Ch-1 & Ch-2 (I) - Evidence

EVIDENCE 1
CHAPTER
1. PRELIMINARY (SECS. 1-4)
SYNOPSIS
1. Title, Extent & Commencement (Sec. 1)
[Repeal of Enactments (Sec. 2)]
2. Interpretation clause (Sec. 3)
2.1. Court
2.2. Fact
2.3. Relevant fact
2.4. Facts in Issue
2.5. Difference betweeen facts in issue and issues of fact
2.6. Document
2.7. Evidence
2.8. Proved
2.9. Disproved
2.10. Not proved
2.11. Certifying Authority
2.12. Electronic Signature
2.13. Electronic Signature Certificate
2.14. Electronic form
2.15. Electronic records
2.16. Information
2.17. Secure electronic record
2.18. Secure digital signature
2.19. Subscriber
2.20. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
3. May presume, Shall presume, Conclusive proof (Sec. 4)
3.1. Distinction between Presumption of Law and Presumption of Fact
1. TITLE, EXTENT & COMMENCEMENT (SEC. 1)

This Act may be called The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This Act was passed by Legislative Council on
15th March, 1872 and came into force on 1st September, 1872. It extends to the whole of India [the word
except the State of Jammu & Kashmir ommitted by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019]. It
applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court of law. Under Sec. 2(i) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, judicial proceeding is defined as any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may
be legally taken on oath. Investigation conducted by police is not a judicial proceeding. It applies to
proceedings in Indian court martial but not in courts martial constituted under the old English Army/Navy
or Air Force Acts. It also applies to the proceedings before Indian Marine Act.
2 Law is nothing but Common sense and Logic – A.K. Ranjan
This Act does not applies to

Affidavits : Sec.1 expressly excludes all the affidavits from the scope of the Act. The reason is that
affidavits are confined to such facts as the deponent is able to produce of his own knowledge and believes it
to be true. Of course, the court may order any fact to be proved by an affidavit, but proving a fact by an
affidavit cannot be done as per the Evidence Act. In Civil proceedings, it is given as per Order XIX Rule 1-
3 CPC and in criminal proceedings Secs. 295 to 297 of Cr.PC deals with it.
Arbitrator : According to Sec. 1, this Act does not apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. But
arbitrators are bound to follow the rules of natural justice. The reason is that the object of submission to an
arbitrator is to avoid the complicated procedure of a regular trial. Thus, the arbitrators have no power to
administer evidence on oath and need not examine witnesses. They can obtain information in any way as
they think fit but, must always give a fair opportunity to all parties.
2. INTERPRETATION CLAUSE (SEC. 3)

2.1. Court : The very first term that has been defined is “Court”. It has been defined as including “all
Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence.” This definition
of the word “Court” is not exhaustive but, is meant for the purposes of Evidence Act alone. As per the
definition, arbitrators, even though they may have the legal authority to take evidence, have been expressly
excluded from the scope of the Evidence Act.
The committing magistrate is a Court but not a judge according to illustration (d) of Sec. 19 of Indian
Penal Code. A judge is a person who is empowered by law to give in judicial proceedings, Civil or Criminal,
a definitive judgement (Judgment with sanction of law behind him) or a person who is officially designated
as such.
2.2. Fact : According to a layman, the term ‘fact’ means an existing thing.
“Fact”-means and include
(i) Any thing, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses.
(ii) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Bentham’s classification of facts into physical and psychological is adopted under the Act.
Illustrations
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or
uses particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular
sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation is a fact.
2.3. Relevant Fact : The list of facts, which are relevant, is found in the provisions contained in Secs. 6
to 55. But the Act gives no general definition of the term ‘relevant fact’. Generally speaking, a fact is said to
be relevant to another if by itself or in connection with other facts it renders the existence of a fact in issue,
either probable or improbable. Relevancy implies relationship and such, relationship with the facts in issue
as convinces or has a tendency to convince the judge as to the existence or otherwise of the facts in issue. A
fact in order to be relevant must be connected with the facts in issue or with any other relevant fact in any
of the ways referred to in Secs. 6 to 55. A fact not so connected is not a relevant fact. The scheme of the Act
seems to make all relevant facts, admissible. However, there is a distinction between the two which will be
considered at later stage.
EVIDENCE 3
For the Indian Evidence Act, relevancy and admissibility (logical and legal relevancy) are synonyms. All
legally relevant facts are admissible but all logically relevant facts are not admissible. The general rule is that
all facts are irrelevant unless they fall under one or more sections 6 to 55.
2.4. Facts in Issue : The expression “Fact in Issue” means and include any fact from which, either by
itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence,nature or extent of any right, liability or
disability asserted or denied on any suit or proceeding necessarily follows.
Those facts which are alleged by one party and denied by the other in the pleading in a civil suit or
alleged by the prosecution and denied by the accused in a criminal case are said to be facts in issue.
Illustrations
A is accused of the murder of B.
At his trial the following facts may be called facts in issue:
(i) that A caused B’s death;
(ii) that A intended to cause B’s death;
(iii) that A had received grave and sudden provocation from B;
(iv) that A at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind,
incapable of knowing its nature.
2.5. Difference between facts in issue and issues of fact : What facts are in issue in a particular case is a
question to be determined by the substantive law, or in some instances by that branch of the law of procedure
which regulates the forms of the pleading, civil or criminal.
In civil proceedings, the matters in dispute are sorted out and framed into issues. They become facts in
issue or issues of fact in civil suits. Order XIV Rule 1 C.P.C. lays down that “issues arise when a material
proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other”. Thus under the said Order,
issues are framed on the contest of the parties.
Under the explanation to the definition of “facts in issue” when under Order XIV Rule 1, issues of facts
are recorded, the facts to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue are also “facts in issue”.
For example : Suppose A is charged with the murder of B. Before A can be convicted, the prosecution
will have to establish (i) that B died, (ii) that it was a case of homicide and not suicide, (iii) that A caused B’s
death, and (iv) that A intended to cause B’s death. All these are fact in issue because (i) each is a fact within
the meaning of the definition of the word “fact”, and (ii) each, in connection with others, establishes the
existence of A’s liability for murder, which is asserted by the prosecution and denied by A in the criminal
proceeding. Similarly, in the same illustration if A shows that he received grave and sudden provocation
from B, this is also a fact in issue because this, in connection with other facts, determines the extent of A’s
liability in this case, he would be guilty only of culpable homicide which does not amount to murder. If A
is able to establish that at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death he was by reason of unsoundness
of mind incapable of knowing its nature, this last fact is also a fact in issue, because it establishes the non-
existence of A’s liability for murder. A fact in issue is also known by its Latin name - factum probandum – or
that which is to be proved. The Explanation to the definition says:
“Whenever, under the provisions of the law for time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, any
Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue is a fact in issue.”
Suppose A files a suit against B for recovering money due on a promissory note. B denies the execution
of the note and also that A lend him any money. The issues of fact will be (i) Did A lend money to B? (ii)
Did B execute the promissory note? (iii) What amount must be paid by B to A? and (iv) To what further
relief is A entitled? Suppose, that the answers given by the court to these questions are as follow: (i) A lend
the money to B (ii) B executed the promissory note, (iii) B is liable to repay the principal amount and the
interest. Here each answer is a fact and each, in conjunction with others, establishes the existence and extent
of B’s liability, which is asserted by A and denied by B in the civil proceeding and this is what the explanation
says. If there are issues of fact, the answers are facts in issue. Similarly, if the answers given by the court to the
questions are (i) that A did not lend the money, (ii) that B did not execute the note, and (iii) that B is not
liable to pay anything to A, these answers are facts in issue, because each is a fact, and each by itself or in
connection with the others, establishes the non-existence of B’s liability which according to A exists, but
according to B does not exist.
2.6. Document : In the general parlance, the word ‘document’ means a matter written upon a paper in
some language. But the definition in this section is very wide. Here it means any matter expressed or
described upon any substance, paper, stone or anything by means of letters, or marks. The term ‘document’
includes ‘milkman’s’ score, exchequer’s tallies, a ring or a banner with an inscription, a musical composition
and letters and marks imprinted on trees.
Plain paper is not a document. A writing without signature is a document. This definition is identical
to the definition of document given in IPC and General Clauses Act. But in English law, document means
not only the writing but also the material on which the writing is made. Indian law only recognises the
writing and not the material.
Examples :
(a) A writing is a document;
(b) Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents;
(c) A map or plan is a document;
(d) An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document;
(e) A caricature is a document;
Anything recorded in electronic form is also a document as per Information and Technology Act, 2000.
In Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana, 2015 (12) SCALE 597, court held that “Compact Disc
(CD) is a Document and can be admitted in Evidence”.
2.7. Evidence : The Act defines the term “evidence” in the following terms.
“Evidence” means and includes—
1. Oral Evidence : All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses,
in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called “oral evidence”.
2. Documentary Evidence : All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection
of the Court; such documents are called “documentary evidence”.
The word “evidence” signifies only the instruments by means of which the relevant facts are brought
before the Court. The instruments adopted for this purpose are witnesses and documents.
Difference between evidence and proof : The word ‘evidence’ includes all the legal means, exclusive of
mere argument, which tend to prove or disprove any matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to
judicial investigation. Proof is the establishment of fact in issue by proper legal means to the satisfaction of
the Court. It is defined as “the sufficient reason for assenting to the proposition as true.” It is the result of
evidence, while evidence is only the medium of proof.
Documentary Evidence : When a document is produced in a case in support of the case of the party
producing it, the document becomes the documentary evidence in the case. A document is evidence only
when it is produced for inspection of the Court, consequently, a writing obtained by the Court from the
accused for comparison is not evidence as it is not a document produced for the inspection of the Court. The
EVIDENCE 5
best evidence is the production of document itself. If 100 witnesses swear to the contents of a document
kept in a sealed cover and the person who heard them opened the cover and found its content different from
what had been sworn, he would conclude that they are not true.
Oral Evidence : It means statement by a witness before a Court in relation to matter of fact under
enquiry.
Oral evidence must always be direct in the sense that the person who has actually perceived the fact
with his own sense must be produced to speak such fact and not the person who derived the knowledge of
such fact from another person. With regard to oral evidence, direct evidence is the best evidence since it will
be thorough and accurate due to its reliance on one’s own senses.
A judge should not use his personal observation as evidence because in this way he becomes a witness
without being cross-examined. In a case the Sessions Judge ordered the accused to put on the pair of shoes
recovered by the police. He then observed and recorded, “The shoes fit the feet of the accused even though
he complained that the shoes were too tight for his feet”. The Supreme Court held that the learned judge
was not entitled to allow his view or observation to take the place of evidence, because such view or observation
could not be tested by cross-examination. (Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415).
Real Evidence : Strictly speaking it does not fall within the definition of evidence given in the Act but
when oral evidence has to be given with respect to the existence or condition of any material thing other
than documents, the material objects have to be produced before the court for inspection. So in many cases,
stolen properties, weapons used in the commission of offence and the various other articles associated with
the crime are produced.
Evidence may also be classified as (1) Direct evidence (2) Circumstantial Evidence.
Direct Evidence : It means any fact which without the intervention of any other fact proves the existence
of a fact in issue. e.g. A is tried for causing grievous hurt to B with a club. C deposes to the effect that he saw
the accused, inflicting the blow, which caused the grievous hurt. The evidence being adduced by C is direct
evidence.
Another example-A files suit against B on the basis of an agreement. C deposes that he was present when
the agreement was entered into and he witnessed it. Deposition of C as to the precise point in question is an
illustration of direct evidence. Direct evidence is opposed to derivative or second-hand evidence or what is
called hearsay-evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence : It is that which relates to a series of facts other than the fact in issue.
Circumstantial evidence assumes importance where direct evidence is lacking. Fact which transpires with
the consent of the parties, for example, settlement of a bargain, may perhaps be reduced to the form of a
document which constitutes the direct evidence of it. But facts that happen suddenly, such as road accidents
or crimes or torts, do not leave behind much direct evidence. Criminals lay their plot in secret. They execute
it ruthlessly under the cover of darkness or secrecy. They silence their victims altogether and do not leave
any trail of evidence behind. In such cases, the main event will have to be reconstructed before the Court
with the help of surrounding circumstances such as the cause or the effects of the event. Circumstances
sometimes speak as forcefully as does the direct evidence. When footprints are found on sand; it is plausible
to infer that someone must have gone that way and also from the shape of footprints it can be ascertained as
to whether those are of man or of a bird or of an animal.
The most fundamental and basic decision on circumstantial evidence is Hanumant Govind Nargundkar
vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a
large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, Tufail vs. State of U.P., (1969) 3 SCC 198 and Ram
Gopal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC, it may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in
Hanumant case “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established,
and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again,
the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.” A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a
case against an accused can be said to be fully established on basis of circumstantial evidences.
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty,
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) There must be a chain of evidences so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability
the act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence.”
The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in the
prosecution case cannot be cured by a false defence or plea.
In Bodhraj vs. State of J & K,, (2002) 8 SCC 45, it was held by the Supreme Court that conviction can
be based solely on circumstantial evidence. However, it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating
to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar case. It was further
stated that the principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences
drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts.
The above principles relating to circumstantial evidence have been further reiterated in the case of G.
Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593, Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2013 STPL(web)
456 SC. as well as in the recent case of Majendran Langeswaran vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 192.
The importance which circumstantial evidence assumes in certain cases can be gauged from the fact
that in the case of Har Dayal vs. State of UP, AIR 1976 SC 2055; wherein the Supreme Court sustained the
conviction and death sentence of the accused for the murder of a child on the basis of circumstantial
evidence alone. There were no eye witnesses to the fact of the murder, but, the circumstances had made the
chain so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the child
was kidnapped, murdered and thrown into the well by none other but by the accused. He used to beat his
wife and therefore, she had gone back to her parents. He tried his best and even played false tricks with his
father-in-law and brother-in-law, but his wife refused to join him. He went back uttering a threat that he
would teach them a lesson. Later, he was seen taking away the ten year old child of his wife’s brother while
the child was alone at home. The child remained missing and when the accused was traced in his village and
surrounded by the fact of the missing child; he confessed to have taken away the child and promised to
return him, but instead managed to escape. On report of a villager, the body of the child was recovered from
a well and duly identified. The S.C. sustained the conviction, which was based solely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.
EVIDENCE 7
In Kusum and Ankama Rao vs. State of A.P., (2008) 13 SCC 257, the Court held that the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concurred
‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established.
In Raj kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722, it is held that the court must consider a case of
circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In a case of circumstantial
evidence,the Judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established facts as
the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The court has to draw an inference with respect to whether
the chain of circumstances is complete, the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator
of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of conclusive nature, and consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
In Dharam Deo Yadav vs. State of UP, 2014 5 SCC 509, there was no eye witness and the entire case
rested upon the circumstantial evidence. The Court held that circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant
facts from which one can by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum
probandum. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching
evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible
conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is
possible even when there is no eye-witness to support the criminal charge, but prosecution has been able to
establish the chain of circumstances which is complete leading to inference of guilt of accused and
circumstances taken collectively save of guilt sought to be proved, accused may be convicted on the basis of
such circumstantial evidence.
In Vijay Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 3 SCC 412, the Court held that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the
proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally
inconsistent with his innocence.
Last seen theory - An inference as to the guilt of the accused may be drawn from the circumstances
surrounding the death of the deceased. On the last seen aspect, the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. P.V.
Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, has observed that the last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap
between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is
found dead is so small that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the
crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was
last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between
exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and deceased were last seen
together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those areas. Even in such a case, the
Courts should look for corroboration.
In Ram Sunder Sen vs. Narinder @ Bode Singh Patel (Crl. A. No. 1793-1794 Of 2011) Supreme Court
held that the prosecution, however, in the present case, has failed at the foremost to link the accused with
the incident. The prosecution has the responsibility to present a chain of events. Prosecution failed to
establish the chain of circumstances sufficient enough to connect the accused with the alleged offence.
In Satpal vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2018 SC 2142, there is no eye witness to the occurrence but only
circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. It may be a
weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with
other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of
the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place.If the accused offers
no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative
evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to
the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction
can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit
of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation
of the doctrine.
Hearsay Evidence : It means the statement of a person who has not seen the happening of the transaction
himself but has heard of it from others. For example a person who has himself witnessed an accident can give
an account of it to the Court but his wife who heard it from him cannot give evidence of what her husband
told her, her knowledge being hearsay. In this connection Section 60 is relevant, which lays down that oral
evidence in all cases must be direct.
Example : A files a complaint against B alleging that B hit him with lathis. C and D are produced as
witnesses. C says that he was present when the occurrence took place and B gave four lathi blows to A in his
presence and he saw it. He will be allowed to say so because his evidence is direct. D tries to depose that
when B assaulted A, he was neither present there nor he could see the occurrence but he was told about the
occurrence by C. D will not be allowed to say so, because he himself did not see the occurrence and this
evidence would not be direct, since D is narrating what C had told him. Therefore this is called hearsay
evidence, which is inadmissible. In a suit, there is an issue whether a letter has been written by B.’ X’ a
handwriting expert compares a genuine writing of B with the letter in question and gives his opinion that
both are identical. Another expert ‘Y’ cannot be allowed to say that in opinion of ‘X’, the writings are
identical, since this would tantamount to hearsay evidence.
Evidence obtained by undesirable means : The Supreme Court has made it clear in Pushpadevi M. Jatia
vs. M.L. Wadhawan, AIR 1987 SC 1748 that where “evidence” offered comes within the meaning of its
definition, the court can act on it and need not concern itself with the method by which the evidence in
question was obtained. The court cited the observation of Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Barindra Kumar Ghose vs.
Emperor, ILR (1910)37 Cal. 467 to the effect that relevant evidence remains relevant even if it was obtained
in the course of a search or seizure in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Similarly, in R. vs. Sang, (1979) 2 All ER 1222, the House of Lords observed that however much the
judge may dislike the way in which a particular piece of evidence was obtained before proceedings were
commenced, if it is admissible evidence and is probative of the accused’s guilt, it is no part of the judicial
function to exclude it by this reason. He has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant evidence on the
ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. The House of Lords would sanction the exclusion
of such evidence only where the accused had been lured into incriminating himself by deception after the
Commission of an offence. The Supreme Court noted the only exception to the rule, which is that where
after the alleged offence, improper methods have been used to obtain evidence for it and the judge is of the
view that the prejudicial effect of such evidence would be out of proportion to its evidentiary value, the
judge may exclude it. A unique example is to be seen in R. vs. Christou, (1992) 4 All ER 559 the police
operated for about three months by establishing a shop of jewellers and putting up the shady image of
being interested in buying stolen property. The object was to recover stolen goods and to obtain evidence
against those involved in theft and handling. All the transactions in the shop were filmed and conversations
recorded and the dealings were observed by other officers through video link. The evidence so collected was
not allowed to be excluded from the trial, the court said: “The trick was not applied to the appellants
(accused persons): they voluntarily applied themselves to the trick. It is not every trick producing evidence
against an accused which results in unfairness.” The fairness of the proceedings as a whole is generally more
EVIDENCE 9
likely to be compromised in a situation where the suspect has been deluded after being formally subjected
to the control of the police.
Evidence obtained in investigation of other crimes : In Ronny vs. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 SCC
625, the Supreme Court laid down that the germane question was not in what connection or, investigation
the fact which constitutes good evidence came to light, but whether the evidence which is so collected is
relevant and admissible for establishing the charge in the present case.
Affidavit : Statements in an affidavit do not constitute an evidence within the meaning of Sec. 3.
Confession of co-accused : The confession of a co-accused is not evidence in the real sense of the word
because he does not make his statements on oath and is also not cross-examined. But the testimony of an
approver is an evidence because it is made on oath and he is also cross-examined.
The written statement of an accused person is also no evidence for the same reason, being not subjected
to cross-examination.
Departmental enquiry : Evidence recorded in a departmental enquiry is not evidence in the strict sense
of the word as per the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Video Conferencing : Recording of evidence through Video Conferencing has been approved by the
Supreme Court in the Case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Parafulla B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053. J.Bhagwati
observed “law can not stand still, it must change with changing social concepts and values” This can be
afforded in Criminal Cases too as per the case of Bodala Murli Krishana vs. Smt. S. Bodala Prathima, AIR
2007 AP 43.
Tape Recorded Evidence : In R. M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, 1973 AIR SC 157, it was held that
tape recorded conversation is admissible provided firstly, the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue;
secondly, there is identification of the voice; and thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is
proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record. A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant
conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae. It is also
comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident. The tape recorded conversation is therefore a relevant
fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Evidence Act. In Yusufali Ismail vs. State of Maharashtra, 1968
Madras L. J. 247, it was held if a statement is relevant, an accurate tape-record of the statement is also
relevant and admissible. One of the features of the magnetic tape-recording is the ability to erase and re-use,
and due to this reason the evidence must be received with caution.
The Supreme court laid down the law relating to tape recorded conversation as :—
1. Statement must be relevant to matter in issue.
2. The voice must be properly identified.
3. The Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record has not been tampered with.
4. The time and place and accuracy of the recording must be properly identified.
2.8. 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 that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances
of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
Proof does not mean proof of rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible. It means
such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a conclusion. All that can be done is to adduce
such evidence as that the mind of the Judge is satisfied that the fact is so. In the ordinary affairs of life,
Courts do not require demonstrative evidence. The true question in trials of facts is not whether it is possible
that the testimony may be false but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth.
Probative force : The extent to which particular evidence aids in proving the fact in controversy is
known as probative force.
This probative force must be sufficient to induce the Court either (a) To believe in the existence of the
fact sought to be proved, or (b) To consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon
the supposition that it exists. The test is of probability upon which a prudent man may base his opinions.
In other words, it is the estimate, which a prudent man makes of the probabilities having regard to what
must be his duty as result of his estimate. It must be borne in mind that suspicion and conjecture cannot
take the place of legal proof.
2.9. Disproved : According to this section, 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 so probable
that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that
it does not exist. It is quite important to note that the definition of word disproved is converse of the
definition of the word proved.The word ‘disproved’ is akin to the word ‘false’. What is disproved is normally
taken to be false thing.
2.10. Not proved : A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.
The expression “not proved” indicates a state of mind in-between ‘proved’ and ‘disproved’, that is, when
one cannot say whether a fact is ‘proved’ or ‘disproved’. It negatives both proof and disproof.
In Nawal Kishore Somani vs. Poonam Somani, AIR 1999 AP 1, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that
a fact, which is ‘not proved’, does not necessarily mean that it is a false one. The fact is said to be not proved
when it is neither proved nor disproved. A fact, which is ‘not proved’, may be either true or false. A doubt
lingers about its truth. Merely because it is ‘not proved’, one should not jump to the conclusion that it is
‘disproved’. The phrase not proved is the result of careful scrutiny of the person of ordinary prudence that
the fact neither exists nor its non-existence is proved with certainty.
2.11. Certifying Authority : Certifying Authority means a person who has been granted a license to
issue an [electronic signature] Certificate under section 24 (IT Act, 2000).
2.12. Electronic Signature : Electronic signature means authentication of any electronic record by a
subscriber by means of the electronic technique specified in the Second Schedule and includes digital
signature.
2.13. Electronic Signature Certificate : Electronic Signature Certificate means an Electronic Signature
Certificate issued under section 35 and includes Digital Signature Certificate.
2.14. Electronic Form : Electronic form with reference to information, means any information generated,
sent, received or stored in media, magnetic, optical, computer memory, micro film, computer generated
micro fiche or similar device.
2.15. Electronic Records : Electronic record means data, record or data generated, image or sound
stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.
2.16. Information : Information includes [data, message, text,] images, sound, voice, codes, computer
programmes, software and data bases or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.
2.17. Secure electronic record : Where any security procedure has been applied to an electronic record
at a specific point of time, then such record shall he deemed to be a secure electronic record from such point
of time to the time of verification.
2.18. Secure Digital Signature : An electronic signature shall be deemed to be a secure electronic
signature if—
(i) the private key of the subscriber, at the time of affixing signature, was under the exclusive control of
signatory and no other person; and
(ii) the private key of the subscriber was stored and affixed in such exclusive manner as may be prescribed.
2.19. Subscriber : Subscriber means a person in whose name the [electronic signature] Certificate is
issued.
EVIDENCE 11
2.20. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus : This maxim means that if a thing is false in respect of one, it
must be taken to be false in respect of all. It is sometimes argued that if a part of the evidence given by a
witness has been disbelieved, the whole of it should be disbelieved as a rule of law. This maxim does not
occupy the status of law in India. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases
the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded.
The maxim merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of
circumstances but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence.
In Harishchandra vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 777, the Supreme Court held “while appreciating the
evidence of witness in a criminal trial, especially in case of eye witness, the maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus’ cannot apply and the court has to make effort to separate grain from the chaff. It is of course true,
that when a witness is said to have exaggerated at the trial stage and has tried to involve many more accused
and if that part of evidence is found acceptable remaining part of the evidence has to be scrutinized with
care and the Court must try to see whether the acceptable part of evidence gets corroborated from other
evidence on record so that the acceptable part can be relied on.
In N. Jayaraman vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1993 SC 777, due to mutual enmity, the deceased was
injured and finally succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution case was that every accused caused the
injury. But, four accused were released and two were convicted. It was held by Supreme Court that only
because the testimony of some the witnesses were not sufficient for conviction, the testimony of all witnesses
should be rejected, this is not correct and the maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ does not apply in toto.
3. “MAY PRESUME”, “SHALL PRESUME”, “CONCLUSIVE PROOF”(SEC. 4)

