RELEVANCY

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), governs the rules of evidence in India. It lays
down the principles that determine what evidence is relevant and admissible in a court of law.
Two important concepts under this Act are relevancy and admissibility. While these terms are
often used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings and implications in legal proceedings.
Relevancy refers to the logical connection of evidence to the facts in issue, whereas
admissibility pertains to whether such evidence is legally acceptable in court.

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the term “fact” is broadly defined and forms the
foundation for determining admissibility and relevance in legal proceedings. The Act defines
fact as anything capable of being perceived by the senses. It includes physical realities that can
be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted and any mental condition of which a person is
conscious. This covers internal states like emotions, intentions, or beliefs.

DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE

The doctrine of Res Gestae, a Latin term meaning “things done,” is a well-established exception
to the rule against hearsay evidence. Under Indian law, this doctrine has played a crucial role in
allowing spontaneous statements or actions closely connected with a relevant fact to be
admissible as evidence. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, retains and incorporates the Doctrine of Res Gestae.

Historical Evolution of the Doctrine of Res Gestae

The doctrine first emerged in the case of Thompson v. Trevanion (1693), where the court ruled
that statements made simultaneously with an act are admissible as they help in explaining the
event.

The Romans originally used Res Gestae to signify “acts done” or “actus.” Over time, English and
American legal scholars described it as facts forming part of the same transaction.

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, in Article 3 of a digest of the Law of Evidence, discusses the
relevancy of facts that form part of the same transaction as the facts in issue. According to him,

“A transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single legal

name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong cr any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.”

In R v. Bedingfield (1879), an English case, a woman with a slashed throat emerged from a room
and exclaimed, “Aunt, see what Bedingfield has done to me.” Chief Justice Cockburn ruled that
the statement was inadmissible as res gestae, reasoning that it was made after the incident had
concluded and was not part of the transaction itself.

S.4: CLOSELY CONNECTED FACTS (DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE)

Meaning: Facts which are not directly in issue but are so connected with a fact in issue or
relevant fact that they form part of the same transaction are relevant.
Key Elements

1. Fact in Issue: The principal fact which is directly in dispute in a case and must be
proved or disproved.

2. Relevant Fact: A fact which is connected to the fact in issue in a way recognized by law
and helps in proving or disproving it.

3. Same Transaction: A group of facts so connected together by proximity of time, place,

continuity of action, and unity of purpose or design that they form one continuous
whole.

4. Not in Issue but Connected: Even if a fact is not itself disputed, it becomes relevant if it
is inseparably linked to the main incident.

5. Time and Place Not Material: Such facts are relevant even if they occurred at
different times and places, provided they are part of the same transaction.

Principle: The law admits such facts because they are part of the natural and continuous
narrative of the घटना (incident) and help the court understand the complete story without
artificial gaps.

Illustrations Explained

(a) Murder Case: If A beats B to death, then:

• What A, B, or bystanders said or did during the incident, or

• Immediately before or after the incident

→ are relevant as they form part of the same transaction.

This includes spontaneous statements, conduct, or reactions.

(b) Waging War / Insurrection: Where A is accused of waging war:

• Acts like destruction of property, attacking troops, breaking jails

→ are relevant as part of the general transaction, even if A was not present everywhere.

Shows continuity and common design.

(c) Libel Case (Correspondence): Other letters forming part of the same correspondence
→ are relevant even if they do not contain defamatory words.

Helps understand context and intention.

(d) Delivery of Goods: Each successive delivery

→ is relevant. Shows the chain of transaction.
Essentials for Application

• There must be a connection with fact in issue

• Facts must form part of the same transaction

• There must be continuity (no break in chain)

• Statements or acts must be spontaneous and contemporaneous (not fabricated later)

Essentials of Res Gestae:

For a fact or statement to be considered part of Res Gestae, it must satisfy the following
conditions:

1. The Statement Must Relate to the Main Transaction: The fact or statement must be
directly connected to the principal event in question. It should provide context or explain
the event in a meaningful way. Example: If a witness hears a victim screaming the name
of the attacker during an assault, that statement becomes part of the transaction.

2. Spontaneity and Contemporaneity: The statement must be made immediately or

contemporaneously with the event, leaving no time for reflection or fabrication. Any
significant delay between the event and the statement may weaken its admissibility.

