The victim (wife) had called the

police for help but before

operator could connect her to the
police,
her call was disconnected. Later
the police found her dead body
from her house from where the
call
was made and the time of death
and the time of phone call was
almost the same. The call made to
the police came under the
purview of section 6 and thereby
defeated the accused husband’s
defence that he accidentally fired
his wife.
Section 7 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 states that facts which
are the occasion, cause, or effect,
immediate or otherwise, of re
Relevancy of facts:

Not everything holds value in the court of law, only certain events physical or
abstract that are brought to court’s notice, through legal means, holds relevancy.
Every event is a fact in itself and is made up of a number of facts. The law of
evidence was developed to prove ‘facts’.

Meaning of Facts:

1.Anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by

senses.
2.Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
The chapter “Relevancy of Facts” can be considered as a tool to indentify facts,
appropriate to the case.

Relevancy of Facts:

1.Exclusion of a irrelevant facts (section 5)

2.Res-Gestae (section 6)
3.Environment facts (section 7)
4.Motive, preparation, conduct (section 8)
5.Supportive facts (section 9)
6.Evidence to prove conspiracy (section 10 to 14)
7.Evidence of similar facts (section 15 to 16).

Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that evidence may be given in any
suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of
such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.
Relevancy is based on logic and probability which may be admissible or not.

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that facts which, though not in
issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction,
are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times
and places). In other words, relevant facts could include both acts and omissions,
and they could be isolated or contiguous but they should form a part of the
transaction in question.

Case Law: Ratten vs. The Queen

The victim (wife) had called the police for help but before operator could connect her
to the police, her call was disconnected. Later the police found her dead body from
her house from where the call was made and the time of death and the time of
phone call was almost the same. The call made to the police came under the
purview of section 6 and thereby defeated the accused husband’s defence that he
accidentally fired his wife.

Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that facts which are the occasion,
cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which
constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an
opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.

Illustration:

Accused husband was prosecuted for shooting down his wife as he was unhappy
with his wife and was carrying an affair with another woman. Unhappiness of the
husband and affairs with another woman were held to be relevant which constituted
the state of thing in which the principal fact, ‘shooting down’ happened.

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that any fact is relevant which
shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

As per section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, says that the motive with which a
person commits a certain act or the preparation which he makes towards the
commission of the act is a relevant fact. The question of motive and preparation is
important in cases which purely rely on circumstantial evidence. The rule of res
gestae testimony is that it may be allowed when the said testimony goes right to the
root of the matter directly connected with the commission of the crime. This particular
principle has been embodied in section 8 of the Evidence Act. 

Case Law: R v Palmer

The accused borrowed large sums of money from his deceased friend to pay his
dues. The deceased died because of poisoning in a hotel, after coming back from a
race they both attended. Since the accused had a strong motive to kill him, he was
held liable. If a certain motive can be assigned, its adequacy is not questioned, only
its existence is enough to prove concerned facts.

Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that Facts necessary to explain or
introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference
suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of
anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any
fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by
whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for
that purpose
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, make relevant, the identity of a person or
thing etc. A person can be identified in a number of ways namely by a person’s
finger prints, foot prints, similarly of his writing, personal resemblance to another
person, by blood type etc. Recently genetic or DNA finger printing has, as it were,
come to age, making identification of a person, particularly in rape and kindred
(family/relative) sexual offences, affiliation (link) proceedings and paternity suits
virtually a certainty.  

Case Law: Sainudeen v State of Kerala 

In this case, there is distinguishing proof of the blamed through his voice was
significant.

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about the things said, done or
written by the conspirator in reference to common intention. In this section there are
some expressions have been used as things said, done or written, in reference to
their common intention. Each of the word has its own importance in the application of
this section and all these things must be properly taken into consider by the courts
before applying this section.

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states about the facts not otherwise
relevant, are relevant.
Section 11 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that there are generally
five cases that arise for consideration under this clause:
1.Alibi (legal maxim for a claim of a piece of evidence that one was elsewhere when
an alleged act took place).
2.Non-access of husband to show illegitimacy of issue
3.Survival of the alleged deceased
4.Commission of an offence by third person.
5.Self infliction from harm.
Under section 11 (2) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the word ‘highly probable’ points
out that the connection between the facts in issue and the collateral facts sought to
be proved must be so immediate as to render the co-existence of the two highly
probable.

Section 12 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for determination of damages
when suits for the damages are claimed by the party. Under this section the court
can determine the amount of damages in an action based on contract or tort. In a
suit for damages, the amount of damages must be a fact in issue. Thus the section
lays down that evidence tending to determine, i.e., to increase or diminish damages
is admissible. Section 55 of this Act lays down the conditions under which evidence
of character may be given in civil cases to affect the amount of damages. Similarly
Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act also lays down the rule governing damages in
actions in contract. In a suit for damages for a breach of contract of marriage, the
evidence as to status of the defendant may be given for determination of the amount
of damages.

Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that Facts relevant when right or
custom is in question. Where the question is as to the existence of any right or
custom, the following facts are relevant:
a.any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed,
modified, recognized, asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its
existence;
b.particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or
exercised or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.

Main part of Section 14 talks about two things:

a.Facts showing the existence of state of mind which includes intention, knowledge,
good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards particular person are
Relevant. Focus is given on particular person, which means state of mind is not
towards general person, but particular person.
b.Facts showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling are Relevant.
Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that 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 occurrence, in each
of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that when there is a question
whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business,
according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.

Illustration:
The question is, whether a particular letter reached A.
The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Dead
Letter Office, are relevant