May Presume Shall Presume Conclusive Proof
1. It means presumption of fact. 1. It means presumption of law. 1. It is also artificial presumption
The court may presume a fact It is artificial presumption created by law. The court is
or call for further evidence for created by law. The court bound to presume a fact as
it’s satisfaction before shall presume a fact as proved proved. It is held conclusive for
presuming it or may not unless disproved. greater certainty and on
presume it. 2. It is directory in sense that the public policy.
2. It is discretionary power of law directs the court to 2. It is a mandatory presumption
court. presume certain facts. that is the court is bound to
3. It is rebuttable presumption. 3. It is also rebuttable accept a fact as proved.
4. Facts indicated in section 86, presumption. 3. It is irrebuttable
87, 88, 88A, 90, 90A, 107, 4. Facts indicated in section 79- presumption. Both
108, 113A and 114 may be 85, 85A, 85B, 85C, 89, 105, corroborative and opposing
presumed by the court. For 113B and 114A of the evidence are forbidden.
example, Certified copy of Evidence Act and section 4 4. Facts indicated in section 41,
foreign judgement may be of the Prevention of 112 and 113 of the Evi dence
presumed as correct. Corruption Act shall be Act shall be held conclusive
presumed by the Court. For by the Court. For example.
example, Certified copy of Certified copy of judgement
judgement of Indian Court given under matrimonial
shall be presumed as correct. jurisdiction is conclusive
proof of its correctness.
Conclusive Proof : Whenever it is mentioned that a fact is a conclusive proof of another fact, the court
has no discretion at all. It cannot call upon a party to prove that fact nor can it allow the opposite party to
adduce evidence to disprove that fact. Section 41 of the Evidence Act provides inter alia that a final judgment,
order or decree of a competent court in exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction is a conclusive proof. For
example, suppose A files a suit in a court of law for declaration that B is his legally married wife. The court
gives a decree in favour of A and declares that B is his legally married wife. After a few years in the lifetime
of A, B files a suit against D for the property of one C, alleging that she is widow of C. In this case there will
be an issue whether B is the wife of C. D files the copy of the judgment of the previous case. This judgment
will prove that B is legally married wife of A. Now that B is legally married wife of A is a conclusive proof of
the fact that she is not the wife of C. Therefore, after the judgment mentioned above has been filed, the
court cannot allow B to adduce evidence to prove that she is wife of C and not of A.
In Somavanti and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 151, A distinction is sought to be
made between "conclusive proof " and "conclusive evidence" and it is contended that where a law declares
that a fact shall be conclusive proof of another, the Court is precluded from considering other evidence once
such fact is established. Therefore, where the law makes a fact conclusive proof of another the fact stands
proved and the Court must proceed on that basis. But the argument proceeds, where the law does not go
that far and makes a fact only "conclusive evidence" as to the existence of another fact, other evidence as to
the existence of the other fact is not shut out.
Presumption : Every fact, on the basis of which a party to a proceeding wants to take judgment must be
proved. No Court can, while deciding a case, place its reliance on a fact unless and until it has been proved
according to the rules laid down in the Evidence Act. But, the law of evidence has provided that Court can
take into consideration certain facts even without calling for proof of them, i.e. the Court may presume
certain things.
In the law of evidence, the word ‘presumption’ is used to designate an inference affirmative or negative
of the existence of some fact, drawn by court by a process of probable reasoning from some matter of fact
either judicially noticed or admitted or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the court.
The inferences or satisfactions are based upon the wide experience of a connection existing between facts.
Presumptions are drawn from the course of nature; for instance, that the night will follow day. They may
also be drawn from the course of human affairs, from the usage of society and transactions in business.
Example : A watch of Ram is stolen and soon after, it is recovered from Shyam. There shall be a natural
presumption that Shyam either stole the watch himself or received it from some thief.
There are three kinds of presumptions :
(1) Presumption of Law (Rebuttable and Irrebutable).
(2) Presumption of Fact.
(3) Mixed Presumption of law and fact.
Presumption of law :
Irrebuttable Presumption (proseumptiones et de jure) : A proseumptiones et de jure means an irrebuttable
presumption is one which the law will not suffer to be rebutted by any counter-evidence, but establishes as
Conclusive. They are those legal rules, which are not overcome by any evidence that the fact is otherwise. A
well-known instance of an irrebuttable presumption of law can be found in Sec. 82 of IPC wherein it is laid
down that “Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.” If in a criminal case,
EVIDENCE 13
it is shown that the accused is below seven years of age, he shall be presumed innocent. No evidence will be
allowed to be adduced that the accused was guilty. They are indicated in the Evidence Act by the expression
“conclusive proof ” (Secs. 41, 112 & 113)
Rebuttable Presumption (proseumptiones jure) : It arises when presumption of law are certain legal
rules, defining the amount of evidence requisite to support a particular allegation, which facts being proved,
may either be explained, or rebutted by evidence to the contrary, but are conclusive in absence of such
evidence. e.g. A man is presumed innocent until proved guilty; a child born in a legal wedlock shall be
presumed to be legitimate and one who questions his legitimacy must disprove it. They are indicated in the
Act by the expression “shall presume” (Secs. 79 to 85, 89 and 105)
Presumption of Fact : These are inferences which the mind naturally and logically draws from given
facts without the help of legal directions. Such inferences are drawn not by virtue of any rule of law but by
the spontaneous operations of the reasoning faculty. All that the law does for them is to recognise the
propriety of their being so drawn if the Judge thinks fit. The court has discretion to draw them. They are
rebuttable as their evidentiary effect may be negated by contrary proof. They are indicated in the Act by the
expressions “ may presume” and are mentioned in Secs. 86 to 88, 90 & 114.
Mixed Presumption : Mixed presumption of law and fact are chiefly confined to the English law of real
property.
3.1. Distinction between Presumption of Law and Presumption of Fact
Presumption of fact Presumption of law
1. Based on logic, law of nature, and human 1. Based on provisions of law.
experience
2. Always rebuttable and goes away when rebutted 2. Conclusive, unless rebutted as provided under
by establishment of positive proof. rules giving rise to presumption.
3. Position of presumption of fact is uncertain and 3. Certain and uniform.
transitory.
4. Court can ignore presumption of fact howsoever 4. Court can’t ignore presumption of law.
strong it is.
5. Derived from law of nature, prevalent customs 5. Derived from established judicial norms and
and human experience. they have become part of legal rules.
6. Court can exercise its discretion while drawing 6. Presumption of law is mandatory i.e., Court is
presumption of fact. bound to draw presumption of law.
Presumption as bats of law, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts :
Once a presumption is satisfactorily rebutted, it simply vanishes. It cannot again come back once again. In
a famous quotation, (Council Blulb RR) Lamm J observes in Mackowik vs. Kansas city St. James & CBR
Co. (94. S.W. 256, 262) = 196 MO, 550 that "presumptions are like bats, flitting in the twilight but
disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts". Further in case of Union of India vs. Sat Narain and Ors., 18
(1980) DLT 490, it was considered that Presumptions have no place in the presence of the actual facts
disclosed in evidence.
Appreciation of Evidence : Whatever be the kind of evidence, namely, whether facts are reported to
the court through the mouth of a witness or by means of a document, in either case the court has to
examine the reliability quotient of the evidence produced. This is called appreciation of evidence. Evidence
is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of it represents the true and correct state of things.
It is the function of separating the grain from the chaff (Ganesh K.Gulve vs. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.
2002 S.C. 3068). Evidence is to be tested by its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the
prosecution story. The Supreme Court interfered in a concurrent finding of facts where it was perverse and
ordered acquittal (Ramakant Rai vs. Madan Rai, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 77). The judge has to use his skill and
experience to see the real truth and to rely on that part of the evidence which appeals to him. One of the
most difficult problems in the appreciation of oral evidence is that most of the time witnesses are drawn
from persons closely related or closely residing. In virtually all cases there are allegations that the witnesses
are interested, motivated or inimical. What standard of independence and accuracy should be attached to
enable the court to hold that the fact in question has been proved? Where the witnesses were giving a
varying account of the time of death and their evidences were sought to be corroborated by stomach
contents of the deceased as found in the post mortem report the court said that such piece of evidence
could not always be relied upon as a conclusive evidence unless there were some other evidence to show the
time at which the deceased had his last meal and when he went to answer the call of nature (Bhim Singh vs.
State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 693). In Main Pal vs. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 4967, the
father of the deceased was an eye-witness, but acted in an unnatural way. He saw his son being attacked.
Instead of coming to his rescue, he left him and returned only after quite some time. The court said that
this could not destroy the value of his eye-witness account. People do not react to situations in the same
way every time. The mental set up of the person and his fear complexes have to be kept in mind. The
testimony of a relative witness has to be shifted, tested and analyzed in the same manner as that of any
other witnesses. In State of U.P. vs. Degendera Singh, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3690 court observed that human
behaviour varies from person to person even in a single given situation. There is no set pattern of natural
reaction. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded on the ground that he did not react in the expected
manner in the given particular situation.
SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. Explain the law relating to circumstantial evidence. [DJS 1971, GJS 2017]
2. Write short note on the Maxim “Falsus in Uno falsus in omnibus”. [DJS 1996]
3. Write brief illustrative notes on the following
(i) Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. [UPJS 2006, DJS 1973]
(ii) Facts in issue and relevant facts. [HJS 2015, UPJS 2000, DJS 1973, BJS 1977]
(iii) Presumption of law and Presumption of fact. [DJS 1973]
4. Write short note on Hearsay evidence. [UJS 2012,1987, HPJS 2008, BJS 1975]
5. What do you mean by presumption? Discuss the kinds of presumption. [UPJS 2012, DJS 1990]
6. “A great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is
reasonably capable of two inferences; the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.”
In the light of this statement, discuss the rules relating to ‘circumstantial evidence’ as evolved by
Supreme Court of India. Substantiate your answer with the help of decided cases. [HPJS 2019]
7. What is fact in issue? Illustrate your answer. [UJS 2013, HPJS 2010, RJS 1984,
UPJS 2012, 2000, 1984]
8. What do you understand by conclusive and rebuttable presumption? Explain. [UPJS 1999]
9. Distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence. Can a person be convicted on circumstantial
evidence alone? [UPJS 1986]
10. Distinguish between rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions? Illustrate. [UPJS 1986]
EVIDENCE 15
11. Short notes on the followings :
(i) Fact in issue and relevant facts.
(ii) Disproved and not proved. [HJS 2015]
12. Explain the expression ‘evidence’ as interpreted in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mention two
parameters on the basis of which certain facts may be held to be admissible in evidence, as per the said
statute. [HJS 2010]
13. What is meant by presumption in law of evidence ? What is its significance in law in the matter of proof
of fact ? Mention one instance when the law prescribes that the Court may presume a fact and an
instance when the Court shall presume a fact. [HJS 2010]
14. What is meant by substantive evidence ? How is it different from corroborative evidence ?[HJS 2009]
15. When is a fact said to be “proved”, disproved” and “not proved” ? Explain with a suitable illustration.
Does law require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact ? [HJS 2009]
16. What are the different kinds of legal presumption known to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? What is a
conclusive proof ? Can evidence be adduced to rebut a legal presumption, or a conclusive proof ?
[HJS 2009]
17. What do you understand by appreciation of evidence ? What are the salient points of law for such
appreciation? [HJS 2009]
18. Discuss -
Hearsay evidence and Circumstantial evidence [HJS 2004, BJS 1975]
19. (i) Differentiate between ‘May presume’, ‘Shall presume’ and ‘Conclusive proof.
(ii) Explain the terms ‘Facts in issue’ and ‘Relevant facts’. [HJS 2000]
20. Can a conviction be based on circumstantial evidence only ? [HJS 2000]
21. ‘The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence is that in case of former, the proof
goes directly to establish the culpability of the accused person in the commission of offence, however
the latter brings the guilt home to him by placing certain circumstances from which the inference is
absolutely irresistible that the accused has committed the offence.’ Examine this statement while discussing
difference between Direct evidence and Circumstantial evidence. [OJS 2013]
22. Can a Court of Sessions convict an accused solely on the basis of Circumstantial Evidence? Discuss briefly
the Rules of Circumstantial evidence as enumerated by the Supreme Court of India. [OJS 2012]
23. Estimate the evidentiary value of Oral Evidence. [OJS 2012]
24. Explain the phrase, ‘the court may presume’ and ‘the court shall presume’ and illustrate. [RJS 1999]
25. What do you mean by ‘Conclusive Proof ’? [RJS 1994, 1984]
26. Distinguish between ‘facts in issue’ and ‘issues of fact’. From what materials issues are framed? What
issues may be tried first? [RJS 1994]
27. Can the Court presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened? If so, under
what circumstances? [RJS 1976]
28. What are the presumptions? How do they arise and which of them can be rebutted? Illustrate your
answer with examples. How do presumptions differ from the rule of estoppel? [RJS 1975]
29. What presumptions regarding existence of facts, a court is entitled to raise? Can such presumption be
rebutted and how? [RJS 1974]
30. With the help of at least two illustrations of each, explain the distinction between the following –
(a) Rebuttable and Irrebuttable presumptions
(b) Presumption of law and presumption of fac [RJS 1970]