3. Statement Must Be Made by a Participant or a Witness: The person making the

statement must either be directly involved in the incident or a bystander who witnessed
it.

4. The Statement Must Explain or Illustrate the Incident: The statement should clarify,
explain, or give immediate insight into the event. It should not be a mere narrative of
past events but rather an integral part of the occurrence.

5. Absence of Pre-Meditation or Fabrication: The statement should be free from

manipulation, influence, or afterthought. If the statement is made after the witness has
had time to think, discuss, or receive external influence, it may be inadmissible.

6. The Statement Must Be a Natural Reaction to the Event: The emotional state and
immediacy of the reaction play a role in determining admissibility.

7. The Fact and Statement Must Be Part of the Same Transaction: The statement
should not be separate from the event but must be an inseparable part of the chain of
events. The term “same transaction” is broadly interpreted and may extend to
statements made just before or after the act if they form a continuous sequence.

Example: If a person runs out of a house shouting, “The house is on fire!” immediately after an
explosion, the statement is part of the same transaction.
Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1996)

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rattan Singh for the murder of Kanta
Devi, a young pregnant woman shot dead in her courtyard at night. Singh, an ex-armyman, had
developed an infatuation for Kanta Devi, which turned into hostility after she rejected his
advances and reported him to the police.

On the night of the incident, she identified him as the armed intruder before being fatally shot.
While the Sessions Court acquitted Singh, citing investigative lapses and omissions in the First
Information Report (FIR), the Himachal Pradesh High Court convicted him under Section 302
IPC, relying on witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence, including the victim’s dying
declaration.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that omissions in the FIR do
not invalidate substantive evidence, and affirmed that Kanta Devi’s statement was admissible
under Section 32(1) and Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act (currently Section 4, BSA). The
appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the conviction and life sentence.

Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1999)

In this, the appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC for allegedly shooting his uncle,
Nakkal, over a land dispute. The trial court relied on the victim’s statement to PW 2, which the
High Court upheld, deeming it admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act (res gestae)
(currently Section 4, BSA).

However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the statement was admissible, it lacked reliability
as PW 2 was an inimical witness, and no independent corroboration was provided.
Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his
immediate release.

Res Gestae as an Exception to Hearsay: he doctrine of Res Gestae is an exception to the rule
that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. While hearsay is generally excluded due to its
unreliability, Res Gestae statements are admitted because their spontaneity and close
connection with the event reduce the risk of falsehood.

These statements are considered trustworthy because they are made under circumstances that
do not allow for deliberate fabrication. As a result, they are treated as part of the event itself
rather than as independent testimony.

This exception reflects a balance between strict evidentiary rules and the practical need to
ensure justice.

SECTION 5: FACTS WHICH ARE OCCASION, CAUSE OR EFFECT OF FACTS IN ISSUE OR

RELEVANT FACTS.

Section 5 lays down that facts which are connected with a fact in issue or relevant fact as its
occasion, cause, or effect—whether immediate or remote—are themselves relevant. It further
includes facts which constitute the surrounding circumstances (state of things) or afford an
opportunity for the happening of such fact.

In simple terms, the section widens the scope of relevancy to include:

• Facts leading to the main fact (occasion/cause)

• Facts resulting from the main fact (effect)

• Facts showing the circumstances under which it occurred

• Facts showing opportunity to commit the act

Key Elements:

1. Occasion – Facts which provide the background or setting for the occurrence.

2. Cause – Facts which directly or indirectly led to the happening of the fact in issue.

3. Effect – Facts which are the consequence of the fact in issue.

4. State of things – Existing circumstances or conditions at the time of occurrence.

5. Opportunity – Facts showing that a person had the chance to commit the act.

Application through Illustrations:

• (a) Robbery case: If B was seen carrying money and disclosing it before the robbery,
such facts are relevant as they constitute the occasion and create motive/opportunity
for the offence.

• (b) Murder case: Marks of struggle at the place of occurrence are relevant as they are
the effect of the incident and indicate that a violent act took place.

• (c) Poisoning case: The prior health condition of B and habits known to A are relevant as
they show the state of things and opportunity for administering poison.

SECTION : 6 : Facts and proof are the two things that combine to form evidence, which the
court may or may not accept as showing the merit or otherwise of a party’s case.

Where the court believes the facts shown by a party in any proceeding exist or when it is
convinced that a reasonable person would see them as existing, the fact is said to be proved.

