowledgment about the existence of certain facts. An ‘admission’ is a statement of fact which. waives or dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true.
HAMSA kunja v ragina
singapore case regarding res gestae
A sees B beating the shit out of another guy C in factory. A says dont beat C he is weak and i will report to the union. in return B threatens A and says dont interjecgt i will beat you too. leter that evening outside the factory A is found dead beaten to death, res gestae applies as it is a very relevant fact
section 6 res gestae - also singapore case
section 6 res gestae 3 tests
Test of applicability- checks proximity of time and place, and continuity of action, purpose
test of admission- was it spontaneuous? was there room for error? relevant identification? was there opportunity to concoct?
3 test of rs gestae- cause and effect test, time and place test, conintuity of action an dpurpose test
s6 res gestae
tests of viscocity
s
RATTEN V QUEEN
A man was prosecuted for the murder of his wife. His defence was that the shot went off accidentally. There was evidence to the effect that the deceased telephoned to say: “Get me the police please”. Before the operator could connect the police, the caller, who spoke in distress, gave her address and the call suddenly ended. Thereafter the police came to the house and found the body of a dead woman. Her call and the words she spoke were held to be relevant as a part of the transaction which brought about her death
R vs Beddingfield
homegirl got her throat slit and apparently said “aunt look at what beddingfield did to me” but held not addmissable because her throat is slit so how did she talk
res gestae sec6
r vs richardson
bro went to a girls house when she was alone, murdered her, and left running
occasion- girl lone at cottage
cause- he impregnated her and was worried abt his reputation
effect- footprint found at the crimescene same exact and also eye witness clearly describing him
state of things- she was preggo
opportunity- accused took leave from work for about an hour around the same time he was seen by eyewitness running away from house
uttam singh v madhyapradesh
dude slit fathers throat, in shock the child screamed out the accused ka name and the neighbours heard it. res gestae sec 6
PV narayan vs state of Andhara Pradesh
if motive is proved then the case of prosecution becomes easier to connect accused to the alleged incident - section 8 motive
Sankaran v state of kerela
dude tried to claim plea of insanity after killing his wife but neigbhours who witnessed the man before and after stated that he was perfectly sane before and after the murder of the wife
section 8 previous and subsequent conduct relevant
is motive always important? to decide a case?
Yunis Alias kariya vs madhya pradesh - whee ocular evidence is very clear and convincing and role of accuesed in the crime is well established - moticve is not an indespensible condition for proving the prosecutions case
M malkhani vs State
recorded phone call evidence of man settling bribe money was considered as evidence of conduct
Sainuddeen v state of kerela
father tried to have sex w daughter. mom did not trust father with daughters chastity- father frustated and killed daughter. neighbours heard the cries and convo. he was convicrted - sec 9 facts necessary to prove or introduce relevant facts
Badri Rai v state of bihar
if involved in a conspirancy against state any action taken by one of the co conspirators in furtherance of the common intention will be a relevant fact against all of them - section 10
Aveson v kinniard
husband goes to get life insurance against wifes life and to the insurance company she says she feels perfectly fine- later she dies. and it is turning out that before life insurance interview she told someone 3rd party she was not feeling well- section14 facts showing bodily feeling
Section 17
admission of facts of a an issue by oral documentary or electronic evidence
Basant singh v Janki singh admission has to be examined as a whole you cannot pick specific parts of a statement and only admit them
MAYO V MAYO
woman registered birth of child and did not enter any details regarding the father- court held that either she did not know hwo the father of the child was or it is an illegitimate child so by conduct it is an admission of adultry
Dudh nath pandey v state of up
section 6- same transaction
Deceased was shot dead by the accused (brother of the girl he was in love with).
► There was a school near Hathipark. Accused hit one man at this place. Another man (servant) was
standing near gate of Hathipark who saw the incident happening.
► One eyewitness came running and informed the sister of the accused about the death of the deceased. Girl
rushed to the spot and went to police station. This statement of her then converted to an FIR. Therefore FIR
becomes part of same transaction.
► Accused denied all the allegations and has taken the plea of Alibi. Showing punch in history of work place.
Though he was found loitering around the pan shop near the factory.
► Accused was given life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC.
Kapoor singh rana v State nct delhi
kapoor used to call the lady he was infatuated with many times a day at her house then one day when she was alone he came and threw acid on her and her mother came home soon after, the poor girl was screaming in pain and she said “kappor singh rana threw acid on me” later she died in the hospital for other reasons. it was said that since the timing of her statement was right after she was attacked itwas the same transaction and further it was corroborated by phone records and the fact that kapoor signed into the security boo when entering her apartment complex. thus the motive is proven the chain of circumstantial evidence proven and accused was held guilty
Rumping v DPP
Rumping v DPP
‘Communication through privilege’. It can be proved by a 3rd party.
A ship mate was charged with the murder of a women. He wrote a letter to his wife confessing some crime and gave
it to the postman. But postman gave it to captain. Captain gave it to police. This letter was considered as admission
by the shipmate.
Moviarity v London Latham & Dover ry.
Moviarity v London Latham & Dover ry.
Plaintiff sued railways for some injury. Evidences were admitted that he had been persuading certain persons
to appear for him when they were not present at the accident.
Court said species of evidence is receivable as an admission by the party that case is fake.
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (
Palvinder Kaur was on a trial for murder of her husband along with another who was always absconding. Husband’s body was recovered from a
well after it had already suffered about two months of decomposition. The post mortem could not even reveal whether death was due to poison or what.
In her statement to the court the accused said that her husband , a hobbyiest photographer used to keep handy photos developing material which is quick
poison that on the occasion he was ill and she brought him some medicines that the phial of medicine happened to be kept nearby the liquid developer
and the husband while going for the medicine by mistake swallowed the developer and died, that she got afraid and with the help of the absconding
accused packed the body in the trunk and disposed it off into the well.
The statement thus consisted of partly guilty and partly innocent remarks. It was partly inculpatory in the sense that it confessed to something wrong and
partly exculpatory in the sense that if accepted it would totally absolve her of any guilt.
The supreme court approved privy councils decision upon two points.
1. Firstly, the definition of confession is that it must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.
2. Secondly, that a mixed up statement which even though contains some confessional statement, will still lead to acquittal is no confession.
Sahoo v. Sate of UP
Sahoo v. Sate of UP (1996)
Accused who was charged with murder of his daughter in law with whom he was always quarrelling was seen on
the day of the murder going out of the home, saying words to the effect: ‘I have finished her and with her the
daily quarrels’. The statement was held to be confession relevant in evidence, for it is necessary for the relevancy
of a confession that it should be communicated to some other person.