31. Define (a) Facts in issue (b) Proved. [RJS 1969]
32. Write notes on the following :
(i) May presume
(ii) Shall presume
(iii) Conclusive proof [BJS 2014, JJS 2001]
33. Write notes on the following:
(a) Conclusive proof
(b) Circumstantial evidence [BJS 2006, BJS 2011]
34. Explain the meaning of the following:
(i) Proved
(ii) Disproved
(iii) Not proved [HJS 2015, BJS 2011]
35. Explain “evidence” and kinds of “evidence”. [BJS 2000]
36. Define facts, fact in issue and relevant fact in such a way as to highlight the nature and purpose of law
of evidence. [BJS 1986]
37. Write notes on the following:-
(a) Document
(b) Conclusive proof [BJS 1984]
38. What are the different kinds of presumptions? Give examples of each kind. [BJS 1977]
39. Define fact, relevant fact and fact in issue. Point out the difference between the last two? [MPJS 2010]
40. Define the following:
(a) Evidence (b) Fact in issue [CJS 2003]
41. “Rules relating to presumption form a very important part of law of evidence”. Discus briefly with
reference to the provisions of Indian Evidence Act 1872. [PJS 1995]
42. In case of conclusive proof, can the court ignore a fact declared so under the Evidence Act, otherwise ?
[JJS 2001]
43. Define ‘facts in issue’. Distinguish between ‘facts in issue’ and ‘relevant facts’. [HPJS 2014]
44. Explain the ‘proseumptiones juris et de jure’ and ‘proesumptiones Juris’. [HPJS 2013]
45. “Evidence excluded by the Indian Evidence Act, is inadimissible even if it seems essential for ascertainment
of truth”, Explain. [HPJS 2012]
46. Distinguish between the ‘may presume’, ‘shall presume’ and ‘conclusive proof ’. [HPJS 2010]
47. “Presumptions may be looked on as the bats of law, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the
sunshine of actual facts”. Explain while discussing the diffreent kinds of presumptions recognised by
the Indian Evidence Act. [HPJS 2015]
48. D suspected the character of his wife, P. P went to her brother’s house to attend a function. D wrote to
her brother to put an end to her life in order to save the honour of the family. Later D expressed regrets
in a letter and offered reconciliation. D sent his younger brother M to fetch wife. P left with M by train
on 4.10.70 but not reached D’s village. 10 days after her departure her brother received a letter from
one S stating that P had developed pain in her abdomen during journey and was removed to a hospital
in Jaipur where she died and was cremated. Brother lodged a report with police. P’s dead body was
EVIDENCE 17
recovered on 5.10.70 from a well situated near the village of brother. An inquest was held and the body
was not identified and was disposed off. M was tried for committing P’s murder. Prosecution case rests
on circumstantial evidence.
They are: (1) the letters D wrote to deceased’s brother. (2) M taking P with him on 4.10.70 from he
brother’s village. (3) M’s reaching his own village alone. M pleaded innocence. He stated that P left him
with a broken heart at the railway station; that he did not know what had happened afterwards; that he
stayed overnight in a Dharamshala and then returned and informed D and thereafter on coming to know
that a dead body was in hospital went there, was P’s dead body, became panicky and returned home.
Can M be held guilty of the charge under section 302, I.P.C. on the basis of the above said circumstantial
evidence? [DJS 1991]
OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been divided (c) A map and an inscription on a stone
____ Parts and _____ chapters. (d) All of the above
(a) 2, 10 (b) 3, 11 7. What is the meaning of “Not proved” under
(c) 4, 12 (d) 3, 12 Evidence Act?
2. Law of Evidence is (a) Fact does not exist
(a) A substantive law (b) An adjective law (b) Non-existence probable
(c) Both (a) and (b) (d) Neither (a) nor (b) (c) Court has doubt
3. Which is not the main principle that underlines (d) Neither proved not disproved
the law of evidence? 8. ‘Document’ produced for the inspection of the
(a) Evidence must be confined to the matter- court includes—
in-issue 1. A written document
(b) Hearsay evidence must not be admitted 2. A caricature
(c) Hearsay evidence must be admitted 3. An electronic document
(d) The best evidence must be given in all cases 4. An inscription on stone
4. An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a Select the correct answer using the codes given
document: below-
(a) Wrong (a) 1 and 4 (b) 1, 2 and 4
(b) Right (c) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (d) 1, 2 and 3
(c) Documents always on paper only
9. Which one of the following is not included in
(d) There are only archaeological things the expression “Court” under the Indian Evidence
5. Evidence means and include: Act?
(a) Ocular evidence only (a) All judges
(b) Documentary evidence only (b) All persons legally authorized to take evidence
(c) Ocular and documentary evidence both (c) All Magistrates
(d) Ocular evidence based on documents only (d) Arbitrator
6. The documents are: 10. A fact is said to be “not proved”:
(a) Caricature (a) When it is disproved
(b) Words printed, lithographed or (b) When, after considering the matters before
photographed it, the court believes that it does not exist.
(c) When a prudent man considers that the fact (3) A had received grave and sudden provocation
does not exist. from B.
(d) When it is neither proved not disproved (4) A was awarded for social services.
11. The object of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as set Select correct answer :
out in the Preamble is (a) 1 & 2 (b) 1 & 3
(a) To define and amend the law of evidence. (c) 1, 2 & 3 (d) 1, 2, 3 & 4
(b) To consolidate, define and amend the law of 17. Which one of the following dates of enforcement
evidence. of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is correct ?
(c) To highlight, define and consolidate the law (a) 15th March 1872
of evidence (b) 1st September, 1872
(d) To highlight, consolidate, define and amend (c) 1st July 1872
the law of evidence.
(d) 1st February 1872
12. The evidence unearthed by the sniffer dog falls
18. Which one of the following does not fall within
under
the definition of the term Court under Indian
(a) Oral evidence
Evidence Act, 1872 ?
(b) Documentary evidence
(a) All Judges
(c) Hearsay evidence
(b) All Magistrates
(d) Scientific evidence
(c) All Consumer Forums
13. Whenever it is directed by the Indian Evidence
(d) All persons legally authorised to take evidence
Act, 1872 that the court shall presume a fact, it
shall regard such fact as 19. The Law of Evidence under the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 is
(a) Proved, unless and until it is disproved
(a) Substantive Law
(b) Proved, unless and until it is disproved or
may call for proof of it. (b) Procedural Law
(c) Proved (c) Substantive and Procedural Law
(d) Proved and shall not allow evidence to be (d) None of the above
given for the purpose of disproving it. 20. A fact neither proved not disproved is known as-
14. Electronic records were included in Section 3 of (a) Proved (b) Disproved
the Evidence Act with effect from : (c) Not proved (d) Conclusive proof
(a) 17 October, 2000 21. The maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is
(b) 10 October, 2000 ______
(c) 02 October, 2000 (a) A sound rule of evidence
(d) 14 November, 2000 (b) A sound rule of law
15. Facts alleged by one party and denied by the (c) Both (a) and (b)
other in a case is termed as (d) None of the above
(a) Negative facts (b) Relevant facts 22. Which of the following statements is correct in
(c) Facts in issue (d) Positive facts relation to Evidence Act?
16. A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial which (a) Sir H.S. Maine prepared the draft Bill of the
of the following facts may be in issue ? Act
(1) A caused B’s death. (b) Sir James Stephen prepared the draft bill of
(2) A is an honest person the Act.
EVIDENCE 19
(c) The draft Bill of the Act was prepared by (c) Not relevant as conduct
IInd Law Commission (d) A subject matter of enquiry
(d) None of the above 30. In relation to expressions defined in S. 3 of the
23. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to Indian Evidence Act which of the following
(a) Administrative tribunal’s proceedings statement is not correct?
(b) Arbitrator’s proceedings (a) Facts including not only physical facts but
also psychological facts.
(c) Contempt’s proceedings.
(b) Court includes Arbitrators
(d) None of the above.
(c) An inscription on a stone is a document
24. The Indian Evidence Act deals with
(d) A fact is said to be not proved when it is
(a) ‘Presumption juris’ only
neither proved nor disapproved
(b) ‘Presumption huminis’ only
31. Which one of the following statements is correct?
(c) Both (a) and (b)
A, who has taken vow of silence gives evidence in
(d) None of the above writing in an open court. His evidence shall be
25. Which one of the following is not a document deemed to be
under the Indian Evidence Act? (a) Documentary evidence.
(a) An inscription on a stone of a building (b) Circumstantial evidence.
(b) A photograph (c) Oral evidence.
(c) A printout of a message sent through mobile (d) Secondary evidence.
or computer 32. Consider the following statements:
(d) A knife recovered by police from the The Indian Evidence Act is applicable to
possession of an accused and produced in 1. The proceedings under chapter IX of Cr.P.C.
the court
2. Court martial under Army Act.
26. Which one of the following terms has not been
3. Affidavits presented to any court.
defined by the Indian Evidence Act under Section
3? 4. An execution proceeding.
(a) Court (b) Document Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1, 2 and 3. (b) 2 and 4.
(c) Evidence (d) Confession
(c) 2 and 3. (d) 1 and 4.
27. Law of evidence is
33. Which one of the following does not fall within
(a) Lex tallienis (b) Lex loci solutionis
the meaning of the term ‘Court’ used under
(c) Lex fori (d) Lex situs Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
28. “Presumption of fact” under the Indian Evidence (a) Revenue Tribunal.
Act, 1872:-
(b) Industrial Tribunal.
(a) Is based on logic, human experience and
(c) Registrar’s Court.
natural events and law of nature
(d) Enquiry Commission, Legal Advisor and
(b) Is based on provisions of law Excise Officer.
(c) Cannot be ignored by the court 34. Which of the following statements is correct?
(d) Is of certain and uniform position (a) The Indian Evidence Act applies to affidavits.
29. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not expressly (b) The Indian Evidence Act applies to a
mention about :- proceeding whose object is to determine a
(a) Oral Evidence jural relation between one person and
(b) Documentary Evidence another.
(c) The Indian Evidence Act applies to 40. In relation to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
arbitration proceedings. which of the following statements is not correct?
(d) The Indian Evidence Act applies to (a) Court includes arbitrators.
departmental proceedings. (b) An inscription on a metal-plate is a
35. Inscription on metal plate is a document document.
(a) True (b) False (c) A fact is said not to be proved when it is
36. Mark the correct statement: neither proved not disproved
(a) Evidence excluded by the Evidence Act is (d) The state of a person’s health is a fact.
inadmissible even if it seems essential 41. A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial,
ascertainment of truth. which of the following will not be a fact in issue?
(b) Parties cannot contract themselves out of the (a) That A intended to cause B’s death.
provisions of the Act. (b) That A had received grave and sudden
(c) A court cannot on the ground of public provocation from B.
policy, exclude evidence relevant under this (c) That A caused B’s death by beating B with a
Act. club.
(d) All of the above. (d) That A had gone to field with a club.
37. Circumstantial evidence is considered weaker 42. “The doubt, the benefit of which the accused is
evidence as compared to direct evidence entitled, must be such as rational thinking,
(a) Because it has 2 errors of fallibility (i) of the sensible man may fairly and reasonably entertain,
fact from which inference is drawn being not the doubts of a vacillating mind that has not
proved and (ii) of the inference to be drawn the moral courage to decide but shelters itself,
from the fact proved. in a vain and idle skepticism. There must be
(b) Because the inference in circumstantial doubt which a man may honestly and
evidence is based upon a presumption. conscientiously entertain:”
(c) Because circumstantial sometimes may tell (a) Cookbur (b) Lord Halsbury
a lie. (c) Lord Black (d) None of the above
(d) Because circumstantial evidence is based 43. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
upon the process of deductive logic. relevant fact:
38. In the Law of Evidence ‘Fact’ means and includes: (a) Must be legally relevant
(a) Anything perceived by the senses. (b) Must be logically relevant
(b) State of things capable of being perceived by (c) Must be logically and legally relevant
the senses. (d) Must be logically and legally relevant and
(c) Mental condition of such a person is admissible
conscious. 44. That there are certain things arranged in a certain
(d) All of the above. order in a certain place:
39. Criminal justice system in India is based on: (a) Is a fact. (b) Is a document.
(a) It is the duty of the State to prosecute (c) Is a motive. (d) Is an opinion.
whosoever commits a wrong 45. Which of the following are outside the scope of
(b) Adversarial trial the Indian Evidence Act ?
(c) A wrong doer must be punished (a) Contempt Proceeding’s
(d) Both (a) & (b) above. (b) Affidavit
EVIDENCE 21
(c) Proceeding before arbitrator Codes:
(d) All of these (a) Only (i), (ii) and (iv) are correct
46. Factum Probandum means: (b) All of them are correct
(a) Conclusive fact. (c) Only (i) and (ii) are correct
(b) The fact that is probable. (d) Only (i), (ii) and (iii) are correct
(c) The fact that has to be believed. 52. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to;
(d) The principal fact to be proved. (a) Proceedings before an arbitrator
47. Proof of a fact for the purposes of evidence (b) Departmental proceedings
depends on: (c) Judicial proceedings before courts
(a) Rigid mathematical demonstration (d) None of the above
(b) Probability of its existence 53. Which of the following is incorrect?
(c) Accuracy of the statement (a) That a man heard or saw something is a fact
(d) None of the above (b) An inscription on a metal plate or stone is
not a document
48. The Bill of Evidence Act was prepared by:
(c) A writing is a document
(a) Fourth Law Commission
(d) That a man said certain words is a fact
(b) Sir Henry Maine
54. The Court may presume
(c) Sir James Stephen
(a) That when a document creating an
(d) Second Law Commission
obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the
49. Under Indian Evidence Act evidence may be obligation has been discharged.
given in respect of—
(b) That an accomplice is unworthy of credit
(a) Fact in issue only unless he is corroborated in material
(b) Relevant fact only particulars.
(c) Fact in issue & relevant fact (c) That judicial and official acts have been
(d) None of these regularly performed
50. All statements which the court permits or requires (d) All of the above
to be made before it by witness in relation to 55. Choose the true statement about propositions.
matters of fact under inquiry is/are ______ . Propositions:
(a) Primary evidence (b) Oral evidence I. Evidence must be confined to the matters in
(c) Hearsay evidence (d) Both (a) and (b) issue
51. What is direct evidence? Choose the most II. The best evidence must be given in all cases
appropriate answer: III. Circumstantial evidence cannot be admitted
(i) Evidence given where witness testifies directly Assertions:
of his own knowledge as to the main fact or (a) I and II are correct, III is incorrect
facts in dispute
(b) II and III are incorrect, I is correct
(ii) That which tends to prove the fact at issue
(c) I and III are correct, II is incorrect
without the intervention of proof of any other
(d) All are correct
fact
56. Choose the true statement about propositions
(iii) One requiring support of other evidences
Propositions:
(iv) When the principle fact or factum
probandum is attested directly by witness, I. Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to judicial
things or documents inquiries
II. Evidence Act, 1872 is strictly inapplicable 58. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is a :
quasi-judicial inquires. (a) Rule of Law (b) Rule of Caution
III. In judicial proceeding, the evidence is taken (c) Rule of Evidence (d) Rule of Estoppel
on oath. 59. An inference of fact or law drawn other known
Assertions: proved facts is called?
(a) I and II are correct, III is incorrect (a) Presumption
(b) II and III are incorrect, I is correct (b) Circumstantial evidence
(c) I and III are correct, II is incorrect (c) Fact in issue
(d) All are correct (d) Relevant fact
57. Which of the following is evidence though not 60. Electronic record presented for inspection of the
covered by the definition of Evidence under court under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is—
Section 3 of Evidence Act, 1872? (a) Electronic evidence
(a) Admission (b) Confession (b) Documentary evidence
(c) Demeanour (d) Judicial Notice (c) Oral evidence
(d) Modern evidence
EVIDENCE 23
CHAPTER
2. RELEVANT FACTS (SECS. 5-55)
Relevant Facts are contained in part I of Indian Evidence Act. It

basically answers the question by which facts one will prove some
thing. The answer is relevant facts & here the question arises what
facts are relevant. Sec. 5 to Sec. 55 provides the relevant facts which
are categorised in eight groups which are as follows:—
(i) Connected Facts (Secs. 5 - 16)
(ii) Admissions (Secs. 17-23)
(iii) Confession (Secs. 24 - 31)
(iv) Dying Declaration (Secs. 32 - 33)
(v) Statement made under Special Circumstances (Secs. 34 -
39).
(vi) Judgments of Courts of Justice when relevant (Secs. 40 - 44)
(vii) Opinion of third persons when relevant (Secs. 45 - 51)
(viii) Character when relevant (Secs. 52 - 55)
CHAPTER
2(i). RELEVANCY OF FACTS (SECS. 5-16)
SYNOPSIS
1. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts (Sec. 5)
1.1. Relevancy and Admissibility and it’s distinction
2. Res Gestae (Sec. 6)
2.1. Relevance of this rule
2.2. Acts or omissions as Res Gestae
2.3. Statements as Res Gestae
2.4. Res Gestae and hearsay
2.5. Application of the doctrine to civil proceedings
2.6. Case-Laws on Res Gestae
3. Occasion, Cause, Effect, etc. (Sec. 7)
3.1. Principle
3.2. Occasion
3.3. Cause
3.4. Effect
3.5. Opportunity
3.6. State of Things
4. Motive, Preparation and Conduct (Sec. 8)
4.1. Principle
4.2. Motive
4.3. Preparation
4.4. Conduct
4.5. Case Laws
5. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts (Sec. 9)
5.1. Explanatory facts
5.2. Introductory facts
5.3. Facts which support or rebut an inference
5.4. Identity of a person
5.5. Identification Parade
5.6. Test Identification Parade
5.7. Identification of accused by Photograph
5.8. Effect of delay on Test Identification Parade
5.9. Identity of thing
EVIDENCE 25
5.10. Time or place of happening
5.11. Relations of parties
6. Conspiracy (Sec. 10)
6.1. Definition
6.2. Scope of the Section
6.3. Evidence relating to acts outside the period of conspiracy
6.4. Other Case Laws
7. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant (Sec. 11)
7.1. Principle
7.2. Inconsistent facts
7.3. Plea of Alibi
7.4. Burden of proving the Plea of Alibi
7.5. Non-Access
7.6. Survival of the Alleged Deceased
7.7. The Commission of a crime by third person
7.8. Self inflicted harm
7.9. Fact showing self probabilities/ improbabilities
7.10. Wide scope of the section
8. Suit for damages (Sec. 12)
9. Rules of proving customs and rights (Sec. 13)
9.1. Mode of proving a custom
10. State of mind, body or bodily feeling (Sec. 14)
11. Accidental or Intentional Acts (Sec. 15)
12. Existence of Course of Business when relevant (Sec. 16)
1. EVIDENCE MAY BE GIVEN OF FACTS IN ISSUE AND RELEVANT FACTS (SEC. 5)

This section declares that in a suit or proceeding, evidence may be given of the existence or non-
existence of
(1) Facts in issue, and
(2) Of such other facts as are declared to be relevant facts by provisions of Secs. 6 to 55.
This section excludes everything, which is not declared relevant under any of the Secs. 6 to 55. All
evidence tendered must be shown to be admissible. Therefore, a party trying to adduce evidence, has to
show that the evidence desired to be adduced is relevant under one or more of the Secs. 6 to 55. The Court
must therefore ignore any other consideration and confine itself strictly to the provisions of the Act and
come to a conclusion as to the relevancy of a fact on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act
regardless of the fact whether the conclusion ultimately arrived at is in accordance with common sense view
of things or not. A Court cannot on the ground of public policy exclude evidence otherwise relevant under
this Act.
1.1. Relevancy and Admissibility and its distinction : Relevant means that which is logical probative.
Admissibility is not based on logic but on law and strict rules. Many facts having no bearing on the facts to
be proved are admissible. The proof of loss of original deed has no effect on the decision of the issue but, this
is admissible evidence before secondary evidence about the content of the relevant document may be given.
In the Indian Evidence Act, the question of relevancy has been dealt with under Secs. 6 to 55 and that of
admissibility from Sec.56 onwards. Rules of relevancy declare certain facts relevant. Rules of admissibility
lay down, as to whether a certain form of evidence about the relevant fact may be allowed or excluded. The
facts that are allowed to be proved (Secs.6 to 55) are called relevant facts. The admissibility is the means and
the method of proving the relevant facts. Relevancy and admissibility are neither co-extensive nor inter
changeable terms. In Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1850, the Supreme Court speaking
through Mohd. Quadari J. said that more often than not, the expressions ‘relevancy’ and ‘admissibility’ are
used as synonym but their legal implications are different because facts which are relevant may not be
admissible, for example the communication between spouses during marriage; communication between an
advocate and his client, though relevant are not admissible.
Admissibility Relevancy
1. Not based on logic but on strict rules of law. 1. Legally relevant.
2. Rules of admissibility is described after Sec. 56 2. Rules of relevancy is described from Secs. 5 to
of Evidence. Act. 55 of Evidence Act.
3. Rules of admissibility declare whether evidence 3. Rules of relevancy declare what is relevant.
are admissible or are to be excluded.
4. Admissibility is means and modes for 4. Relevancy means what facts may be proved
admissibility of relevant evidence. proving relevant evidence.
5. The facts which are admissible are necessarily 5. Facts which are relevant are not ncessarily
relevant. admissible.
The question of relevancy should be decided as and when it is raised and should not be reserved until
the date of the judgment in the case. Where the Court is in doubt as to the relevancy of a particular piece of
evidence, it should declare in favour of relevancy. If irrelevant evidence is so mixed up with relevant evidence
as to make it impossible to separate one from the other, the whole of the evidence is to be rejected. But,
where relevant material is quite independent of the irrelevant material, the relevant will be admitted and the
other part will be rejected. If an irrelevant evidence has been admitted by the trial Court, an objection to it
can be raised at any stage even in the highest Court of Appeal. The question of relevancy is a question of law
and can be raised at any stage. But if the evidence is relevant and the proof of it is improper and the evidence
is admitted, no objection can be taken afterwards. To take an example, secondary evidence may be given if
the loss of original document is proved. If at the trial, a secondary evidence is given of the content of a
relevant document and no objection is raised, afterwards it cannot be objected that the evidence has been
given improperly. Question of relevancy is a question of law and can be raised at any stage but the question
of proof is question of procedure and is incapable of being raised at a later stage.
2. RES GESTAE: MEANING (SEC. 6)