If the court is not satisfied that those facts exist or is convinced that a reasonable person would
not see them as existing, the fact is said to be “disproved”. Thus ‘Facts’ are important in any
case. In last article we have discussed ‘Facts in Issue’.
DEFINE DEFINITION OF FACT AND RELEVANCY

SECTION 6: MOTIVE, PREPARATION AND CONDUCT

(1) Motive and Preparation

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact.
Motive

• A motive is an emotion or desire which is the stimulus which causes or leads to such
acts. Motive cannot be seen by eyes. If such motive is brought before the Court, and
there is no direct evidence of the same, it has to be inferred by the court. Further, if such
motive is proved, its adequacy shall be decided upon by the Court (there is no standard
rule for adequacy). Absence of proving motive completely by the prosecution will lead to
the accused not being convicted.

• Understanding the motive behind a crime can be valuable for investigators, prosecutors,
and the legal system in general. However, it’s important to note that the presence of a
motive does not necessarily prove guilt, and the absence of a clear motive does not
mean a person is innocent. Legal systems typically require evidence of the criminal act
and the mental state of the accused to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. state of U. P., 2000 case, the Supreme Court observed: “Motive is
exertion of human will and, hence an ‘internal act’. Motive by definition, ‘is moving power which
impels action for definite result, or to put it differently motive is that which incites or stimulates a
person to do an act’.

In, Rajendra Kumar v. State of Punjab 1966 case, the Court held that the accused can only be
convicted if the prosecution completely proves the motive and provide the supporting evidence to
establish the commission of the offence by the accused.

Preparation

The concept of “preparation for crime” refers to activities or actions taken by individuals with
the intent to commit a criminal act in the future. In many legal systems, the law may consider
certain preparatory actions as criminal offenses, even if the actual crime has not been
committed yet. The specific activities considered as preparation for a crime can vary depending
on jurisdiction and the nature of the offense, but they generally include:

o Planning: Developing a detailed plan outlining the steps and logistics of the intended
criminal act.

o Gathering Tools or Instruments: Acquiring or possessing tools, weapons, or

instruments specifically designed or adapted for the commission of the planned crime.

o Surveillance: Monitoring and gathering information about the target, location, or

potential obstacles to facilitate the commission of the crime.

o Casing or Reconnaissance: Conducting a preliminary examination of the target area or

victim to assess vulnerabilities, security measures, and potential escape routes.

o Securing Access: Taking steps to gain unauthorized access to a location, system, or

property in preparation for the commission of a crime.

o Assembling a Team: Recruiting or organizing a group of individuals to collaborate in the

execution of the criminal plan.

o Communication: Exchanging information with co-conspirators, potential accomplices,

or others involved in the criminal activity.
 o Obtaining Information: Collecting information relevant to the planned crime, such as
blueprints, security codes, or other details that could aid in its execution.

o Testing Security Measures: Conducting trial runs or tests to evaluate the effectiveness
of security measures and identify potential weaknesses.

In, Mohan Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Scase, where the accused was charged for cheating as he was
importing goods in Karachi port from Okha port without paying the proper custom duty as he made
some arrangements with the customs department. The prosecution showed enough evidence to prove
the preparation by the accused in avoiding the import duties. The Court held that the act by the
accused was completely wrongful and are prohibited by the law hence the accused is liable for
preparation.

In, Appu v. State, AIR 1971 case, where the four accused arranged a meeting to make essentials
arrangements for commencing crime. Certain facts related to the objective of the scheduled meeting
were admitted which showed preparation on their part. The preparation was administered clearly that
it is an intention to commit burglary and the accused were waiting for the right time to get the best
opportunity to execute their preparation.

(2) Conduct: The conduct of any party or his agent, in relation to the proceeding or to any fact in
issue or relevant fact, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by such fact,
whether it is previous or subsequent.

• It also includes the conduct of the victim (person against whom the offence is
committed).

Guilty mind begets guilty conduct. Conduct is taken as evidence because it is always guided,
before or after, by what one has done. The conduct should be such which is affected by the
facts or affects the facts. It doesn’t include statements until these statements are associated
with conduct.