The principle of the section is that whenever a ‘transaction’ such as a contract or a crime is a fact in issue,
then evidence can be given of every fact which forms part of the same transaction. The section is based upon
the English doctrine of res gestae though the use of the word has been avoided in the section. The phrase res
gestae is of Latin origin which means ‘things said and done in the course of a transaction’.Transaction is a
group of facts so connected together as to be referred by a single name i.e. a crime, a contract or a wrong or
any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue. Every case that comes before a Court of law has a certain
fact story behind it.
EVIDENCE 27
Real test of Section 6 is as to whether the fact in question has occurred in the same transaction, either at
the time of happening of fact in issue or before that or after that. Transaction is a continuity of events
without any external interference so as to mould the sequence of events. There has to be spontaneity within
sequence of events so as to suggest that there was no external control or any kind of designing or planning or
fabrication.
In Sukhar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 3883, the law relating to applicability of Section 6 of
the Evidence Act is summarises as:
(1) The declarations (oral or written) must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto; they
are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the declarations must relate to
and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent thereto
unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous.
(2) The declarations must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative
of a past.
(3) The declaration and the act may be by the same person, or they may be by different persons, e.g.,
the declarations of the victim, assailant and by-standers. In conspiracy, riot & the declarations of all
concerned in the common object are admissible.
(4) Though admissible to explain or corroborate or to understand the significance of the act, declarations
are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.
2.1. Relevance of this rule : Every fact story is made of certain acts, omissions and statements. Every
such act, omission or statement which throws some light upon the nature of the transaction or reveals its
true quality or character should be held as a part of transaction and the evidence of it should be received.
Doctrine of res gestae, enables the Court to take into account all the essential details of a transaction. A
transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single name, as a crime, a
contract a wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue. Roughly, a transaction may be
described as any physical act, or series of connected physical acts, together with the words accompanying
such act or acts. A transaction can be truly understood only when all its integral parts are known and not in
isolation from each other. In the famous English case of Ratten vs. The Queen, (1971) 3 W.L.R. 930, the
accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife. He claimed 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 to the police, the lady gave her address and the call suddenly ended. Thereafter, the police
came to the house and found the body of a dead woman. Her words over the phone were held to be relevant
as part of the same transaction which brought about death. Her call in distress showed that the shooting in
question was not accidental. For no victim of an accident could have thought of getting the police before the
happening. Thus in O’Leary vs. Regem, (1946) 73 C.L.R. 566 evidence of assault prior to killing was taken
into cognizance as part of same transaction.
2.2. Acts or omissions as Res Gestae : So far as acts or omissions accompanying a transaction are concerned
much difficulty does not arise. Nature of transaction itself indicates what should be its essential parts. For
e.g. Illustration (b) to the section – there is a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of India by force,
funds for the purpose are raised at Calcutta, arms and communication at Madras and a task force is trained
at Bombay. All these acts, though isolated in time and space are still the parts of the same transaction. This
is true of all transactions that are of continuing nature. Similarly where the question is whether certain
goods were delivered in the performance of a contract. The fact that they were delivered to several intermediaries
in the process of ultimate delivery to the buyer is relevant, each successive delivery being part of the transaction.
[Illustration (d)]. If libel is contained in a letter forming part of correspondence, the whole of correspondence
is relevant. [Illustration (c)].
2.3. Statements as Res Gestae : Statements may also accompany physical happenings. An injured
person, for example, is naturally bound to cry. He may cry under pain or for help or he could have spelt out
the name and description of his attacker. If the transaction happened in a public place, a number of by-
standers will make mutual conversations about the incident. The question is to what extent such statements
can be regarded as parts of the transaction? Illustration (a) deals with situation of this kind. The illustration
supposes that a man has killed another by beating him. Whatever was said or done by the offender and the
deceased or by the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before, or after it as to form a part of the
transaction is a relevant fact.
In the application of this principle, Courts have been generally strict because statements can be easily
concocted. Hence the principle that the statement should have been made soon before or after or along with
the incident which reflects its spontaneity. One of the earliest, and clearest illustration on the aspect of
statements being part of res gestae is the decision of HOLT, C.J. in Thompson vs. Trevanion, (1695) Skin
402. He held “that what the wife said immediately upon hurt being received and before that she has time
to devise or contrive anything for her own advantage, might be given in evidence. If sufficient time elapsed
to allow the invention of a false tale, obviously the evidence would be unreliable”. The subsequent case of R.
vs. Bedingfield, (1879) 14 Cox C.C. 314; shows the value of time in this connection. In this case a woman,
with her throat cut, came suddenly out of a room, in which she had been injured and shortly before she
died, said, “Oh dear Aunt, see what Bedingfield has done to me.” COCKBURN, C.J. held that the statement
was not admissible. “Anything uttered by the deceased at the time the act was being done would be
admissible, as, for instance if she has been heard to say something, as “don’t Harry”. But here it was something,
stated by her after it was all over. The statement was also held to be not relevant as a dying declaration
because she did not have the time to reflect that she was dying.
Later, the principle of the decision in Bedingfield’s case was approved by the House of Lords in R.vs.
Christie, (1914) AC 545. This was a case of an indecent assault upon a young boy. Shortly after the incident,
the boy made certain statements to his mother by which he described the offence and the man who assaulted
him.
The evidence of the statement was excluded. LORD ATKINSON remarked that the boy’s statement
was so separated by time and circumstance from the actual commission of the crime that it was not admissible
as part of the res gestae.
Principle behind above decisions : The emphasis of the courts seem to be that “the words should be at
least de recenti and not after an interval which should allow time for reflection and concocting a story. The
statement should be an exclamation “forced out of a witness by the emotion generated by an event” rather
than a subsequent narrative. The courts have been stressing the necessity for close association in time, place
and circumstances between the statement and the crucial events.
How slight a separation of time and place may suffice to make the statement a different “res” rather than
a part to the same transaction, is often difficult to decide. For example, in R.vs. Foster, (1834) 6 C & P 325,
the prisoner was charged with manslaughter in killing a person by driving over him. A witness saw the
vehicle driven by at a very rapid rate, but did not see the accident. Immediately after, on hearing the victim
groin, he went up to him and asked him what was the matter. The deceased then made a statement as to the
cause of the injury.
The court held that “what the deceased said at the instant, as to the cause of the accident, is clearly
admissible”.
The words were spoken after the running over was completed and after the lapse of at least many
seconds. Yet they were regarded as the part of the running over. The result is in a strange contrast with R. vs.
Bedingfield, where a woman emerging out of room where her throat was cut exclaimed the name of her
EVIDENCE 29
assailant and the exclamation was held to be a different “res” though “there could hardly be a case where the
words uttered carried more clearly the mark of spontaineity and intense involvement. The result is also in
contrast with R. vs. Gibson, (1887) 18 QB 537 where the words spoken by an onlooker after the assault was
over were not regarded as part of res gestae.The statement should be substantially contemporaneous with the
fact and if it is separated from the fact by an interval which though however slight allows of fabrication, it
cannot be treated as substantially contemporaneous with it. The statement would not be admissible merely
because it was uttered in the course of the transaction. It must be shown that the statement is a part of the
transaction.It has been held by the Supreme Court in R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC
157, that a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact. It is a res gestae.
2.4. Res Gestae and hearsay Evidence : As a general rule, hearsay evidence are inadmissible but, if it
forms part of the transaction, evidence of it can be given. In the case of R. vs. Foster, (1834) 6 C & S, the
witness had only seen 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 gestae. Thus, the doctrine of res gestae constitutes an exception to the
principle of hearsay.
2.5. Application of the Doctrine to Civil Proceedings : This doctrine can be invoked not only in
criminal proceedings but also in civil proceedings. According to illustration (c) to Section 6, A sues B for a
libel contained in a letter forming part of 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 generally contain the libel itself.
2.6. Case Laws on Res Gestae : F.I.R. when res gestae - In Shyam Nandan Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1991
Cri LJ 3350, a witness present at the scene of occurrence, sees the whole occurrence from beginning to end,
and makes cry about the offence being committed when people from vicinity reach. He tells the story of
occurrence and thereafter, goes to police station and makes FIR. The making of the FIR was held to be part
of the transaction and so it amounts to res gestae. The fact that sometime has elapsed between the occurrence
and report is immaterial.
Noor Mohd vs. Imtiaz Ahmad, AIR 1942 Oudh 132 - One R practised fraud upon one M and thus took
Rs.8,000. M lodged a report and filed a complaint. One S, a prosecution witness stated that M came to him
and said that he had been deprived of about Rs. 8,000 and that M again came to him and told him that he had
neither filed a complaint against him nor had made a report against R and that after having robbed him, R was
still trying to rob him of what he still had. The prosecution witness further said that after he (the witness) once
visited M, the latter told him that R was making his life miserable and he would take steps to have his money
recovered and thereupon M said, "Let the matter go. I have forgiven him but he should not touch what is left.”
This statement was held inadmissible as it was mere narrative of past occurrence.
Richard Gillie vs. Posho Ltd., AIR 1939 PC 146 - Dispute between A and B was whether A had agreed to
make a purchase from B on a certain date. In support of B’s allegation that A had agreed to make the purchase,
a letter, dated 23rd December, 1926 from him (B) to a solicitor was produced. In this letter B had mentioned
that A had agreed to make a purchase. The letter was held inadmissible as there was no evidence to show
whether the statement in the letter was made with reference to some events which has just happened.
Chain Mahto vs. Emperor, 1 C.W.N. 166 - The Chaukidar deposed that one Gopal ran up to him and
stated that he had seen the accused persons murder his mistress and that he (Gopal) ran away from the place
of occurrence only to save his life. What interval of time passed between the murder and the description of
it by Gopal to the Chaukidar was not made clear. This statement was held to be inadmissible because Gopal
was not then (when he was telling the facts to the Chaukidar) in such condition of mind as to exclude the
suspicion of his fabrication.
Pratap Singh vs. State of MP, 1971 Cri LJ 172 - Pratap Singh was charged with the murder of Ram
Charan. One Sarfaraz Beg deposed before the Court that at about 1.50 p.m. on the night of the alleged
occurrence, he heard some row from his house which was at the distance of about 400 yards from the place
of occurrence. He said that he went towards the place of occurrence near which a large crowd had gathered.
On going inside the house he found a dead body lying with fresh wounds. According to the witness, Ms.
Mahadevi was there. When she was questioned about the murder she stated that her husband and brother
had run away after committing the murder. It was held that as the statement was in answer to a query and
was made after the lapse of some time after the murder, it cannot be treated either as spontaneous or as part
of the transaction of the murder, and so was not admissible.
In Ratan Singh vs. State of H. P., AIR 1997 SC 768 - Shortly before the incident in which a woman died
of gun-shot, she exclaimed that a man was standing near her with a gun in his hand, the statement was held
to be sufficiently proximate in time to the happening as to be a part of the same transaction.
In Wasu Pillai vs. State, AIR 1961 Bom 114, the accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and the prosecution case inter alia was that he had given a threat on the morning of the
murder that he would finish the deceased off and then finish himself off also. At the trial the prosecution led
evidence to show that after the accused had murdered the deceased, he had tried to commit suicide by
injuring himself with a knife. The court held that, the subsequent conduct of the accused was, therefore, a
part of the same transaction, Under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 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.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Panna Satyanarayan, AIR 2000 SC 2138 - the accused murdered his wife and
daughter. There was a statement by the father of deceased wife to the effect that father of accused told him
on telephone that his son has killed the deceased. There was absence of a finding as to whether the information
given by accused’s father to the deceased’s father that the accused had killed the deceased was either at the
time of commission of the crime or immediately thereafter, so as to form the part of same transaction. The
Supreme Court held that the statement cannot be considered as relevant under Section 6.
Nasiruddin vs. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lah 46 - One Fakiria was killed in broad daylight in one of the
crowded bazars of Gujranwala. At the trial, one Mst. Aishan Bibi was examined as witness. She stated that
when she reached the spot, she heard the people present saying that Rajja, Nasiria and Jagari has committed
the crime. It was not stated that the people who informed her of the names of the murderers were present
when the murder was being committed. It was held that the statement was not admissible.
In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, AIR 2013 SC 1441 - The Court
observed that test to determine admissibility under the rule of Res Gestae is embodied in words “are so
connected with a fact in issue so as to form a part of the same transaction. It is therefore, held that for
describing the concept of Res gestae, one would need to examine, whether the fact is such as,
contemporaneously arising out of the occurrence, exclamations (of hurt, seeking help, of disbelieve, of
cautioning and the like) arising out of the facts, spontaneous reactions to a fact, in the like”.
3. OCCASION, CAUSE, EFFECT, ETC. (SEC. 7)

Sec. 7 deals with a variety of facts such as those which constitute the occasion or cause of, or provide the
opportunity for, the happening of the facts in issue or which show their effects.
The section thus provides for the relevancy of the following kinds of facts :—
1. Facts constituting the “occasion”;
2. Facts which show the “cause”;
3. The “effects” of the principal facts;
EVIDENCE 31
4. Facts which provide the “opportunity” for the happening of the principal fact, and
5. Facts which constitute the “state of things” under which the principal facts happened.
3.1. Principle : This section is based on induction. The relevancy of facts is required to be determined
by human experience. What has been the effects of particular cause and what has been the constant cause of
a particular effect in the past will be the same in future. For example, if a living being is cut on the ground
necessarily there shall be bleeding and the blood can be found at the place of occurrence. Whenever a large
quantity of human blood is found at any place by human experience it can be reasonably inferred that a
human being has been injured. Thus, the bleeding is the effect of injury caused, and injury is the cause of
bleeding.Similarly, when large number of trees are found to have fallen it shows that there must have been
a storm. When tanks are filled with full water and rivers are found to be in spate it shows that there must
have been a heavy rainfall.
In Spencer Cooper’s Case the body of the deceased was found in a tank. The question before the court was
whether the deceased had committed a suicide by jumping and drowning in the tank, or had been killed
and then her body was thrown into the tank? The stomach of the deceased did not contain any water. The
prosecution tried to prove that a person who dies in water necessarily takes water into the belly. Whereas the
defence counsel tried to prove that it is not necessary in all cases that the person dying in water must
necessarily take water into the belly. Here the prosecution tried to prove by the general happenings of the
world that a man drowned must have the water in stomach, whereas the other party tried to prove that this
general happening need not be present in all cases and that a man may be drowned and still may not have
water in the stomach. These facts show the general “effect” of drowning.
3.2. Occasion : It is a circumstance or set of circumstances which naturally exist or may even be the
creation of a person’s. It provides the platform or the setting for happening of some wrong.
Evidence can always be given of set of circumstances which constituted the occasion for the happening
of the principal fact. For example, in R vs. Richardson, the fact that the deceased girl was alone in her cottage
at the time of the murder is relevant as it constituted the “occasion” for the murder. Illustration (a) to the
section is also on the same point. If a man claims that he was robbed of money on the occasion of a certain
fair, he should be able to show that he had money with him, for otherwise, there would be no occasion to
rob him. The fact that on the way he told one of his friends that he was going to the fair with the money
would be relevant as this shows that he did have money with him.
3.3. Cause : It can be any event or incident which becomes immediate push factor (narrower than goal).
"Cause" explains as to why a particular act was done. It helps the Court to connect a person with the act.
The act in question must have been done by the person who had the cause for it. If, for example, a person
is running short of money, that may “cause” him to take a loan. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court
in Indian Airlines vs. Madhuri Chowdhari, AIR 1965 Cal 252, that the report of an enquiry commission
relating to an air crash is relevant under Section 7 as establishing the “cause” of the accident.
3.4. Effect : It is the consequence of something happening i.e fact in issue or relevant fact like foot print,
finger print, blood stain, etc.
Every act leaves behind certain effects, which not only record the happening of the act, but also throw
light upon the nature of the act. For example, whether the death of a particular person was caused by suicide
or by murder is often determined by looking at the effects of the event, for suicide and murder have different
effects. One of the important facts which connect a person with the act in question is the footprints at the
scene of the crime and the finger impression upon the objects that he might have touched, for example, in
R. vs. Richardson, where a young girl was killed in her cottage, the prints of the footsteps showed that they
were those of a person who must have worn shoes, the soles of which had been newly mended and which
had iron knobs or nails in them. This was one of the “effects” of facts in issue. The fact that the accused
Richardson's shoes corresponded exactly with the foot impression in dimension, shape of the foot, form of
the sole and the number and position of the nails was relevant as it so surely established Richardson’s
presence at the scene of the crime. Illustration (b) is on this point.
3.5. Opportunity : The circumstances which provide an opportunity for the happening of a fact in issue
are relevant. Often a person has to carve out for himself an opportunity from the occasion to do the act in
question. This may involve a break from the normal routine of his life. Evidence of opportunity thus
becomes important as it shows that the act must have been done by the person who had the opportunity to
do it.
In R.vs. Richardson, for example, the fact that Richardson left his fellow workers or about the time of the
murder under the pretence of going to a smith’s shop was relevant as this gave the accused this “opportunity”.
Illustration (c) speaks of a death caused by poisoning. The fact that the accused knew that habits of the
deceased which facilitated the poisoning is relevant. The illustration is close to the facts of R. vs. Donellan,
1955 1 QB 388. In this case the deceased suffered from a trifling ailment, for which he occasionally took a
laxative draught. The draught was usually served by his mother. The accused knew all this and also the time
at which it was usually served. He accordingly replaced the bottle with a bottle containing poison. The
mother innocently administered poison to her son of which he died. The fact that of the accused had
knowledge of the habit of deceased was held to be relevant as it afforded an “opportunity” to the accused.
Last seen theory is a specie of doctrine of opportunity under section 7.
3.6. State of things : It is also a set of existing circumstances but difference between occasion and state
of things is that occasion is a one time circumstance that existed at time when wrong was done whereas state
of things are circumstances that recur over a period of time.
The facts which constitute the state of things under which or in the background of which the principal
facts happened are relevant. This category of facts, as enumerated in Section 7, would allow evidence of the
state of relations between the parties, and, in the case of murder, the state of the health of the deceased and
his habits, etc.
In Ratten vs. Regina, (1971) 3 WLR 930, for example, where the accused was prosecuted for shooting
down his wife and he took the defence of accident, the fact that the accused was unhappy with his wife and
was having an affair with another woman helped to make it relevant as it constituted the state of things in
which the principal fact, namely, the shooting down, happened.
4. MOTIVE, PREPARATION & CONDUCT (SEC. 8)

4.1. Principle : There is hardly any act without a motive. Motive is the moving power, which compels
one to do an act. It is the inducement for doing the act.
The absence, or presence of a motive and evidence of preparation, previous attempt, previous or subsequent
conduct of the parties are relevant, as they help in proving or disproving a fact in controversy. It may
sometimes be important to know, whether a man charged with an offence, has any interest, or motive to
commit it. In determining the fact, whether a man charged with an offence, committed it or not, it is
important to know whether previous to the act, he made certain preparations to do the act. Again the
conduct-antecedent or subsequent - of a person committing an offence, or of a person against whom an
offence has been committed, may be helpful in deciding as to whether the man has committed an offence.
4.2. Motive : Motive by itself is no crime, howsoever heinous it may be. But, once a crime has been
committed, the evidence of motive becomes important. Evidence of motive helps the Court to connect the
accused with the deed. (Refer illustrations (a) & (b) which is on motive). In R.vs. Richards, the accused was
the father of the child of which the deceased was pregnant at the time. It was held to be relevant, as he
might have killed the girl to save his character. In R.vs.Palmer, (1865), the accused Palmer was financially
embarrassed and to overcome his difficulties, he borrowed large sums of money from one of his friends.
EVIDENCE 33
They used to go to races together. One night after attending the races together, his friend came back to his
hotel and died soon after midnight under circumstances, which raised a suspicion that he had been poisoned.
The fact that Palmer had a strong “motive” to eliminate his creditor friend was held to be relevant. In a case,
certain lands were inherited by the deceased along with his brother, but the accused got them transferred
into their names. At the time of the incident, criminal and revenue cases were pending between the accused
and the deceased. The Supreme Court held that these facts constituted a sufficient evidence of motive
{Awadesh vs. State of U.P., AIR 1995 SC 375}.
Motive vs. Intention : Motive is the larger objective of a person to commit a wrong i.e the ultimate goal
that he wants to achieve by doing that wrong. In order to examine the motive, one has to examine as to why
did the person do that particular wrong. On the other hand intention is the desire to produce particular
consequence i.e the state of mind which wants with certainty that consequence be caused. Intention is
manifest by the conduct of the wrongdoer. It has to be examined whether the wrongdoer wanted the
certainty of the consequence.
Yunus vs. Kavya, AIR 2003 SC - It was held by the Supreme Court where ocular evidence- (Eye Witness)
was very clear and continuing, role of accused person in time stood and established failure to prove motive
for the crime was of no relevance.
4.3. Preparation : Preparation is doing of certain acts that is taking of certain steps in direction of
commission of offence so that a necessary platform is formed upon which the accused or wrongdoer acquires
the capability to do wrong or crime.
Section 8 further provides that acts of “preparation” are relevant. It says that facts, which show or
constitute preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact are relevant. Preparation by itself is no crime.
Illustrations (d) & (e) refer to acts of preparation.The act of purchasing a pistol for the purpose of shooting
down a man, or a matchbox for burning a house, is by itself no offence. But, once an offence has been
committed, the evidence of preparation becomes most important, for the crime must have been committed
by the man who was preparing for it. Thus, for example, the sharpening of a knife before an affray in which
the knife was used is relevant as an act of preparation.
4.4. Conduct : The last part of Section 8 deals with the relevancy of the evidence of conduct. The
conduct of an accused is particularly important to the law of evidence, for his guilt or the state of mind is
often reflected by his conduct. Section 8 accordingly provides that the conduct of the following parties is
relevant.
(1) The conduct of the parties to a suit or proceeding or of their agents - This category includes
conduct of the plaintiff and defendant and their agents in a civil suit and of the accused in a
criminal proceeding.
(2) The conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding - This includes
the conduct of the injured person. This had to be separately mentioned because in many criminal
proceedings the injured person is not a party.
The evidence of the conduct of such parties is allowed if two conditions are fulfilled, namely, the
conduct must be in reference to the facts in issue or the facts relevant to them and, secondly, the conduct is
such as influences or is influenced by the facts in issue or relevant facts. Subject to these conditions, the
evidence of conduct is relevant whether it is previous to the happening of the facts in or subsequent to them.
It need not be contemporaneous. A conduct is relevant if it influences or is influenced by an fact. Refer
illustration (e) which is on conduct.
Section 6 vs. Section 8 : Conduct can be previous, simultaneous or subsequent to fact in issue. If any
conduct is a simultaneous with fact in issue, it will fall under Section 6 and not under Section 8. A conduct
which is previous or subsequent will fall under Section 8 but that part of such conduct which is also a part
of same transaction would also fall under Section 6. To that extent Section 6 and Section 8 would overlap.
However in Section 6, the conduct can be of any person including a witness whereas in Section 8, it has
to be that of a party or his agent or victim of crime and not that of a witness.
Conduct of witness in making statement to police officer under Section 161 CrPC not relevant under
Section 8 of IEA as witness is not covered under Section 8 but if he is accused being party his conduct
become relevant under Section 8.
However, here a note ought to be taken of Explanation 1 which says that “conduct” does not include
statements, unless those statements, accompany and explain acts other than statements. Therefore, only
those statements which accompany and explain acts other than statements can be regarded as conduct.
4.5. Case Laws :
(1) Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119, FIR was filed by the accused himself. The fact
of his giving the information was held admissible against him as evidence of his conduct.
(2) Sardul Singh vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 747, the question was whether P was liable as partner
of the firm of Dawn and Co. in respect of contracts which were made between the plaintiff and the
firm in 1922 written by him to the agent of Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China. In that
letter P said that he was writing to confirm that he had severed his connection with the firm Dawn
and Co. from first of May, 1922. It was held to be relevant.
(3) Bhamara vs. State of M.P., AIR 1953 Bhopal 1, Bhagirath was ploughing his field. Bhamara was
passing that way. He called Bhagirath to chat. During the talk the parties flared up. Scuffle ensued,
Bhamara struck a stone against the head of Bhagirath. Ratiram and Lachhiman ran to the spot. The
accused seeing these persons ran away but was caught by one Panna Lal. This conduct of accused
was held to be admissible.
(4) Mistri vs. King Emperor, 6 ALJ 839, M was charged with the murder of a girl. During the investigation,
M took the police to a place and pointed out and produced certain ornaments, which the deceased
was putting on at the time of her death. In the trial of M, the fact that he showed the police the
place where the ornaments were hidden and the fact that he handed over the ornaments to the
police was held to be relevant and allowed to be proved under Section 8 as it is the conduct of the
accused after the occurrence.
Section 8 is to be read with Section 27 : In process of discovery when accused after having made
discovery statement accompanies police officer and pinpoint the place of hiding of the object, it is the
subsequent conduct of accused in reference to proceeding of investigation and also in reference to a relevant
fact (discovery) and it influences the finding of relevant fact and hence the conduct of going and pinpointing
place will be relevant as subsequent conduct under Section 8.
Statement of a party to a proceeding accompanying and explaining acts (Explanation 1 to Sec. 8) : It
excludes admissibility of statements, (as distinguished from conduct). But, it allows those statements to be
admitted under this section which accompany and explain acts other than the statements. This explanation
points to a case in which person whose “conduct” is in dispute mixes up action and statements. In such a
case, those actions and statements may be proved as a whole. e.g. - A person is running down the street in
a wounded condition calling out the name of his assailant and the circumstance in which the injuries were
inflicted. Here what the injured person says and does may be taken together and proved as a whole. Here
the statement of the person wounded explains his conduct. The conduct of running away and the cry of the
person both show that he has been wounded by such and such person and in such and such condition.
Only those statements which accompany and explain acts other than statements can be regarded as conduct.
{Bhagwan Das vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 898}
EVIDENCE 35
The statement must amount to complaint : Illustrations (j) and (k) make statements of persons against
whom an offence has been committed relevant but a mere statement is not relevant.
The statements must amount to complaints to be admissible. A mere statement is not relevant. Statement
in the shape of complaint is only relevant. There may be sometimes a difficulty in distinguishing a statement
from a complaint. The essential difference between the two is that a complaint is made with a view to
redress or punish and must be made to someone like the police, a parent or some other person to whom the
complainant looked for assistance and protection. For example, if A is running out besmeared with blood
and crying helplessly to the people of vicinity to save his life from B who had wounded him and is about to
beat more. This is certainly a complaint.
Only a statement is not complaint if A leisurely walks down from a place with injuries on his person and
when intervened and asked by a bystander he says that B has assaulted him. This is only a statement and
not a complaint and is inadmissible.
Statement of another affecting conduct of a party to a proceeding - Explanation II : Under this
Explanation another class of statements i.e. the statements, affecting the conduct of a person, whose conduct
is relevant under this section is admissible. Here the statements made in the presence of the party are
admissible as the ground-work of that conduct. The question is whether A murdered B. During the enquiry
one C said in the presence of A “the sub-inspector is coming to arrest the man who has murdered B”.
Hearing these words of C, A runs away. At trial of A, the words spoken by C that the sub-inspector was
coming to arrest the murderer, and after hearing that, the conduct of A’s running away are relevant together.
If the words “The sub-inspector was coming to arrest the murderer” as said to A is not proved, merely saying
that A ran away will be meaningless. Illustrations (g), (h) & (i) of the section are examples of such statements.
Vivek Kalra vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (3) SLT 209 - In the above case, the PW stated the appellant had a
good behaviour and had no bad habit. Section 8 of IEA, however provides that the conduct of any person
accused of an offence is relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant
fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent to it. Hence, any behaviour or conduct of the appellant
would be relevant if it has nexus with the offence under section 302 IPC alleged to have been committed.
The general good behaviour of the appellant and the fact that he had no bad habit have no nexus with the
offence alleged against the appellant and are not relevant when other circumstances have established beyond
reasonable doubt it is the appellant alone who has committed the murder of the deceased.
5. FACTS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN OR INTRODUCE RELEVANT FACTS (SEC. 9)

Types of evidence covered by this section : This section deals with the relevancy of a large number of
facts of introductory and explanatory nature. The section 9 declares the following kinds of fact to be relevant.
1. Facts necessary to introduce or explain fact in issue or relevant fact.
2. Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact.
3. Fact which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant.
4. Facts which fix the time or place at which the facts in issue or relevant fact occurred.
5. Facts which show the relation of parties.
5.1. Explanatory Facts : There are certain evidences which if considered separately from other evidences
would amount to nothing, but if 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.
In Noor Mohammad vs. Emperor, AIR 1944 Sind 93, Noor Mohammad was tried for abducting Mst.
Saidan. Once during the investigation Mst. Saidan was being taken to the police station. Noor Mohammad
was loitering in the way. On seeing Noor Mohammad, Mst. Saidan at once cried out to her brother Kasim
that this man was one of her abductors. Kasim told the head constable who was with them and the head
constable forthwith arrested him. When the trial proceeded, Mst. Saidan was won over by the accused and
she did not implicate Noor Mohammad nor any body else. The prosecution wanted to produce Kasim, the
brother of Mst. Saidan to depose that at the time when Mst. Saidan was being taken to the police station,
seeing Noor Mohammad, she had cried of her own accord that he was one of her abductors. It was held that
the statement by Kasim that Mst. Saidan denounced Noor Mohammad as one of the abductors was admissible
as explaining the circumstances of Noor Mohammad’s arrest and also for the purpose of establishing his
identity.
In Rahan Lalu vs. Emperor, AIR 1938 Sind 93, the prosecution case was that Rahan Lalu killed his wife
one morning with an axe. Their son, a child of 5 years was beside them. He made a cry and his cry attracted
the witness who found Rahan Lalu with an axe in his hand and his deceased wife near him. The child’s
evidence was not recorded. The witnesses deposed as to what the child had said and upon that they reached.
It was held that the witnesses could speak about the nature of the cry and even to what the child said so far
as it explains their conduct.
In the case of Rahan Lalu if the child had not said that his father was killing his mother, the witnesses
would not have gone there. So the cry and the words of the child explain as to why the witnesses went there.
Similarly in Noor Mohammad’s case if Saidan had not said that he was one of her abductors, Noor Mohd
would not have been arrested Illustrations (d), (e) & (f ) are to the same effect.
5.2. Introductory Facts : Evidence of introductory facts are allowed for the same reason. In conducting
a suit or proceeding it would be practically impossible to jump directly on to the main fact. A judge seeks
for some introductory matter, just as one hearing the main incident of a story would like to know the
circumstances leading up to it and the results that follow it. Facts which are introductory of a relevant fact
are often of a great help in understanding the real nature of the transaction, and in supplying the missing
link. Introducing facts might not be per se relevant but they set a background or create a chain with fact in
issue or relevant fact.
5.3. Facts which support or rebut an inference : There are certain other classes of facts which are neither
relevant as facts in issue nor as relevant facts. But, they either support the inference suggested by the fact in
issue or relevant fact. The fact that soon after the commission of the crime, the accused absconded from his
house is relevant under Section 8 as a "conduct" affected by the facts. Such a conduct is relevant because it
suggests the inference that he is guilty. Any fact which either supports this inference, or rebuts or contradicts
it will also become relevant.
Supporting Fact : For example, if after absconding, he was arrested in a train travelling without-ticket or
in a shabby dress. This will be relevant as these facts support the inference that he is guilty.
Contradictory Fact : Facts which contradict the inference of guilt will also be relevant. It will be equally
relevant for him to show that he left home because he had urgent and sudden business to attend.The details
of such business are not relevant except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was really
sudden & urgent [Refer illustration (c)].
5.4. Identity of any thing or person : Condition under which identification is important :
(i) Identification of accused
(ii) Identification of victim
(iii) Identification of arms and bullets
In proving these things, direct and circumstantial evidence both can be taken in account.
EVIDENCE 37
Where the Court has to know the identity of any thing or any person, any fact which establishes such
identity is relevant. The identity of a person can be established by the evidence of persons who know him.
For example, in Bibhawati Devi vs. Kumar Ramendra Narain Roy, AIR 1942 Cal 498, a person by the name
of the Second Kumar of Bhowal remained unheard for twelve years. The person who appeared after all these
years and who was the plaintiff in this case claimed himself to be Second Kumar. It was held that the
evidence of his mother identifying him as her son and of his wife failing to identify him as her husband was
relevant.
Apart from direct evidence, circumstantial evidence may also be relevant to prove an identity.
Circumstantial evidence like age, height, size, complexion, voice, handwriting, manner, dress, distinctive
marks, faculties, or peculiarities have been held to be relevant under this section in identification of a
person, for e.g., in Dr. Cripen’s Case, a doctor was being prosecuted for the murder of his wife. The body of
his wife, as discovered from his house, was mutilated beyond recognition. The fact that the wife had been
earlier operated upon her abdomen and that part having been recovered, showed marks of the operation,
was held to be relevant to establish her identity. In the case of Sainudeen vs. State of Kerala, 1992 Cri LJ
1644, the father was being charged for murdering his daughter as a result of attempted sex with her. The
voice of the father was heard by neighbours, who then dismissed it as a routine affair. Their evidence as to
voice was held to be sufficient to identify the accused. Similarly, in Ram Lochan vs. State of West Bengal, AIR
1963 SC 1074, the Supreme Court held that the super imposed photograph of the deceased over the
skeleton of a human body (skull) recovered from a tank was admissible to prove the fact that the skeleton
was that of the deceased. The Supreme Court has observed that even on a full dark night, there is a possibility
of identification of a person as there is never total darkness. Apart from seeing the person in light, there can
be other means of identifying a person, for example, through the shape of the body, clothes, gait, voice, etc.
(Kedar Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1999 Cri LJ 601). In the instant case, however, the temple light was on, and
thus the witness must have had some good chance to see the assailants, two of whom held the victim and the
third chopped off his neck, which must have taken quite sometime. In the case of Ram Gautam Choudhary
vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 184, the Supreme Court attached importance to the fact that the accused
were from the same village and naturally known to the prosecution witnesses and therefore, could have
recognised them in the light of a lantern, though it was lying on the ground and could have cast only under
dim light on the face of the assailants.
5.5. Identification Parade : Identification parades have been in common use for a very long time for the
object of placing suspect in a line-up with other persons for identification. The purpose is to find out
whether he is the perpetrator of the crime. It is necessary, where the name of the offender is not mentioned
by those who claim to be eye-witnesses of the incident, but they claim that although they didn't know him
earlier, they could recall his features in sufficient details and would also be able to identify him if and when
they happen to see him again.
Ordinarily, the person who is supposed to have identified the assailants at the test-identification parade
must himself give evidence in regard to the identification. If he does not himself give the evidence and leaves
it to the officer holding the identification parade to do so, the defence would be deprived of an opportunity
of cross-examination for the purpose of showing that the witness had opportunity of seeing the accused
before they were brought for identification. The holding of test-indentification parade is not compulsory, in
a case where the accused persons were previously known to the witness and their names also appeared in the
F.I.R but, test-identification parade was not held. The Supreme Court held that failure to hold test-
identification parade was not fatal to the prosecution case. (Pammi vs. State of M P, AIR 1998 SC 3031).
Even where the accused demands test identification parade, the prosecution is not bound to do so and its
case will not be weakened by the mere absence of the parade. In the case of Laxmi Raj Setty vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 1988 SC 1274, the Supreme Court held that identification through a photograph can take the
place of a formal test identification parade.
In Sheikh Sintha Madhar vs. State, AIR 2016 SC 1844, the Supreme Court said that there is no invariable
rule that two accused persons cannot be made part of the same test identification parade. The joint
identification parade, in no manner, affects the validity of the test identification parade.
5.6. Test Identification Parade (T.I.P) : The Test Identification Parade is held before judicial magistrate.
It helps the court to verify as to who was the accused. The TIP is conducted for purpose of creating a
corroborative piece of evidence for the identification which is made in court. When identification of accused
before court is not corroborated by previous Test Identification parade, then can it be basis of conviction.
Ordinarily it should not be the sole-basis of conviction as TIP is admissible only if identification is done in
court. It was explained in case of Dana yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (7) SCC 295. But, there can be
exception to this rule, an identification before court should not normally be relied upon if the name of
accused is neither mentioned in FIR nor before police. But, if TIP is not held and witness identifies the
accused first time before the court, than the evidence regarding identification in the court doesn't become
inadmissible and it cannot be discarded on the ground of no earlier TIP, when the Court finds the same to
be trust worthy.
An accused can not claim TIP as a matter of right as conducting TIP is a prerogative of the investigating
agency, which has power to impose TIP upon accused and prosecution can apply to Judicial Magistrate
under Section 54A CrPC for this. Also by virtue of Section 437(1) proviso 3 Cr.PC, accused can not be
denied bail merely on the ground that TIP has to be conducted.
Retraction: As a general rule, since TIP is to be used for purpose of corroborating evidence in court, if
there is no such identification in court, TIP will loose its corroborative value also. But case in which court is
satisfied that retraction is not genuine and other circumstantial evidences clearly point towards identification
of accused, court can still admit TIP.
Evidentiary Value of TIP : In the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284, the Court
aptly held that the Court identification itself is a good identification in the eye of law. It is not always
necessary that it must be preceded by the test identification parade. It will always depend upon the facts
and circumstances of a given case. In one case, it may not be necessary to hold the test identification parade
while in the other, it may be essential to do so. Thus, no straightjacket formula can be stated in this regard.
The Court in the recent case of R.Shaji vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2013 SC 651 while reiterating the principles
of Test Identification Parade has upheld that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case where
the witnesses made it clear that they were acquainted with the appellant since he was posted in the control
room of their city, the holding/non-holding of a Test Identification Parade loses its significance.
TI Parade is a weak sort of evidence. Where the only evidence against the accused person is that of
identification by one witness, as a rule of prudence it should not be considered sufficient to justify the
conviction (Habib vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283).
Amit Singh Bhikam Singh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 310, The TIP doesn’t constitute
evidence but can be used only for corroboration of statement in the court.
In Chaman vs. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 601, the court held that where the moles, scars on the face of
the accused covered to large extent with pieces of paper and similar paper covering was done on faces of
other persons participating in parade, such identification parade was rendered unreliable by extensive make
up on faces. In such a case it was not safe to convict the accused on the basis of such identification parade.
5.7. Identification of accused by photograph : In D Gopal Krishanan vs. Sadanand Naik, AIR 2004 SC
2965, the Court observed that if during investigation, witness indicates identifying features of the accused
EVIDENCE 39
then that can be confirmed by showing him some similar photograph and it can be confirmed by further
showing him more photograph of the same person if the accused is himself available. In the instant case, his
photograph could not be shown and the album containing photograph of the accused with name written
underneath were shown to eye witness who had not described any physical feature or identify characteristics.
So, the procedure adopted by investigation officer was not justified.
Pramod Mandal vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 150 - In this case, the court held the following:
1. There is no fixed time of TI Parade and there is no rule of number of identifying witnesses
2. It is for court to decide in facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on the record whether to
accept or reject evidence of the identification.
3. Where defence failed to impute any motive to prosecution for delay nor it alleged any irregularity
then only on this basis that there was delay of one month was not fatal to prosecution case.
Prakash vs. State. of Karnataka, 2014 (5) SCALE 83. In this case, the Court held that an identification
parade is not mandatory nor can it be claimed by the suspect as a matter of right. The purpose of pre- trial
identification evidence is to assure the investigation agency that the investigation is going on in the right
direction and to provide corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness or victim later in court at
the trial. If the suspect is a complete stranger to the witness or victim then the identification parade is
desirable unless the suspect has been seen by the witness or victim for some length of time.
In Abdul Waheed Khan and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 2961, the main object of
holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based
upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited
as eye-witness of the crime.
5.8. Effect of delay on TIP : Delay in holding TIP must be satisfactorily explained. In case of Rajesh
Govind Jogesh vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 160, it was held that the explanation that no magistrate
was available in Bombay for 5 weeks for supervising the parade was held to be not satisfactory.
Murari Lal Jivaram Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 1593, Two Months delay was held
to be sufficiently accounted for where the Investigating officer kept writing to the magistrate but magistrate
could not spare time due to pre-occupations.
Daya Singh vs. Sate of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 1188, Here, the delay in identification was ignored where
the witnesses identified the accused in parade and also identified him subsequent in the court 7-8 years
later. The Courts also said that circumstances showed that they acquired an enduring impression of the
identity during the incident.
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran, 2007 (3) SSC 755, Person identifying articles did not have sufficient
opportunity to see the said article being used by the deceased for a long duration. Further, these articles are
not carrying any distinctive mark on the basis of which this could be distinguished from similar articles
which were easily available and accessible in the market. So, the court said identification of the said articles
belonging to deceased could not be believed.
In Md Sajjad vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2017 SC 642, the Supreme Court reiterated that the test of
identification parade should be held at the earliest-possible opportunity, but there is no hard and fast rule
that can be laid down in this regard. If the delay is inordinate and there is evidence probabilising the
possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses, the Court may not act on the basis of such
evidence.
5.9. Identity of Thing : A case before the Supreme Court (Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka, AIR
1983 SC 446) arose out of murder and robbery. The police recovered robbed articles which comprised of
valuable sarees and ornaments. A lady of the house was called and she identified the robbed articles in the
Court as articles belonging to the deceased. The question was about the admissibility of the evidence.
Rejecting the contention of the defence that clothes like sarees and ornaments, chain and bangles were of
such common use that it could not be said that they belonged to a particular family; the Supreme Court
said it is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have an uncanny sense of identifying their own belongings.
Moreover, the description of silk sarees in question that they were expensive sarees with distinctive designs
was another important index to identification. In another case of Gade Lakshmi Mangraju vs.State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 2677, the ornaments of the deceased lady were identified by her two sons during the
test identification parade. Her daughter also participated in the identification but, was not cross-examined.
It was contended that identification of ornaments as those of the deceased was a very fragile evidence. The
Supreme Court rejected the contention. The Court, however, agreed that a female kin of the deceased would
have been in a better position than a male kin to identify the jewellery or ornaments worn by a woman. The
Court said that non-examination of the daughter of the deceased need not be taken as a serious flaw which
would vitally affect the prosecution evidence regarding the identification of the ornaments.
5.10. Time or Place of Happening : Section 9 provides that evidence can be given of facts which would
help to establish the time or place of the happening of the facts in issue or relevant fact. The report of an
expert is relevant to fix the time of murder and the marks of struggle on the ground are relevant to fix the
place of the crime. The Supreme Court observed in the case of Laxmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC
2263, that in almost all criminal cases the blood-stained soil sample from the place of occurrence is
invariably sent for chemical examination and the report and the sample are to be produced before the
Court. If this procedure is not followed, it casts a serious doubt about the prosecution version of the place
of occurrence.
5.11. Relation of parties : Lastly, Section 9 provides that the facts which show the relation of the parties
by whom a fact in issue or a relevant fact was transacted are relevant. Section 32(5), 32(6) and Section 50
are also relevant here as it establish relationship. A large number of cases owe their origin to the pre-existing
relation of the parties, such as, those of undue influence and of libel. In an action for damages for defamation,
the state of the previous relations of the parties will be relevant. (Refer illustration b)
6. CONSPIRACY (SEC. 10)