The term “conduct ” refers to the behavior and actions of individuals involved in criminal
activities. It encompasses a range of actions, motivations, and circumstances related to the
commission of a crime. Here are some key aspects of conduct in the context of a criminal act:

o Actus Reus: In criminal law, conduct is often a crucial element in establishing guilt. The
term “actus reus” refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes the criminal
offense. It is the external behaviour or actions that are prohibited by law.

o Intent (Mens Rea): Alongside the physical act, criminal liability often requires proving a
guilty state of mind or intent (mens rea). The conduct, coupled with the requisite mental
state, forms the basis for criminal charges.

o Culpability: The degree of an individual’s involvement or responsibility in the criminal

act is a key consideration. Different individuals may have varying levels of culpability
based on their roles in the offense.

o Accomplice or Accessories: Conduct may involve individuals who are accomplices or

accessories to a crime. These are individuals who, in various degrees, aid, abet, or
participate in the commission of a criminal act.
 o Conspiracy: Conduct in the form of an agreement or conspiracy to commit a crime is
also a criminal offense. The planning and coordination of criminal activities among
multiple individuals can lead to charges even before the actual crime is committed.

o Attempt: Conduct that falls short of completing a crime but demonstrates a substantial
step toward its commission can be charged as attempted criminal conduct. Attempted
conduct is often considered a separate offense.

o Recklessness or Negligence: Conduct may be considered criminal if it involves

recklessness or negligence. Reckless conduct refers to consciously disregarding a
substantial risk, while negligent conduct involves a failure to exercise reasonable care.

o Defences: Conduct may be subject to legal defences, such as self-defence, necessity,

or duress, depending on the circumstances. These defences may justify or excuse the
conduct under certain conditions.

o Criminal Elements: Each criminal offense has specific elements that must be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Conduct is a fundamental aspect of these elements and
must be established during legal proceedings.

o Punishment and Sentencing: The nature and severity of the conduct often influence
the sentencing or punishment imposed by the legal system. Courts consider factors
such as the gravity of the offense, the degree of harm caused, and the individual’s
criminal history.

In, Bhamara v. State of M.P., 1953 case, where a person X was farming on his land, on seeing
another person standing near to his place he called the person for some conversation. After a
few moments, the conversation turned into arguments and ended up into a fight. On seeing
such activity other people came to the place of incident to stop the fight but subsequently, the
offender tried escaping. But the offender was caught by some other person. The Court found
that the conduct of escaping of the offender was relevant subsequent conduct.

In, Nagesha v. State of Bihar, 1996 case, it was held by the Court if the first information is given
by the accused himself, the fact of his giving information is admissible against him as evidence
of his conduct.

EXPLANATION: According to explanation attached to Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam, 2023, statements may be classified into two categories.

1. Mere statements, which do not do anything more than giving information of or narrating
a fact.

2. Statements which are themselves an act.

Statements falling under the second category are relevant as conduct, inasmuch as they are
themselves acts. As to the first category of the statements, Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that they are not relevant except under the
following two circumstances:

1. The statement accompanies and explains acts other than statements.

2. The statement is relevant under any other section of this Act.

The statements do not stand alone but they either accompany or influence the conduct and
hence must be contemporaneous to conduct.

Application through Illustrations

• (a) Motive: Prior murder and blackmail show a motive for committing the present
offence.

• (b) Motive (civil case): Need for money shows reason to execute a bond.

• (c) Preparation: Procuring poison before death shows preparation.

• (d) Preparation: Consulting lawyers and drafting wills shows preparatory acts.

• (e) Conduct: Destroying or fabricating evidence shows subsequent conduct indicating

guilt.

• (f) Conduct: Running away on hearing police arrival shows conduct influenced by
guilt.

• (g) Conduct: Silence in response to accusation may indicate admission by conduct.

• (h) Conduct: Absconding after warning letter shows consciousness of guilt.

• (i) Conduct: Possession of stolen property or concealment shows post-offence

conduct.

• (j) Conduct (rape): Complaint made soon after incident is relevant; mere statement
without complaint is not conduct.

• (k) Conduct (robbery): Same principle—complaint is relevant, mere statement is not

In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. state of U. P., 2000 case, the Supreme Court observed: “Motive is
exertion of human will and, hence an ‘internal act’. Motive by definition, ‘is moving power which
impels action for definite result, or to put it differently motive is that which incites or stimulates a
person to do an act’.

In State of Punjab v. Bittu 2016 case, the Supreme Court observed that the proof of motive alone
cannot be sufficient to convict the accused as it is not substantive evidence but only corroborative in
nature.

Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with relevancy of facts which are
introductory or explanatory in nature, or supports or rebuts a fact in issue or a relevant fact, or
which establishing identity of a person or thing.

There is a kind of evidence which if considered separately and alone from other evidence would
not amount to anything, but if it is taken into consideration in connection with some other facts,
proved in the case it explains and illustrates them. Sometimes it gives strength to the evidence
given by one side and sometimes breaks the force of the evidence given by the other side such
facts which are necessary to explain a fact in issue or relevant facts are relevant under section 7
BSA.
Section 7: Facts necessary to explain or introduce (Exam-Oriented, Bare Act Style)

Section 7 provides that facts which are necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or
relevant fact are themselves relevant. It further includes facts which:

• Support or rebut an inference drawn from a fact in issue or relevant fact

• Establish identity of a person or thing

• Fix time or place of occurrence

• Show relation of parties involved

However, such facts are relevant only to the extent they are necessary for that purpose.

Key Components

1. Explanatory Facts: There are many pieces of evidence which have no meaning at all if
considered separately, but become relevant when consider in connection with some other
facts. Such facts explain the fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, explanatory evidence is not
relevant in itself. It is neither one of the “res-gestae” nor probative in any direct line of proof of
existence of fact in issue or relevant fact but evidence is always allowed of facts which are
necessary to explain main facts.

Example: A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of the mob. The cries of
the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the riot.

2. Introductory Facts: Facts which are introductory of a relevant fact, are of great importance in
understanding real nature of transaction and being relevant. Therefore, evidence is allowed of
facts which are necessary to introduce fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, introductory evidence
is not relevant in itself. It is neither one of the “res-gestae” nor probative in any direct line of
proof of existence of fact in issue or relevant fact but evidence is always allowed of facts which
are necessary to introduce main facts.

Example: C sues D for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to C. D affirms that the alleged
matter is libellous but true. Thus, the relation between the parties when the libel was published
is a relevant introductory fact.

3. Facts Supporting Inference: There are facts which are neither relevant as facts in issue nor
as relevant facts but they support the inference suggested by the facts in issue or relevant fact
or contradict the facts in issue or relevant fact.

Example: After murdering B, A was seen running away from the village. Absconding supports the
inference that A might have committed the murder.

4. Facts Rebutting Inference: There are facts, which can rebut or contradict the inferences
suggested by the facts in issue or relevant fact, and hence, relevant.

Example: A is accused of committing robbery just after committal of the offence, A runs away to
Calcutta. At the trial of A for robbery the fact that he ran away just after the occurrence is a fact
giving inference that he had some concern with the offence. If A adduces evidence to prove that
he had a very urgent piece of work at Calcutta and in that connection, he went there it will rebut
the inference drawn from the fact that he ran away to Calcutta.
5. Facts Establishing Identity of a Thing: Facts establishing identity of a thing or a person may
be relevant in some cases. When the identity of thing is in question, every fact which will be
helpful to identify the thing is relevant.

Example: There was a murder and robbery, the house lady was called to identify the articles of
the deceased and other belongings; Identification of the deceased was done by way of the
clothes and shoes he was wearing.

6. Facts Establishing Time and Place: Facts which fix the time and place of the occurrence
are relevant. This becomes very important when the accused pleads alibi.

Example: A is alleged of murdering B. A is seen to be driving away from the scene of the crime.
However, at the time of commission of the crime he was in a business meeting with some
clients (alibi). Thus, the time and place become a relevant fact

7. Facts Establishing Identity of a Person: When the identity of a person is in question,

identification by parents, wife or other relatives is relevant. In any special case identification of a
person can be made by bodily mark, sign or cut mark. There are other means of identification by
medical examinations, namely, examination of skeleton, bones, age, voice, blood group, DNA
etc. The identification of any person may also be possible by expert evidence, such as evidence
of handwriting, finger print, foot print, photograph etc. experts.

Test Identification Parade:

One of the methods of establishing identity of the accused is ‘test identification parade. The
purpose of TI parade is “to check memory of eye-witness and also for prosecution to decide as
to who can be cited as eye-witness.” Its object is also to enable the eye-witness of the incident
to identify the accused before a Magistrate.

S. 54 BNSS seals with identification of person arrested. Where a person is arrested on a charge
of committing an offence and his identification by other person or purpose of investigation of
such offence, the court, having jurisdiction, may on the request of the officer-in-charge of a
police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or
persons in such manner as the court may deem fit.

This provision enables the police, to seek permission of the court for identification of the
accused and the court may determine the manner of identification. But the police is not bound
to hold identification parade.

Procedure:

1. The investigating authority should send a requisition to the concerned Magistrate for
conducting TIP of the accused person who is in jail or has been granted bail.

2. TIP is conducted by Executive Magistrates or Sub Divisional Magistrates.

3. The magistrate then informs the jail authorities to make necessary arrangements
regarding the date, time and day.

4. The Magistrate selects 2 persons who have no relation with the accused or the witness
called “Punch Witnesses”
 5. Magistrate then selects dummy persons having similar appearances to that of the
accused. For every accused there should be 5 dummy persons.

6. The Magistrate then ensures that the accused and the witnesses sit in separate rooms
and also makes sure that the witnesses cannot meet the accused before conducting the
test.

7. The magistrate must also see to that the no third person or police officer is in the room.

8. The magistrate also takes the precaution to ask the accused questions to give him an
opportunity.

9. If there is a distinguishing mark on any one of the persons, a bandage or some other
means should be used to cover it and the same should be done for all.

10. As soon as the witness identifies the accused, he must be asked as to why he identified
the said accused.

11. The entire process should be recorded by the Magistrate in the IP memorandum along
with time spent etc.

12. Objections, if any, by the accused are to be recorded.

13. After completion of the process, the Magistrate has to obtain the signature of the Punch
Witnesses on the memorandum along with his own signature, the day, date and time.

14. The magistrate hands over the memorandum to the investigating authority to carry on
further investigation.

In Suresh Chand Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 case, the Court held that
identification of accused by witness in the Court is substantial piece of evidence where
accused is not known previously by the witness. Test identification parade must be held at
earliest possible opportunity with necessary safeguard and precaution.

Application through Illustrations

• (a) Will case:

The condition of A’s property and family is relevant as it explains the nature and
contents of the will.

• (b) Libel case:

The relationship and position of parties is relevant as introductory fact, but unrelated
disputes are irrelevant unless they affect relations.

• (c) Absconding:
Absconding is relevant as conduct (Section 6); urgent business is relevant to explain
such conduct, but unnecessary details are irrelevant.

• (d) Inducement of breach of contract:

Statement of C is relevant as it explains his conduct, which is in issue.

• (e) Theft case:

Statement made during delivery is relevant as it explains the transaction.
 • (f) Riot case:
Cries of the mob are relevant as they explain the nature of the act and intention.

Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the admissibility of evidence
in a conspiracy case and is based on the theory of implied agency i.e. every conspirator is an
agent of this association in carrying out the objects of the conspiracy. The special feature of the
section is that anything said or done or written by any member of conspiracy is evidence and
admissible against the other if it relates to the conspiracy. Section 8 BSA has been deliberately
enacted in order to make acts and statements of a co-conspirator admissible against the whole
body of conspirators, because of the nature of crime.

SECTION 8: WHEN THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT TWO OR MORE

PERSONS HAVE CONSPIRED TOGETHER

Section 8 provides that when there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons
have conspired together to commit an offence or actionable wrong, then:

• Anything said, done, or written by any one of such persons

• In reference to their common intention

• After such intention was first entertained by any of them

is a relevant fact against all the persons alleged to be parties to the conspiracy.

Essential Conditions

1. Existence of Conspiracy – There must be a prima facie (reasonable) ground to believe

that a conspiracy existed.

2. Plurality of Persons – At least two or more persons must be involved.

3. Common Intention – There must be a shared design or plan.

4. Act/Statement/Writing – Any communication or act by a conspirator is covered.

5. Reference to Common Design – It must relate to the conspiracy.

6. Timing Requirement – It must be after the formation of intention, not before.

Important Limitation

• Statements or acts made before the conspiracy was formed are not relevant under
this section.

• Only those acts done in furtherance of the common intention are admissible.

In, State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, AIR 1999 SC 2640 case, the court held that once any of the
participants of conspiracy execute the conspiracy then his statements made by him cannot be used
against other conspirators according to Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.
SECTION 9: FACTS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE NOT RELEVANT BECOME RELEVANT in the
following cases:

(1) Inconsistent Facts: Facts are relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or
relevant fact.

• Such facts contradict or negate the existence of the fact in issue.