Conspiracy is an agreement to do an unlawful act or lawful act by unlawful means. It is a crime as well
as a tort. The section applies to both kinds of conspiracy (i.e., crime and tort). Section 10 is enacted to make
such acts and statements of a co-conspirator admissible against whole body of conspirators because of nature
of crime. A conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Therefore it is not feasible for prosecution
to connect each isolated act or statement of one accused with the acts or statement of the others, unless there
is a common bond linking all of them together.
Thus, as soon as court has reasonable grounds to believe that there is identical interest or community of
purpose i.e. when there is evidence of concerted action in furtherance of common intention to commit a
crime. Here, Rule of Agency will lie and every one concerned will be considered as agent of rest of them.
The special feature of this rule is that anything said, written or done by any member of the conspiracy
is an evidence against the other members even if they are done in their absence and without their knowledge.
Rule of agency is the basis of Section 10. Just as partnership is to do something legal, conspiracy is to do
something illegal, and just as in a partnership, one partner is deemed to be the agent of another, so also, one
conspirator is deemed to be the agent of another and anything said, done, or written by the agent, i.e. one
conspirator is deemed to be done by the principal, i.e. by another conspirator.
EVIDENCE 41
The words ‘common intention’ signify common intention existing at the time when the thing was said,
done, or written by the one of them. Things said, done or written while the conspiracy was on foot are
relevant as evidence of the common intention, once reasonable ground has been shown to believe in its
existence. But it would be a very different matter to hold that any narrative, or statement or confession made
to a third party after the common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating and had ceased to exist,
is admissible against the other party. There is, then no common intention of the conspirators to which the
statement can have reference. Sec. 10 embodies this principle.
“It must be borne in mind that the thing said, done, or written by one person will be admissible against
him and others in a conspiracy case only when that thing is said, done or written in reference to the
common intention of the conspiracy. Anything said done or written by a conspirator will not be admissible
against him or others if it is not done in reference to the common intention of the conspiracy”.
The word "intention" implies that the act intended is in the future and the section makes relevant
statements by a conspirator with reference to the future. The words " in reference to their common intention"
mean in reference to what at the time of statement was intended in the future. Narratives coming from the
conspirators as to their past acts cannot be said to have a reference to their common intention. On this
aspect of law is the case of Emperor vs.Vaishampayan, (1931) ILR 55 Bom 839. This is also known as the
Lamington Road Shooting Conspiracy. On October 9, 1930 a police officer and his wife were wounded by
revolver shots near the police station at Lamington Road in Bombay. These shots were fired by some persons
who were in a motor car which was standing on the opposite side of the road.
Evidence was sought to be given of a statement of an absconding accused to the approver, that the
conspirators had shot a police-officer, that a pamphlet should be written and distributed to start a propaganda
in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy. It was held:
“Reading Section 10 it appears that narratives coming from the conspirators as to their past acts cannot
be said to have a reference to their common intention. The word ‘intention’ implies that the act intended is
in the future and the section makes relevant statements made by a conspirator with reference to the future.
I interpret the words ‘in reference to their common intention’ to mean in reference to what at the time of
statement was intended in the future.” But the statement about publishing a pamphlet would be relevant,
because the statement furthers the object of the conspiracy. It says in effect: “Let us do this to achieve”.
In R vs. Blake & Tye, (1844) 6 QB 126, this was a case where Blake was an officer, employed in the
customs house, and Tye, an agent of the importers. They made false entries in his daybook, to have some
goods passed without paying full duty. These entries, and the counterfoil of his cheque-book showing that
money was paid to Blake were tendered in evidence by the prosecution in a trial of the two accused for the
offence of conspiracy to pass the goods without paying full duty. It was held that the (i) entries in the
daybook were admissible against Blake, as it was necessary for them to execute their common object; (ii) but
the counterfoil was irrelevant, being a mere statement to show that the plunder had been shared after the
object of the conspiracy had been achieved.
In Badri Rai vs. State of Bihar, 1959 SCJ 117, this was a case where the two accused met on the road a
police inspector who was conducting an investigation against one of them in a criminal case, and asked the
inspector to hush up the case for valuable consideration. A few days later, the other accused met the inspector
at the police station and offered a packet of Rs 500 saying that the accused, against whom investigation was
pending, had sent the money for hushing up the case. The two accused were charged with the offence of
conspiracy to bribe the police officer. The question that arose was whether the statement of one accused at
the police station was relevant against the other. It was held that (i) the evidence of the conversation on the
road showed that there were prima facie grounds for believing that the accused had entered into a conspiracy
to commit the offence, and (ii) therefore, under Sec. 10, the statement made by one of them, in execution
of the conspiracy, would be relevant against the other.
In Re N. Ramaratnam, AIR 1944 Mad 302, the first accused agreed to supply to the second accused a
packet of gelignite, an explosive, for the purpose of blowing up a bridge. The second accused along with
others utilised it for that purpose, but the attempt proved abortive. The next day the second accused wrote
to the first, describing the unsuccessful attempt and asking for a further supply of the explosive. In a trial of
the two accused and six others for the offence of conspiracy to blow up the bridge, the question arose as to
whether the letter written by the second accused would be relevant against the first accused. If the wider
interpretation is put on the section, it would be relevant, but it was held, putting only the restricted
interpretation on the section, that it would not be relevant. The first accused agreed to supply one packet,
which he supplied and was utilised. The common intention of the conspirators had been carried out, and
when a letter was written the next day, there was no conspiracy to further execute it.
In the case of Mirza Akbar vs. King emperor AIR 1940 PC 176, One Mirza Akbar and Mst. Mehr Laqa
were tried for conspiracy to commit the murder of Ali Askar, husband of Mst. Mehr Laqa through a hired
assasin Ali Sher. After the murder Mst. Mehr Laqa was arrested and was examined by a Magistrate. She
made a statement of the effect that there was a conspiracy between her and Mirza Akbar to murder Ali
Askar. The Trial Judge and Judicial Commissioner’s Court both held her statement admissible. On appeal,
the Privy Council held – The statement was made with reference to past act. The words ‘common intention’
in the section signify common intention existing at the time when the thing was done, written or said.
Things said, written or done while the conspiracy is afoot are relevant. The statement was not admissible.
After conspiracy gets over, any statement written or oral or any act done by either of conspirator then
that can not be relevant under Section 10 as here the statement or act should have been made while
common intention was in existence. The words “...in reference to common intention...” means in reference
to an existing common intention or an intention which has been first entertained by either of them.
7. WHEN FACTS NOT OTHERWISE RELEVANT BECOME RELEVANT (SEC. 11)

As per Section 11, facts not otherwise relevant are relevant in the following two situations.
1. If they are inconsistent with any fact in 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.
7.1. Principle : The object of a trial is to prove or disprove, by evidence, a particular claim or charge,
therefore any fact, which either proves or tends to disprove, that claim or charge is relevant. Section 11
attempts to state in popular language the general theory of relevancy and it is therefore described as the
residuary section dealing with relevancy of facts. The words of Section 11 are very wide. Collateral facts
which by way of contradiction are inconsistent with a fact in issue or another relevant fact, that makes the
existence of a fact in issue or relevant fact impossible or highly improbable or which by way of corroboration
are consistent with the existence of the fact in issue or a relevant fact, i.e. tend to render the existence of a fact
in issue or a relevant fact highly probable are themselves, made relevant by this section.
7.2. Inconsistent facts : 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.
The usual logic of the argument from essential inconsistency is that a certain fact cannot co-exist with
the doing of the fact in question, and therefore if that fact is true of a person of whom the act is alleged, then
it is impossible that he could have done the act. Professor Wigmore cites five (5) common cases falling under
the line of this argument.
EVIDENCE 43
1. The absence of the person charged, in another place. (Alibi)
2. The absence of the husband when the child was begotten, (Non access).
3. Survival of an alleged deceased person after supposed time of death.
4. The commission of a crime by a third person.
5. Self-infliction of the harm alleged.
7.3. Plea of Alibi : Alibi is a Latin term which means elsewhere. This section enables a person charged
with a crime to take what is commonly called the plea of alibi which means his presence elsewhere at the
time of the crime. His presence elsewhere is inconsistent with the fact that he should be present at the place
of the crime. It is used for the defence taken by an accused that when the occurrence took place he was so
for away from the place of occurrence that it is highly improbable that he would have participated in the
crime. Where, for example, a person is charged with the murder which took place at Calcutta, he can take
the defence that on the day in question he was in Bombay. In order to prove his presence in Bombay, he may
show his attendance at some place, for example, the fact that he visited a doctor or a vakil and he noted
down his visit in a professional diary or that he posted a letter written by himself on that day from Bombay,
or that he encashed a cheque at Bombay. (Refer illustration (a) which is on plea of alibi).
Alibi is a not an exception envisaged in IPC or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in
Section 11 that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. However, plea of alibi taken
by the defence is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case against the accused
(Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2016 SC 253).
7.4. Burden of proving the Plea of Alibi : The Plea of alibi is taken by defence at stage of defence
evidence when prosecution has all already fulfilled its burden of proof. Thus to start with, court will always
look at plea of alibi with slight degree of suspicion and will exercise its power under Section 165 IEA or
Section 311 Cr.PC to examine properly the evidence of plea of alibi. The court will also see the strength of
the circumstantial evidences proved by the prosecution and upon weighing and balancing the two, the
court will either accept or reject the plea of alibi.
It is well settled that the burden of proving the plea of alibi and making it reasonably probable lies on
the person who sets it up. In State of UP vs. Sughar Singh, AIR 1978 SC 191, the Supreme Court has
observed that the plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the
scene of the offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is
shown that the accused was so far away from the scene of the crime at the relevant time that he could not be
present at the place where he is alleged to be present. Applying this to the facts of the case, the Court held
that the plea of alibi was not established as the gap between the factory where the accused worked (he was
present at the factory at 8.30 a.m.) and the place of murder which took place at 9 a.m., was so short that the
accused could have easily reached there. (Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of UP, 1981 2 SCC 166). In of Munshi
Prasad vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031, a distance of 400 - 500 yards between the place of occurrence
and the place where the accused claimed to be present (present in a Panchayat meeting) was held to be not
amounting to "presence elsewhere". The Court observed that it could very much be probable that one could
be present at both the places more or less simultaneously.
In Bhubooni Sahu vs. King Emperor, AIR 1949 PC 257, the Privy Council was of the opinion that Alibi
evidence being proved through disinterested and impartial witnesses, no doubt will have a greater evidentiary
value, but very often a witness may not be in a position to offer such cogent alibi evidence. For example,
where a person who is accused of committing a crime but in fact he was sleeping in his house at that time
can give alibi evidence only through his family members. In such cases it is not possible for him to prove the
alibi through disinterested and impartial witnesses.
In Rajinder Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2007 SC, if the plea of Alibi is raised by the accused, the burden
to prove it lies on him which he could do by leading evidence in the trial and not by filing affidavits or
statements purported to have been recorded under Sec.161 CrPC. The statement of witness under Sec.161
CrPC are wholly inadmissible in evidence which cannot be taken into consideration. No finding of plea of
Alibi can be recorded by the High Court for the first time in a court under Sec. 482 CrPC.
Jummi & Ors vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (3) SCALE 588, In this case, it was observed by the S.C that it
is no doubt true that when an alibi is set up the burden is on the accused to lend credence to the defence
put up by him or her. However, the approach of the court should not be such as to pick holes in the case of
the accused person. The defence evidence has to be tested like any other testimony always keeping in mind
that a person is presumed innocent until he is found guilty.
7.5. Non-Access : Where the question is whether A is the legitimate son of B, the fact that B was in a far
off country, at the time when A was begotten and the mother remained throughout in India establishes
non-access. The fact that he did not have access to the mother of the child at the time when the child was
begotten is highly inconsistent with the fact that A is the legitimate son of B and it renders this fact highly
improbable.
7.6. Survival of the Alleged Deceased : Where the question 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 issue
that B killed A and also makes the fact in issue highly improbable.
7.7. The Commission of a crime by third Person : Where the question is whether A committed the
murder of B by causing injuries, the fact that A was killed by C by inflicting injuries is relevant as it is
inconsistent with the fact in issue that A committed the murder of B by causing injuries.
7.8. Self-inflicted harm : Where the question is whether A committed the murder of B by administering
poison, the fact that B committed a suicide by consuming poison is relevant as it is inconsistent with the
fact in issue that A administered poison to B.
7.9. Facts showing Probabilities/Improbabilities : Evidence can be given 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 many cases, particularly in reference to some of the facts, which are not directly
provable, the Court has to go by the probabilities of the situations. If, for example, there are five persons in
a room and one of them is murdered in circumstances, which show that it is the handiwork of any one or
more of them. Evidence will be allowed of every fact which makes it probable, which one of them caused the
death or which one of them was probably not connected with it. [Refer illustration (b)]. Where a person is
charged with cheating, evidence can be given of the fact that he belonged to an organization of habitual
cheats as this would make it probable that he committed the crime (Kalu Mirza Vs. Emperor 1909 37 Cal).
Facts which make thing highly improbable are also relevant. For example, in Santa Singh vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 525, the witnesses testified that they saw the deceased being shot at from a distance
of 25 feet. However, the medical report showed that the nature of the wound was such that it could have
been caused only from a distance less than a yard. Thus, the expert opinion rendered the statement of the
witnesses highly improbable.
Presence of fingerprints at the scene of occurrences is a positive evidence, but the absence of a fingerprint
is not enough to foreclose the presence of the persons concerned at the scene.
7.10. Wide Scope of the section : The section is too wide in its import. It does not place any restriction
upon the range of facts that can be admitted as showing inconsistencies or probabilities. It leaves the whole
thing at the discretion of the court. In Gade Lakshmi Mangraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC
2677, two persons were involved in a murder, and the fingerprints of only one of them were found on an
almirah and he did not challenge the evidence when produced by the prosecution, it was held that the other
EVIDENCE 45
accused could not challenge it. He was not heard to say that the absence of his finger impression was a
guarantee of the fact of absence from the scene of the crime.
8. SUITS FOR DAMAGES (SEC. 12)

In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine the amount of damages are relevant.
Section 12 applies to civil cases and enables the Court to take into cognizance any fact, which would help it
in determining the amount of damages. In civil cases, damages or compensation for the loss suffered is the
most common relief.
Much depends upon the principles of substantive law under which an action is brought. In Tort law the
courts take into account the motive, malice and intention of the wrongdoer. Even the reaches and ability of
the defendant to compensate play some part. Injured feelings of the plaintiff and the mental pain and
suffering caused by the tort are also relevant as they too have some bearing upon the quantum of damages.
In the Law of Contract, on the other hand, the mode and manner of breach, the intention of the party
committing the breach, mental pain and suffering caused by the breach are all irrelevant to the question of
damages. But, in recent times, even in case of contract this has become relevant. In civil cases, character of
plaintiff if affect quantum of damages will be also relevant (Sec.55 IEA).
9. RULES FOR PROVING CUSTOMS AND RIGHTS (SEC. 13)

Section 13 lays down rules of evidence for the proof of customs and rights. The section applies to all
kinds of rights, like full ownership, or rights like a right of easement or a right of way. Similarly it applies to
all customs, ancient as well as to those of a comparatively recent origin. The latter are usually referred to as
usages.
Custom is one of the chief sources of law. Custom is a particular rule which has existed from the time
immemorial and has obtained the force of law in a particular locality. It must be continued, unaltered,
uniform and constant and should be reasonable. Customs often pose a problem as to its proof. To take an
example Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allows parties who fall under the degree of prohibited
relationship to marry provided there is a custom prevailing to that effect in their community. Suppose now
that a person has married his mother’s sister’s daughter. This being a prohibited degree of relationship, he
is prosecuted for the violation of the Act. His defence is that there is a custom to that effect in his community.
How will such a custom be proved? Can he show that many members of his family or community have
solemnised similar marriage? But the fact that hundreds of persons have violated an Act does not and cannot
establish a custom. Often, therefore, the existence of a custom becomes difficult to prove.
Similarly, in matters of rights, proof of it poses a problem. If, for example, a person is prosecuted for
theft by fishing in a pond and he claims that he has a right to fish in that pond. The only evidence he may
be able to show is that he has been doing so before. But previous thefts cannot give him a right.
9.1. Modes of proving a custom : To facilitate the proof of rights and customs, Section 13 lays down
two important rules of relevancy of facts. The first principle admits facts, which show the origin or creation
of the custom or right and its subsequent history. The second principle admits evidence of facts showing the
practical instances in which the custom or right in question was followed.
Modes of proving a customs/right
By Transactions By Particular Instances

Sec. 13(a) Sec. 13(b)
Transaction : A "transaction" is something already done and completed. Whatever may be done by one
person, which affects another's rights, and out of which a cause of action may arise is a transaction. Though,
transaction means some business or dealing which was carried out or transacted between two or more
persons, however, under Section 13, a transaction is the wide term which also includes a contract. In all
cases, it is necessary that a 'transaction' must be a genuine and bonafide transaction. A benami transaction
which is a fictitious one, is not a valid transaction in the eyes of law.
Thus, 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 is relevant to prove the existence of a custom
or a right. Example of a ‘transaction’ are: a gift deed, sale deed, an agreement, coronation, holding a office in
a trust, temple, cases of res judicata, and so on. In a case before the Privy Council the question was whether
the relationship between A and B was that of partners or of employee. In 1936, shortly after they started the
business A had executed and handed over to B’s lawyer a document in which A had stated that the relationship
between the parties was that of employer and employee. The document was held to be admissible. {Hurbert
P. James vs. Gulam Hussain, AIR 1949 PC 1151}
Earlier there was a cleavage of opinion amongst various High Courts as to whether a former judgment
can operate as a “transaction” within the meaning of Section 13. But the Supreme Court in Tirumala
Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) vs. K.M. Krishniah, AIR 1998 SC 1132, has upheld the view that previous
judgment is a “transaction” within the meaning of Section 13. In this case, K.M. Krishniah filed suit for
grant of permanent injunction against TTD. The Court dismiss the suit by relied upon the judgment of the
sub-court, chittor in an earlier suit filed by the TTD against the Hathiranji Mutt in 1937 wherein that
court had declared the TTD’s title to this property. The Supreme Court held that judgment in a dispute
over a same land between two persons could be used by a party in a case in which the same land is in dispute
though he was not a party to the earlier proceeding.
Instance : It means an example, something which has already occured. Section 13(b) speaks of the
following particular instances :
(i) in which the right was claimed, recognised, or exercised.
(ii) in which its exercised was disputed, asserted or departed from.
For this purpose, it is essential that the instance in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised,
exercised etc. must be instances prior to the present suit in question. For example, the method or way of
property transfer, mortgage, gift etc.could be proved by giving instances of previous documents on the
subject. The judgment in support of a plea res judicata, lease, oral partition, entries in the maps are admissible
for the purpose.
10. STATE OF MIND, BODY OR BODILY FEELING (SEC 14)