• They help in disproving or weakening the case of a party.

(2) Probability or Improbability: Facts are relevant if, by themselves or along with other facts,
they make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue highly probable or improbable.

• These facts increase or decrease the likelihood of a fact.

• The emphasis is on “high probability or improbability”, not mere possibility.

Under Section 9(1) the proof of the existence of some fact becomes relevant as it disproves the
fact in issue. There are 5 classes of cases that are considered:

o Plea of alibi,

o Non access of husband to show legitimacy of issue;

o Survival of the deceased;

o Commission of the crime by a third person and

o Self-infliction of harm. v. The plea of alibi

Plea of Alibi:

Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 recognized a defence of Pea of Alibi. The
term Alibi is a Latin term which implies elsewhere or somewhere else. Alibi is used as a defence
in criminal proceedings by the accused against the commission of the alleged offence. The
accused makes this plea in the court so that he or she can prove his or her innocence that at the
commission of the offence, he or she was in some other place. In general, plea of alibi implies
that the accused was not physically present during the commission of the offence; he was
elsewhere or somewhere else.

Essentials of Plea of Alibi:

In general, some of the factors to be adhered are as follows:

o There must be an allege offence punishable by law.

o The person making the plea of alibi must be an accused in that offence.

o It is a plea of defence where the accused states that he or she was somewhere else at
the commission of the offence.

o The plea must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was impossible for the accused to
be physically present at the time of the commission of the offence.

o Making the plea of alibi must be from an accused in that offence.

However, the plea of alibi is not maintainable in all cases. Some of them are as under: This plea
of alibi is not maintainable in tort such as defamation, contributory negligence cases. A plea of
alibi is not applicable in matrimonial cases such as divorce, maintenance etc. A plea of alibi
operates as an exception to the Right of Silence.

Application through Illustrations

• (a) Alibi (Inconsistent Fact):

If A is alleged to have committed a crime at Chennai, the fact that A was in Ladakh at
that time is relevant as it is inconsistent with the commission of the crime.
Even presence at a distant place making commission highly improbable is relevant.

• (b) Exclusive Possibility:

Where a crime must have been committed by one among A, B, C, or D, any fact which
shows that none except A could have committed it, or that others did not commit it,
is relevant.

In Dudh Nath Pandey v State of UP the Supreme Court said that the plea of alibi must be
proved with absolute certainty, so as to make the presence of the accused at the crime scene,
impossible.

SECTION 10 – FACTS RELEVANT TO DETERMINE DAMAGES

Section 10 provides that in suits where damages are claimed, any fact which helps the Court
determine the amount of damages is relevant.

• It applies only to civil cases involving compensation.

• The Court may consider all facts affecting the quantum of damages.

Key Aspects:

1. Facts showing extent of loss or injury are relevant.

2. Facts showing actual damage suffered (financial, physical, reputational, etc.) are
relevant.

3. Facts showing mitigation or reduction of loss are also relevant.

SECTION 11 – FACTS RELEVANT TO EXISTENCE OF RIGHT OR CUSTOM

Section 11 deals with cases where the Court has to determine existence of any legal right or
custom. It declares the following facts as relevant:

(a) Transactions relating to right or custom: Any transaction by which the right or custom was:

• Created

• Claimed

• Modified

• Recognised
 • Asserted

• Denied

• Or which is inconsistent with its existence

(b) Particular instances: Specific instances where the right or custom was:

• Claimed or exercised

• Recognised by others

• Disputed or denied

• Departed from

Key Principles:

1. Both affirmative and negative evidence is relevant.

2. Past conduct and transactions play a crucial role.

3. Relevancy depends on showing continuous recognition or assertion of the right or

custom.

Application (Illustration – Fishery Right):

• A deed granting fishery → shows creation of right

• Mortgage by A’s father → shows assertion/control over right

• Subsequent inconsistent grant → shows possible denial or conflict

• Instances of exercise → show actual enjoyment of right

• Obstruction by neighbours → shows dispute or denial

All these facts are relevant to determine whether the right to fishery exists.

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the existence of a state of mind, or of the body or
bodily feelings, is addressed in Section 12 and Section 13. These sections allow for the
admission of evidence regarding the state of mind or physical condition of a person to prove
facts in a case.

SECTION 12 FACTS SHOWING STATE OF MIND OR BODY

Section 12 provides that facts showing the existence of any state of mind or state of body
are relevant, when such state is in issue or is itself a relevant fact.