Facts showing :
(a) The existence of any state of mind, such as intention [illustration (i) amd (j)], knowledge [illustration
(a), (b), (c) and (d)], good faith [illustration (f ), (g) and (h)], negligence [illustration (n)], rashness
[illustration (k)], ill-will [illustration (e)], or good-will towards any particular person; or
(b) The existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, [Illustration. (l) and (m)] -are relevant when
the existence of any such state of mind, or body, or bodily feeling, is in issue or is relevant.
This section declares the facts, which show the existence of any state of mind, such as, intention,
knowledge negligence, good faith, ill will, rashness, goodwill or body, or bodily feeling are relevant when
such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant. What has to be kept in mind is that this
section admits evidence only to the extent of proving state of mind, body or bodily feeling and not to prove
the existence of fact in issue for eg. in a murder case. This section would only admit as regards the state of
mind of the accused and not as regards whether the murder was actually committed.
EVIDENCE 47
State of Mind : In most crimes as well as civil wrongs, the state of mind of the accused or of the
defendant is an important element of the offence. For e.g., a person is liable for receiving stolen property
(Section 411 IPC) only if and if he had the “knowledge” of the fact that the property in question was stolen.
As per Sec. 3, facts are either physical or psychological. The fact of his receiving stolen property can be seen
through eyes by anybody present on the scene of the occurrence. But, whether he had the “knowledge” that
the property was stolen is not possible for others to gauge. Psychological facts are the subject of consciousness
and mind of a man is their seat. This mental state cannot be perceived by others. They themselves know it
and can state them. If they themselves are allowed to state their state of mind, then most of the criminals
would go unpunished. Even then, a man’s state of mind is a matter of fact capable of proof. The state of
mind cannot be established through direct proof, for example, through the testimony of witnesses; their
existence can only be ascertained either by the confession of the person whose mind is their seat, or by
presumptive inferences from other physical facts.
This section does not seem to lay down any principle. It rather leaves the whole thing at the discretion
of the court. The section says that in essence that when a state of mind has to be proved every fact from
which it can be inferred is relevant. Thus, evidence can be given to prove the mental state that the stolen
property was received with knowledge that it was stolen, it may be shown that he was in possession of many
other stolen articles or he was hiding them or was willing to sell the same away at a throw-away price. The
accused may show that he refused to sell below its natural price, as this would show his bonafide possession.
Explanation 1: [Illustrations (o) and (p)].
This explanation lays an important restriction upon the scope of the section as regards the state of
mind. The explanation is to the effect that in order to prove a state of mind, evidence can be given of only
such facts as it will prove the state of mind not in general, but in reference to the particular matter in
question. For example, where A is prosecuted for intentionally shooting down B, it may be shown that he
previously attempted to shoot down B in order to prove his guilty state of mind, but not of the fact that he
is in the habit of intentionally shooting at people.
In the case of R. vs. Prabhudas, (1874) 11 Bom 90, the accused was found in possession of a number of
documents apparently forged or being prepared for the purpose. It was held not relevant in a prosecution
for forging a promissory note as it would only show a tendency to commit crimes of a class and not an
intention to commit the particular crime. In Emperor vs. Haji Sher Mohd., (1921) 52 Bom LR 214, the
accused were charged under Sec. 400, IPC for belonging to gang of habitual dacoits. The prosecution
sought to prove that some of the accused had been previously convicted of theft or had been ordered to give
security for good behaviour on the ground of being habitual thieves. It was held that the evidence was not
admissible under Sec. 14 because the offence of which the accused were being tried was particularly belonging
to a gang of dacoits and simple theft or bad livelihood would not show an intention to belong a person to a
gang of dacoits. What has to be shown is a conduct of exact description and not of similar description.
The care that the court has to exercise is to see that when for the purpose of proving a particular state of
mind, evidence is offered of other crimes in which the accused was involved, they must be crimes of precisely
the same kind with which the accused is presently charged. Where the charge is that of intentional murder
and robbery, instances of other dacoities by the same person would not be relevant, for they would not show
an intention to cause the death of a particular person. But where the charge is that of bogus transaction for
imparting innocent looks to a shady deal, subsequent bogus transactions to cover up the earlier ones would
be relevant as this would go to rebut the defence of a person mixed up in the transactions that his involvement
was for an innocent purpose.
Evidence of previous convictions (Explanation 2) : The second explanation says that where by virtue of
the provisions in Section 14 the previous commission of an offence by a person is relevant, the previous
conviction of such person shall also be relevant to prove the particular state of mind or of body. Ordinarily
previous convictions are not allowed to be brought before the judge for the fear that they will unnecessarily
prejudice his mind against the accused. The record for previous conviction is at best an evidence of bad
character and Sec. 54 excludes such evidence. Bad character proves neither the commission of offence nor
the intention to commit it. In a case before the Supreme Court (Ram Lakhan Singh vs. State of UP, AIR 1977
SC 1936) a witness told the trial court that the accused had been convicted for an earlier offence and that he
belonged to a family of law breakers. Their Lordship cautioned that such evidence should not have been
admitted by the Sessions Judge. But Sec. 14 permits evidence of previous offences to be admitted whenever
this is necessary to prove a particular state of mind or of body, and all that the second explanation says is that
in such cases the previous conviction of the accused should also be relevant.
State of body or bodily feeling : Under this section, evidence can also be given of facts from which state
of a person’s body or bodily feeling can be inferred. In this regard, the statement of the affected person is a
crucial element, as he alone knows best of his body. The English case of Aveson vs. Kinnaird, 1805 6 East 188
is a good illustration on the point as to how statements can give clue to bodily feelings. Illustration (m) is
based on facts of this case.In this case there was an action upon a policy of life insurance on the life of the
plaintiff ’s wife. She having died, the question was whether the statements, of the good health of the assured
given at the time of affecting the policy were false. At about the time in question, she had received a visitor
whom she had told in the course of casual conversation that she was in a bad state of health. The court
allowed the visitor to give evidence of this fact. The court pointed out that statement was of her own account
of the cause of action and of her bodily infirmity and she has made it unaware before she could contrive any
statement for her own or her husband’s advantage and, therefore it was relevant.
Statements about one’s own bodily feeling are often of self-serving in nature. Therefore, they should be
taken into account with caution. Section 21 provides that caution, according to which a person is not
permitted to prove his own statement as to the existence of any state of mind or body unless the statement
was made at about the time when such state of mind or body existed and it was accompanied by conduct
rendering its falsehood improbable.
Similar facts : The Evidence Act does not make a mention of “similar facts”. However, there is nothing
in the Act which prevents evidence of similar facts. But a note of caution has to be struck. Every case has to
be tried on the basis of its own facts and not on the facts and decisions of other cases. A person charged with
theft, the fact that he has been guilty of several thefts before, will not prove that he is guilty of present theft.
Thus the evidence of similar facts, even if by the same person, is useless unless it has some probative value in
reference to a fact in controversy.
As a general rule, in order to prove that the accused is guilty of theft, the evidence of past or subsequent
theft committed by him are admissible, but with the following 2 limitations.
(1) Firstly, under the present section (Sec. 14) similar occurrences are admissible only to the extent to
show the state of mind of the accused and not to prove the existence of the fact in issue. Such similar
facts can be adduced in evidence only when the issue in question is the state of mind, that is, after
the main fact in issue has been established (main issue is whether the theft was actually committed
or not)
(2) And secondly, under the next section (Sec. 15) to overthrow the defence of the act in question being
a mere accident
Where a man is on his trial for a specific crime such as forging a note or coin or receiving a stolen
property, the issue is whether he is guilty of that particular act. To admit, therefore, as evidence against him
to the effect that he forged notes or received stolen articles in the past is to introduce collateral fact. This
cannot be done with the object of inducing the court to infer that because the accused has committed a
crime of similar description on other occasions he is to be presumed to have done the present act, but this
evidence can be relied upon to establish to prove the criminal intent.
EVIDENCE 49
Illustration
A is charged of receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. This offence is constituted of two facts:
(1) that he received a stolen property, and (2) that at the time he received the property he knew it to be
stolen. The fact that A was in possession of the stolen property; it has to be proved by direct evidence. To
prove that he received it with the “knowledge” of it being stolen; evidence may be led to the effect that at
the same time A was in possession of many other stolen properties. Similar acts may be proved under Sec.14
to prove the state of mind of the accused, such as, intention, knowledge, etc. but they cannot be admissible
to prove the commission of the actual act.
11. ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL ACTS (SEC. 15)

When the question is whether an act was :
(i) accidental, (ii) intentional, or (iii) 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.
Section 14 dealt with all cases in which mental state or bodily state is involved, whereas the section 15
picks out only those cases where the question is whether a particular act is accidental or intentional. This
section is a particular application of the general rule laid down in the previous section.Under this section,
evidences of similar facts can be adduced in order to overthrow the defence that the act in question was a
mere accident and not done with a particular intention.
A good illustration on this section is a Privy Council case of Makin vs. Attorney General for New South
Wales, (1894) AC 57. In this case, the accused John and his wife Sarah Makin were prosecuted for the
murder of a child whom they had earlier adopted from his parents. The body of the child was found buried
in the yard of the house which they occupied for the time being. Their defence was that the child had died
of natural causes. In order to overthrow this defence, evidence was offered to show that on earlier occasions
also they had adopted babies and in each case the body of the baby was found buried in the respective house
which they occupied from time to time.
This section would came into play only when it is doubtful as to whether the act was intentional or
accidental, but where the act in question is apparently intentional and there is no suggestion of accident,
Sec. 15 would not operate. This was pointed out by the Calcutta High Court in Emperor vs. Panchu Das,
(1920) ILR 47 Cal 671. In this case, the accused Panchu Das, sometime in 1914, introduced himself to a
rich prostitute as a Raja’s or a zamindar’s son. She agreed to become his mistress and allowed to visit her. In
a day or two he introduced another man as his doorkeeper. Both of them regularly visited her and then
suddenly disappeared. Later, the woman was found dead in her room, with her head completely severed
from the body and all her valuables gone. No trace of the two men could be found and the police dropped
the investigation. In 1916 again the two men resumed their activities and by 1918 when they were arrested
they had similarly suddenly disappeared and the all the three women in succession lost their cash and
ornaments.
In their trial for the murder and robbery of the first woman, the question of the admissibility of
subsequent similar occurrences arose. Majority held that such evidence was not relevant under any of the
provisions of the Act. It was not a question of the act being accidental or intentional. The woman was
undoubtedly murdered in a brutal way. The ornaments she possessed both in her room or on her person
had been stolen. There was no room for any doubt that the acts with which the accused were charged were
intentional. Thus where person was foolish enough to drown his three successive wives in the bath tub
shortly after undergoing same form of marriage with them, the earlier two deaths were held to be relevant in
his prosecutions for the third death showing that the death in each case was intentional or that he had the
intention to cause death. Where the accused was prosecuted for causing the death of 2 women cyclist by
driving his car against them, the fact that on two earlier occasions and one subsequent occasion he had
driven at woman cyclists was held to be relevant as showing that in each case, he was deliberate. (R. vs.
Mortimer, 1936 25 Cr. App. R 150)
Such evidence is admissible, under Sec. 15 itself, the restriction imposed by Sec. 14 that facts must
show the intention or knowledge towards the particular person or offences in question, should not be
applicable. As long as they are similar occurrences, the evidence will be relevant even if the other similar
offences was against other persons and not towards the victim in question, for the evidence shows that in
each case the act was intentional. From this point of view the judgment of the minority in Emperor vs.
Panchudas is to be preferred to that of the majority. The minority felt that the fact that the accused had
committed similar offences towards other prostitutes showed that they intended to cause harm to each
successive victim. It was not necessary for the relevancy of the evidence that the defence of accident should
have been set up.
In considering this section a doubt may arise with respect to illustration (o) to Sec.14 Why should not the
fact that A was in the habit of shooting at other people be relevant as forming “system” evidence under this
section? It would not be relevant because the question that arises in the illustration is whether A shot at B and
not whether the killing of B was accidental or intentional. The matter depends on the manner of the occurrence,
the number of times it was repeated, each additional case increasing the improbability of accident.
12. EXISTENCE OF COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEN RELEVANT (SEC. 16)