The section covers:

(1) State of Mind

• Intention

• Knowledge
 • Good faith

• Negligence

• Rashness

• Ill-will or goodwill

(2) State of Body or Bodily Feeling

• Physical condition (health, illness, symptoms, pain, etc.)

Essential Condition: Such facts are relevant only when the particular state of mind or body is
directly in issue or relevant to the case.

Explanation 1:

The fact must show the state of mind in relation to the specific matter in question, and not a
general tendency or disposition.

Important Principle:

• Specific intention = Relevant

• General character/disposition = Irrelevant

Explanation 2:

Where previous commission of an offence is relevant under this section, the previous
conviction for that offence is also relevant.

Key Principles

1. Mental element (mens rea) can be proved by surrounding facts.

2. Both prior and subsequent acts may be relevant.

3. Evidence must relate to the particular act in question, not general behaviour.

4. The section allows indirect proof of intention, knowledge, or good faith.

Application through Illustrations

• (a) Knowledge: Possession of multiple stolen goods → shows knowledge that goods
were stolen.

• (b) Knowledge & Conviction: Possession of counterfeit currency and prior conviction →
shows knowledge and intention.

• (c) Knowledge (civil): Previous biting incidents of dog → proves owner’s knowledge of
ferocity.

• (d) Knowledge: Acceptance of fictitious bills → shows awareness of fraud.

 • (e) Intention (defamation): Prior ill-will → shows intention to harm reputation; absence
of quarrel → may show lack of intention.

• (f) Good faith: General belief in solvency → shows honest representation.

• (g) Good faith (agency): Payment to contractor → shows bona fide belief in delegation.

• (h) Good faith (misappropriation): Knowledge of notice → affects belief about

ownership.

• (i), (j) Intention: Previous acts or threats → show specific intent.

• (k) Cruelty: Expressions of feelings → show relationship and conduct.

• (l), (m) Bodily condition: Statements about symptoms/health → prove state of body.

• (n) Negligence: Prior notice of defect → shows knowledge and negligence; habitual
negligence → irrelevant.

• (o), (p) Limitation: Specific acts toward victim → relevant; general tendency to commit
crimes → irrelevant.

SECTION 13 FACTS BEARING ON QUESTION WHETHER ACT WAS ACCIDENTAL OR

INTENTIONAL:

Section 13 provides that when the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional,
or done with particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act forms part of a series
of similar occurrences is relevant, if the same person was concerned in all such acts.

Key Elements

1. Issue of intention/knowledge/accident must arise.

2. There must be a series of similar acts.

3. The same person must be involved in those acts.

4. Such similarity must indicate a pattern, making accident improbable.

Principle: Repeated similar acts show a system or design, thereby helping to determine
whether the act was intentional rather than accidental.

Essential Ingredients of Section 13 BSA

o This Section lays down rules as to admissibility of evidence in cases where the question
is whether a particular act was accidental or was done with a particular intention or
knowledge.

o This Section is an exception to the general rule that the evidence of similar facts is not
relevant.

o This exception is necessary to overthrow the defence of accident in cases of habitual

crimes by an offender.
 o This Section deals with the facts admissible in proof of only two states of mind, that
is intention or knowledge.

o Under Section 13 BSA, the evidentiary fact must be such as formed part of a series of
similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned.

Application through Illustrations

• (a) Insurance fraud: Repeated fires in insured houses → show pattern, making accident
unlikely.

• (b) False accounts: Multiple false entries benefiting A → show intentional falsification.

• (c) Counterfeit currency: Similar deliveries to others → show knowledge and intention,
not accident.

SECTION 14: EXISTENCE OF COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEN RELEVANT.

Section 14 provides that when the question is whether a particular act was done, the
existence of a course of business according to which it would naturally have been done is
relevant.

Key Elements

1. There must be a question whether an act was done.

2. Evidence of ordinary course of business or routine practice is relevant.

3. Such course must make the act probable in the normal course of events.

Principle: Acts are presumed to be done according to usual business practice, unless proved
otherwise.

Application through Illustrations

• (a) Dispatch of letter: If letters placed at a spot are ordinarily posted, and the letter was
placed there → it is presumed to be dispatched.

• (b) Delivery of letter: If properly posted and not returned → it is presumed to have been
delivered.