This section lays down that where a question arises as to whether a particular act was done, the mere
proof of existence of any course of business, according to which it is natural to expect such an act, will give
a presumption that the result was produced. However, the presumption is only permissible and not inevitable
presumption. Sec. 16 does not compel a court to draw presumption.
Illustration
(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was despatched. 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 that
particular letter was put in that place, are relevant.
(b) 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.
SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the relevance of Motive and Intention in Criminal Law. [GJS 2017]
2. What is meant by the word ‘alibi’? Whether plea of alibi is one of the general exceptions or a rule of
evidence? Discuss the relevance of plea of alibi in a criminal trial? [DJS 2018]
3. ‘J’ an Indian doctor was having a live in relationship with ‘R’ a U.S. citizen of Indian origin. Since ‘J’
was reluctant to marry ‘R’, the relationship between the two strained. ‘J’ and ‘R’ to patch up the
differences went for a holiday to Australia and reached there on 25th January 2010 at the Marina
Hotel, Sydney at 9 a.m. Soon thereafter both went out for sightseeing and came back to the hotel at 10
p.m. They had dinner together in the room. On the next day morning at 7 a.m. when ‘J’ got up, ‘R’
was not in the room. He made enquiries from the hotel staff and nearby. Since he could not trace out ‘R’
he checked out of the hotel at 11 a.m. He went to Boston and informed the parents of ‘R’ about her
missing from the hotel room. Without lodging any report either in Sydney or Boston, he comes back to
India. ‘R’s parents go to Sydney and lodge a report with police. Investigation is thus taken up after a
week of ‘R’ missing. From the bathroom attached to the room of Marina Hotel where ‘J’ and ‘R’ stayed,
EVIDENCE 51
reddish blood stains of blood group ‘A’ are recovered. Further finely chopped parts of a woman aged 20-
30 years suggesting an Anglo Indian Origin are recovered from a rubbish bin in the city of Sydney
within 200 metres of Marina Hotel. Parents of ‘R’ come tracing ‘J’ to India where he is found hiding at
a farm house in Delhi. On an FIR being lodged for offence under Section 302 IPC, ‘J’ is tried for the
same.
Case of prosecution.
(a) ‘R’ was last seen alive in the company of ‘J’;
(b) ‘J’ floated the false defence that ‘R’ left him in the morning of 26th January 2010;
(c) ‘J’ did not lodge any complaint to Sydney police;
(d) Body parts were recovered from a rubbish bin only 200 metres away from Hotel Marina;
(e) The body parts were identified to be that of ‘R’;
(f ) The blood group of blood stains found in the bathroom matched the blood group of ‘R’ and
(g) ‘J’ remained absconding for a period of two years.
Case of defence;
(a) No motive of alleged crime has been proved;
(b) Mutilation of the body was possible only by surgical instruments and not by a butter knife or a
fork.
There is no evidence that ‘J’ had access to any surgical instrument;
(c) The hypothesis of ‘J’ committing murder in the bathroom is ruled out as no employee or guest of
the hotel has seen ‘J’ taking parts of the body out of the hotel;
(d) Hypothesis of guilt is further ruled out as ‘J’ himself informed the parents of ‘R’ about her missing
and
(e) ‘J’ had not absconded and had merely come back to his house in India as he could not live without
‘R’ at Boston.
Write a judgment concerning the guilt or otherwise of the accused, discussing the rival contentions
in relation to the circumstances that have emerged, citing the statutory provisions and case law.Write
a judgement concerning the guilt or otherwise of the accused, discussing the rival contentions in
relation to the circumstances that have emerged, citing the statutory provisions and case law.
[DJS 2011]
4. Write a short notes on Relevancy, admissibility and credibility of evidence. [DJS 2008]
5. One ‘A’ a widower living alone had employed a full time male domestic servant ‘B’ and he had been
staying in A’s house for quite some time. ‘A’ used to go everyday in the morning to a temple for about
two hours and his servant used to be there in the house. ‘A’ started suspecting that his servant was
misappropriating household things in his absence and so one day he terminated his job and ‘B’ left the
house conveying his unhappiness to ‘A’. Next day as usual ‘A’ went to the temple and when after two
hours he came back he found the lock of the entrance door of his house broken and when he entered
inside he found that his imported TV and some cash was missing. He immediately went to his next
door neighbour ‘C’ and informed him about the theft. His neighbour C told him that sometime back
he had seen his servant ‘B’ and one more person taking away TV on a three wheeler scooter. Immediately
thereafter both ‘A’ and ‘C’ go to the nearest police station and an FIR is lodged against ‘B’. Statement
of ‘C’ is also recorded wherein ‘C’ claimed that he had seen ‘B’ and one more person whom he would be
able to indentify on seeing him again taking away the TV. Next day of the incident ‘B’ is arrested and
he makes a disclosure statement and gets one TV and some currency notes recovered. At his instance his
associate ‘D’ is also arrested but nothing is recovered from him). During the trial of ‘B’ and ‘D’, ‘A’
deposes that he had been told by ‘C’ on the day of the incident that he had seen his servant ‘B’ and one
more person taking away one TV. He also identifies the recovered currency notes. ‘C’ in his chief
examination supports A’s version and he also identifies both the accused correctly to be the culprits. His
cross examination is deferred for the next day when he turns hostile and states that he had not seen ‘B’
and ‘D’ taking away the TV nor had he told so to ‘A’. ‘C’ maintains that statement even when he is
cross-examined by the public prosecutor. Investigating Officer, in his evidence, deposes about making
of disclosure statement by ‘B’ while in police custody and his getting recovered one TV and some
currency notes and arrest of ‘D’. Defence counsel argues that evidence of ‘A’ that ‘C’ had told him that
he had seen his servant ‘B’ and one more person taking away the TV had become hearsay evidence
because ‘C’ himself had turned hostile and had denied having said so to ‘A’ and so entire evidence of ‘C’
gets washed off the record and that evidence of alleged recovery of TV and currency notes at the instance
of ‘B’ and identification of ‘D’ by ‘B’ in court is of no value as there was no prior Test Identification
Parade (TIP) got conducted by the police and so both the accused should be acquitted. Write a judgment
dealing with each of these contentions of the defence counsel. [DJS 2006]
6. Five Police officials A-1 to A-5 are being tried for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal
Code read with section 34 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on the night intervening 31st
December 1998 and 1st January 1999, they with the common intention of killing all of them killed
three persons, who were returning to Delhi from Agra in a Maruti Van, by fire arms. Investigation was
conducted by the C.B.I. No Public witness who might have witnessed the occurrence came forward to
support the case. Prosecution, however, established and relied upon the following circumstances:
(1) Police Officer A-1 who was also incharge of Police Station was informed by constable that he had
received information that certain criminals are moving in a Maruti Car and they are firing shots.
(2) Getting the information A-1 with A-2 to A-5 immediately left the police station armed with revolvers
and riffles in a police jeep.
(3) After about two hours A-1 to A-5 returned to the police station and brought back three dead bodies
and one Maruti Van.
(4) Maruti Van was found to be damaged, glasses broken, it having bullet marks and blood marks.
(5) All the bodies had bullet injuries on them and post mortem report showed that deceased were
killed on account of firing from rifles.
(6) Ballistic report showed that pistols found near dead bodies were never used and were in fact defective.
(7) There was no damage or marks on the jeep used by the police officials/accused.
(8) None of the accused had sustained any injury on account of alleged firing from the van.
(9) Accused A-1 took away the police station diary which he made available four days after the occurrence
and the diary was found manipulated.
Accused A-1 to A-5 pleaded that they had to fire upon the vehicle in order to apprehend the criminals
who have fired indiscriminately from inside the Maruti Van.
Write the judgment. [DJS 1999]
7. H, Husband is facing trial for the offences under sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code for having
committed the murder of his wife W by administering poison to her. There are no eye witnesses to the
occurrence. However prosecution established and relied upon the following circumstances in order to
prove its case against H:
(1) H was an Army Officer posted in Delhi and was living in a quarter with his wife W during the
relevant period.
EVIDENCE 53
(2) W had some white spots on some parts of her person and H believed that W was suffering from
Leprosy.
(3) H and W were not having cordial relation and often quarrelled, W alleging that H was having illicit
relation with the widow of his elder brother.
(4) H although had obtained a travel warrant of W from the military authority but travelled alone to
his native place in Pune around the same period when body of W was recovered in a decomposed
state.
(5) H on reaching his native place falsely represented to the mother of W that W could not accompany
him as she was getting treatment for certain aliment.
(6) Body of W was recovered by the police from near the railway track at a distance of about 100 meters
from the house of ‘H’, two days later, to the date of which H had travelled to his native place but
the post mortem examination put the time of the death of W of the date of the departure of H.
(7) House of H was found locked from outside when the police took H there, seven days after his arrest
from Pune.
(8) Certain ornaments, a wrist watch and some new clothes belonging to W were recovered from the
house of the sister-in-law of H pursuant to his own disclosure and confession of the guilt before the
police.H pleaded innocence and put forth the defence plea that W had declined to accompany him
to his native place and so he left alone, leaving W in the quarter in Delhi and W might have
committed suicide by consuming poison.
Write judgment. [DJS 1999]
8. Six appellant were convicted under sections 395, 396, 395 read with section 397, I.P.C. for having
looted a passenger bus at about 11 p.m. on a moonless night and having caused death of one passenger.
The sole basis for their conviction was their identification by different PWs in the identification parade
conducted by the Executive Magistrate. The evidence showed that after their arrest, the accused persons
were kept in the police station for 2 days and that at the time of holding test identification parade, the
accused persons were in fetters whereas the other under trials, who were mixed with the accused persons
were not in fetters. The witnesses also deposed that the culprits had their faces muffled at the time of
incident. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that in these circumstances it would not have been
possible for the PWs to identify the distinctive features of the culprits at the time of commission of
offence so their subsequent identification in test becomes doubtful. It is also contended that during
their detention at the police station for 2 days, they were shown to the PWs. What is evidentiary value
of such a test identification? Would you uphold the conviction? [DJS 1996]
9. On 5.6.94, at 5 A.M. Police Control Room received information that an incident had taken place in
house No. 10, New Colony. The police reached there and found that wife of the accused had been
murdered. The accused told police that he slept with his wife in the back verandah after his brother
retired to his bedroom at 10 P.M. He locked the collapsible door of the Verandah. His wife was wearing
gold ornaments. At 1.30 A.M., he felt chilly so went to sleep in the bedroom. He came out at 4 A.M.
to urinate and found his wife almost naked upto thighs, her tongue protruding and on touching her he
found her dead. He also noted some scratches on her tongue, neck and her gold ornaments missing
from her body. He told that his wife as strangulated by somebody while committing theft of her
ornaments. He screamed and his brother and neighbour collected. His telephone was out of order so he
asked his brother and neighbour to inform the police. Police found injuries in the nature of bruises etc,
on the front part of the body on the next as well as on the back of the accused. The accused was tried for
committing the murder of his wife. There was no eye witness of the occurrence. The circumstances set
up by the prosecution against the accused during trial were:-
(i) Information to the police at 5 P.M. given by neighbour and not the accused.
(ii) The accused having slept alone at night in the verandah with the deceased after having locked the
collapsible door of the verandah from inside and the lock having been found in the corner of the
back courtyard in the morning without being tampered with;
(iii) The deceased and the accused were last seen together;
(iv) The ornaments, which were stated to be on the person of the deceased while she was sleeping, and
which were found missing when she was discovered and having being recovered from the drain hole
of the bathroom attached to the bedroom of the accused in consequence of and in pursuance of a
disclosure statement made by the accused;
(v) Injuries found on the person of the accused in the nature of abrasions, contusions, and lastly;
(vi) The accused having given first information to the police by means of his statement.
Other evidence was that the relation between accused and his wife were cordial and there was some
discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses of the recovery of gold ornaments. About injuries on
his person accused alleged that he was beaten up by the police. Write a judgment. [DJS 1996]
10. In the presence of A, murder is committed by B, C immediately comes out of his shop near the place of
occurrence, and A tells him that B had committed the murder. At the trial of B, A bears testimony to
the occurrence, but he is not examined if he had told C that B had committed the murder. C is
produced by the prosecution and he states that A told him about the murder. Is the statement of C
admissible in evidence? [DJS 1991]
11. In a criminal case a pair of shoes was recovered from the house of the accused. Shoes found in his house
were held to belong to him and the moulds of the foot-prints taken on the spot tallied with the
impressions made by those shoes on the spot of crime. In the examination under section 313 Cr.PC. the
accused was asked and he agreed and the shoes being tried on his feet it appeared that they fitted his
feet. Court took this into consideration while holding him guilty. In appeal it was assailed. Decide and
give reasons. [DJS 1990]
12. In what cases is it necessary to hold an identification parade. Discuss the precautions to be taken, the
procedure to be adopted for holding it, and the value of test identification. [DJS 1990]
13. How are facts showing the existence of a state of mind relevant when the existence of such state of mind
is in issue? [DJS 1989]
14. A is accused of murdering a woman X, It is sought to be proved that two years ago he murdered his wife
Y and so had the mens rea to murder X. [DJS 1989]
15. A and B, his wife, are charged with the murder of a baby entrusted to them for nursing. The prosecution
adduces evidence that several babies entrusted to the two accused were never heard of thereafter, and the
dead bodies of several near their residence buried in the yard of house occupied by them. Is the evidence
relevant and admissible in each case? [DJS 1989]
16. X and Y are prosecuted for conspiracy to blow up a bridge. Owing to the failure of the fuse there was no
explosion or damage. A letter written by X and Y describing the failure of the attempt to wreck the
bridge is sought to be put in as evidence. Would it be admissible? Discuss. [DJS 1984]
17. K had suspicion that B had liason with his wife. He approached C and suggested that B should be
killed. Thereafter K alongwith D got knife of unusual dimensions prepared from Shamu. K armed with
the knife and accompanied by C and D attacked B while he was asleep and caused death by infecting
two injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. During recovery it
was found to carry human blood. It was also found that C had confessed to Harnam about his involvement
in commission of murder by the three men. C became approver and K died before trial commenced.
EVIDENCE 55
Evidence against D comprises of: Evidence against D comprises of :
(1) Approver’s statement implicating himself and others.
(2) Shamu’s statement regarding preparation of knife.
(3) Statements of witnesses of disclosure and recovery.
(4) Previous confessional statement of C.
(5) Medical Evidence.
(6) Evidence showing motive.
Please write short judgment. [DJS 1976]
18. Discuss with the instance that Relevancy is not the same thing as admissibility of evidence.[DJS 1973]
19. Write short note on Res Gestae. [BJS 1986, 1984, 1979, 1971, RJS 2011, 1988,
HJS 2015, 2008, 1998, DJS 1971]
20. What do you understand by relevancy of facts? Are all the relevant facts admissible in court? Explain.
[UPJS 2006]
21. Answer with reason whether the facts which are being proved are relevant?
(i) ‘A’, an accused of theft is seen to give the stolen property to ‘B’ who is seen to give it to ‘A’s wife. ‘B’
says as he delivers it- “ ‘A’ says you to hide this”. Whether ‘B’’s statement is relevant?
(ii) The question is whether ‘A’ committed a crime? The circumstance are such that the crime must
have been committed either by ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ or ‘D’. every fact which shows that the crime could have
been committed by no one else and it was not committed by either ‘B’, ‘C’, or ‘D’. Whether the
above stated facts are relevant? [UPJS 2006]
22. Point out whether in the following case, the facts sought to be proved are relevant:
(i) ‘A’ is charged with shooting at ‘B’ with intent to kill him. In order to prove ‘A’s intent the prosecution
wants to prove the facts that ‘A’ has earlier shot one C.
(ii) ‘A’ is tried for rioting and it is proved that he was marching at the head of the mob, the prosecution
wants to prove that the mob was shouting. [UPJS 2003]
23. ‘A’s tried for murder of ‘B’. Whether the facts that ‘C’ knew that ‘A’ has murdered ‘B’ and that ‘C’ has
tried to extort money from ‘A’ by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant? Answer with
reference to legal provisions. [UPJS 1999]
24. What fact are relevant when the question is as to the existence of any right or custom? Answer with
examples. [UPJS 1999]
25. “All admissible evidence is relevant, but all relevant evidence is not necessarily admissible.” Comment.
[UPJS 1992]
26. Point out whether in the following cases the facts sought to be proved are relevant.
(i) ‘A’ is charged with shooting at ‘B’ with intent to kill him. In order to prove ‘A’s intent the prosecution
wants to prove the facts that ‘A’ has earlier shot on ‘C’.
(ii) ‘A’ is tried for rioting and is proved to have marched at the head of mob, the prosecution wants to
prove that mob shouting. [UPJS 1992]
27. Distinguish between relevancy and admissibility on evidence. [UPJS 1986]
28. A is tried for the murder of B. Are the facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C,
that B had tried to extract money from A by threatening to make the knowledge public, relevant? Give
reasons of your answer. [UPJS 1985]
29. Are facts which are the occasions, cause of effect of facts in issue relevant? Illustrate your answer.
[UPJS 1985]
30. When right or custom is in question? What facts are relevant? Illustrate your answer. [UPJS 1985]
31. What are facts necessary to explain or to introduce relevant facts, relevant? Discuss and illustrate your
answer. [UPJS 1984]
32. When are facts not otherwise relevant, relevant? Illustrate you answer. [UPJS 1984]
33. ‘Facts 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 time any place.’
[UPJS 1983]
34. In a charge of murder of ‘K’ where the prosecution case is that on the day of incident the accused
uttered a threat that he would finish off ‘K’ and then after also kill himself. Is the evidence admissible
to show that the accused tired to killing ‘K’? [UPJS 1983, UJS 2002]
35. ‘A’ registers a case of attempted robbery against one unknown person, However, within a week on the
basis of some secret information, the police arrests a suspect ‘B’ In Test Identification Parade (TIP), ‘A’
identifies the suspect as robber. After six months during the trial ‘A’ identifies ‘B’ in his examination-in-
chief, but his cross-examination is deferred at the request of counsel for the accused. On next hearing
after one month, in his cross examination ‘A’ supports the case of prosecution on all aspects, but deposes
that he is not sure whether accused ‘B’ was the robber as the incident happened at night and he could
catch only momentary glimpse of the robber, In his re-examination he admits that he had identified
accused ‘B’ in TIP. There is no other eye witness to the incident of robbery. How will you decide the
case ? [HJS 2015]
36. How far are the facts showing existence of the state of mind or of a state of bodily feelings relevant in
evidence? Illustrate your answer. [HJS 2008]
37. Are the following facts relevant :
(i) P is tried for the murder of Q by intentionally shooting him dead. Evidence is given to show that P
was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them.
(ii) P is accused of fraudulently delivering a counterfeit coin to Q. Evidence is given to show that soon
before P had delivered counterfeit coins to R and C. [HJS 1986]
38. Under what circumstances and what extent is the previous and subsequent conduct of a party to a suit
or proceeding relevant ? [HJS 1986]
39. Discuss the relevancy of facts showing existence of state of mind or of body or of bodily feeling.
[HJS 1981]
40. “Evidence of similar transactions is admissible.” Discuss with reference to case law. [HJS 1975]
41. X wrote a letter to Y asking him to supply inflammable explosives for blowing up a Government
hospital. Y took some time in sending it. In the meantime, X wrote another letter to Y seeking reasons
about the delay. However, before the second letter could reach Y, X received the inflammable explosives
sent by Y and X used the same in blowing up a hospital.
In case of conspiracy, prosecution wants to produce both these letters. Discuss and decide whether they
are admissible or not? [OJS 2014]
42. A and B are being prosecuted for murder of C by a pistol and in the Court the prosecution proves that
A and B had plotted to kill C. In defence, A pleads that he is not guilty of murder of C as the fingerprints
on the murder-weapon are only of B. Decide, giving reasons. [OJS 2014]
EVIDENCE 57
43. Explain the term ‘Explanatory Facts’ with special reference to facts establishing identity of persons.
[OJS 2013]
44. Mr. Rakesh and Mr. Salim were two police constables attached with police station of Area A. They were
involved in identification parade to be held by investigation agency of Area B. To avoid any criticism,
the identification parade took place at Area C which was around hundred kilometres away from Area A
and B. However, photographs of accused persons were shown to both the constable-witnesses before
such identification parade and such parade took place in lock up at Area C. Discuss the legitimacy of
such an identification parade. [OJS 2013]
45. Explain admissibility of a fact and relevancy of a fact. [BJS 2000]
46. “Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same
transaction are relevant.” Discuss. [BJS 1987]
47. Discuss the ‘Relevancy and admissibility are neither co-extensive nor interchangeable terms’.
[BJS 1975]
48. Test identification parade has no independent value of its own. Respond to this statement and comment
on the evidentiary relevance of the test identification parade. [PJS 2013]
49. Under what provisions of the Evidence Act are the following facts relevant or not relevant:
(a) In a murder trial the prime accused pleads that on the date of the incident he was detained in the
maximum security prison under Court orders.
(b) In a case of the theft of jewellery from the bed-room against the servant the fact that only the
domestic servant had keys to the bed-room and knew that the jewellery was in the house that night.
(c) In a murder trial the post-mortem report reveals the large intestines were more or less empty that
shows the murder was committed 6 to 8 hours after the major meal.
(d) In a conspiracy trial a letter recovered from the possession of one of the party members describing
the golden days when every member worked in unison and desiring the same kind of resolve once
again is sought to be adduced as evidence. [PJS 2001]
50. Discuss the relevancy of the following facts under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(a) In his trial for murder of B by stabbing after a long chase, A advanced evidence that a week before
the alleged murder of B, A had undergone a heart surgery in a Government Hospital.
(b) The fact testified to by D that soon before the alleged murder by A, C had peeped through the
widow and exclaimed “Look A is aiming his gun towards B”.
(c) The fact that B was seen coming out of the house A distressed and sobbing soon after her alleged
rape by A.
(d) In A’s trial under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, for cheating by falsely representing to B that he was
the manager of a Bank and would employ her as a cashier if she deposited with him Rs. 10,000/-,
evidence is sought ought to be given that A had made similar representations to C and D and obtained
Rs. 10,000/- from each of them. [PJS 2000]
51. X goes to the Police Station and narrates the facts and circumstances in which he killed his girl friend
and her brother. The police registered a case under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against X and
arrested him. The FIR has four distinct parts : (a) particulars relating to his identity, address etc; (b)
particulars relating to motive and preparations ; (c) particulars relating to the actual killing; and (d)
particulars relating to after killing conduct such as hiding the dead bodies, concealing the knife and his
blood stained clothes.
On the basis of this information, the police recovered the dead bodies, knife and blood stained clothes.
X is on trial and the FIR is the only evidence against him. Decide in the light of the relevant case.
[PJS 2000]
52. A, B, C and D belonged to the same religious faith and as such had formed a group with the objective
of vindicating their honour.
A, the leader, wrote a letter to B, C and D appreciating their resolve to launch a common struggle
against injustice and ill-treatment of their “Kaum”. The common struggle plan involved terrorizing the
population by engineering a series of bomb blasts and causing disruption by other means. After the first
blast, the police swung into action and arrested many suspects, including A, B, C and D. The prosecution
is particularly interested in adducing the following two facts with the help of Section 10 of the Evidence
Act:
(a) Two taped cassettes in which the specific roles assigned to each member of the common struggle is
elaborated.
(b) A personal diary of A in which the story of the group awakening is recorded with a view to be
published as a novel. Discuss. [PJS 2000]
53. Discuss the provision of Indian Evidence Act under which following facts are relevant :
(i) The fact that B was seen coming out of the house of A distressed and sobbing soon after her alleged
rape by A.
(ii) Mr. A was charged with murder of B in Calcutta. A shows his railway ticket and hotel bills in his
name of a Mumbai Hotel one day earlier than the day of incident.
(iii) In a trial of rape of Kamla, the fact that on the night of rape, the police had received a distress
telephonic call from a woman in which just before abrupt disconnection, she could only say “save
me or I will be ravished”.
(iv) Shortly before Ram was pick-pocketed in the park, he showed a bundle of notes to his friend in the
park. [PJS 1999]
54. Under what provisions of the Evidence Act are the following facts relevant.
(a) The cries for help heard by the people residing around the place where the girl was raped.
(b) A tape recorded conversation between the police officer and a party involved in a crime, concerning
hushing up of the case.
(c) The fact that A was absconding soon after the alleged crime.
(d) A was in possession of many other stolen cycles at the time of the raid in his house for the theft.
[PJS 1998]
55. A, B and C had entered into a conspiracy and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the
properties entrusted to them in their first term of the two years. A, who managed to get an extension for
a second term of two years, made certain alteration in the records with a view to screening the first term
transaction of criminal breach of trust.
Is the evidence of alterations made by A during the second term, but before A, B and C had entertained
the idea of the conspiracy ? [PJS 1998]
56. “Whatever relevant is not necessarily admissible but all whatever admissible is relevant.” Explain.
[UJS 2014]
57. “Facts which are not in issue are so connected with a fact in issue as to form the same transaction are
relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different time and place.” Explain the
statement with the help of examples. [UJS 2014]
EVIDENCE 59
58. Relevancy and admissibility are neither synonymous nor is the one included in other. Elucidate this
statement. [UPJS 2000, UJS 2013, PJS 2019]
59. What kinds of facts are to be taken as relevant under Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act?[HPJS 2015]
60. Explain the relevance of ‘conspiracy evidence’. What are the elements to be proved in case of criminal
conspiracy and civil conspiracy ? [HPJS 2014]
61. How are facts showing the existence of a state of mind relevant when the existence of such state of mind
is in issue ? [HPJS 2014]
62. For the application of doctrine of ‘res gestae’ when can facts be said to be part of the same transaction ?
[HPJS 2013]
63. Explain the circumstances when a collateral fact may be admissible under Section 11 of the Indian
Evidence Act. [HPJS 2013]
64. Explain the relevancy of ‘Identification parade’ under the Indian Evidence Act. [HPJS 2012]
65. What are the elements to be proved to establish conspiracy under the Indian Evidence Act? [HPJS 2012]
66. In the presence of ‘A’ murder is committed by ‘B’ ‘C’ immediately comes out of his shop near the place
of occurrence and ‘A’ tells him that ‘B’ had committed the murder. At the trial of ‘B’, ‘A’ bears testimony
to the occurrence but he is not examined about the fact that he had told ‘C’ that ‘B’ committed the
murder. ‘C’ is produced by the prosecution and he states that ‘A’ told him about the murder. Is the
statement of ‘C’ admissible in evidence ? [HPJS 2010]
67. In a dacoity case, two eye witnesses correctly identified the accused at the Test Identification Parade,
and no infirmity was found in their testimony in the witness box. The Advocate for the accused argued
that the Test Identification is not admissible legally in evidence, though no lacuna was pointed out in
the formalities of the Test Identification Parade or the Test Identification Memo.
Decide discussing evidentiary value of the Test Identification. [HPJS 2008]
68. A is tried for murder of B by intentionally shooting him. Evidence is given that A was in the habit of
shooting at persons with intent to kill them.
Decide the relevancy and admissibility of this evidence, giving reason and law on the point. [HPJS 2007]
69. “The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court
must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come
together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the
latter does.” Explain the law relating to relevancy enshrined under Section 10 of Evidence Act in the
light of Kehar Singh and Ors. vs. The State (Delhi Administration). [HPJS 2019]
70. Discuss the scope of Section 11 of Evidence Act, 1872. Why it is called as residuary clause of relevancy?
Whether a statement which is otherwise not relevant under any of the other provisions of Evidence Act,
1872 may be permitted to be adduced under Section 11? [HPJS 2019]
71. A victim of rape while coming back to village, was weeping and abusing the accused. State what part of
fact is relevant and in what form? [MPJS 1998]
OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. The question is whether A was ravished. The fact 2. The question is, whether ‘A’ was ravished and
that without making a complaint she said that thereafter murdered?
she was ravished is: The fact that, without making a complaint, she
(a) Not relevant said that she had been ravished-
(b) Relevant (a) Is relevant as a conduct
(c) Partly relevant (b) Is relevant as a substantive evidence
(d) Neither relevant nor irrelevant (c) Is relevant as a secondary evidence
(d) May be relevant under Section 32(1) or 157 (d) A is a man of bad character.
of Evidence Act. 10. Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant if
3. To what facts of the following the rules of they are inconsistent or make highly probable or
relevancy have been discussed under Section 8 improbable any fact-in-issue or a relevant fact
of the Indian Evidence Act?
(a) Cannot be relevant.
(a) Motive
(b) Relevant U/s 11 of Evidence Act.
(b) Preparation
(c) Relevant U/s 9 of Evidence Act.
(c) Previous or subsequent conduct
(d) Relevant U/s 7 of Evidence Act.
(d) All of the above
11. The case of Sawal Das V/s State of Bihar is related
4. The facts showing the existence of any state of
mind under Section 14 of the Indian Evidence to-
Act relate to- (a) Plea of Alibi
(a) Intention (b) Knowledge (b) Rule of Res gestae
(c) Good faith (d) All of these (c) Rule of Estoppel
5. Who can take identification parade? (d) Rule of Res judicata
(a) Police officer (b) Magistrate 12. In a trial of murder of ‘B’ by ‘A’ which fact is not
(c) Any citizen (d) Any of these relevant?
6. The question is, whether A committed murder (a) ‘A’ was absconding immediately after the
of a person on a particular day at Kolkata, the murder of ‘B’
fact that on that day A was at Lahore- (b) ‘A’ and ‘B’ were seen together before murder.
(a) Is relevant (b) Is irrelevant (c) ‘A’ had borrowed Rs. 50,000 from B.
(c) Is not relevant (d) None of these (d) ‘A’ was in Bombay on that day while murder
7. The question is, whether a particular letter of ‘B’ was committed in Chennai.
reached A. The fact that it was posted in due 13. Which of the following does not find a mention
course and was not returned through dead letter as showing state of mind under Section-14 of
office-
the Evidence Act, 1872?
(a) Are not relevant (b) Are irrelevant
(a) Ill will (b) Motive
(c) Are relevant (d) None of these
(c) Good faith (d) Negligence
8. A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact
14 The question is, whether ‘A’ committed a crime
that before the death of B, A procured poison
at Kolkata on a certain day. In answer to this
similar to that which was administered to B is:
question, which of the following fact is relevant?
(a) Non-relevant
(a) That ‘A’ was out that day at Mumbai
(b) Relevant
(b) That ‘A’ habitually goes to Kolkata
(c) Partly relevant
(c) That ‘A’ habitually commits crime
(d) Neither relevant not irrelevant
(d) None of the above.
9. A is accused of the murder of B by beating him.
What is not admissible as evidence? 15. Relevancy and admissibility under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 are
(a) Whatever was said by A or B by standers at
the time of beating (a) Synonymous
(b) A has intention for murder of B. (b) Co-extensive
(c) Marks on the ground of struggle between A (c) Neither synonymous not co-extensive
and B. (d) Synonymous and co-extensive both
EVIDENCE 61
16. Under Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, (c) The fact that ‘A’ had qualified in P.C.S. (J)
1872, which of the following facts becomes (d) The fact that ‘B’ was in the habit of driving
relevant, namely negligently.
(a) Facts showing state of mind 24. Match List-I with List-II and select correct
(b) Facts showing state of body answer using the codes given below the lists-
(c) Facts showing state of bodily feelings List-I List-II
(d) All the above (Relevancy of facts) (Section of Evidence Acts)
17. Which section of Evidence Act deals with rule of A Facts as effect of 1. Sec. 9
res gestae? facts in issue
(a) Section 7 (b) Section 9 B. Facts forming part 2. Sec. 8
(c) Section 10 (d) Section 6 of same transaction
18. Identification parade can be held by C. Facts which constitute 3. Sec. 7
(a) Police Officer only (b) Magistrate only preparation for any fact
(c) Public Servant only (d) Any person in issue
19. Which one of the following sections of the Indian D. Facts necessary to explain 4 Sec. 6
Evidence Act, 1872 provides that evidence may or introduce relevant facts.
be given of facts in issue and relevant facts ? Codes:
(a) Sec. 3 (b) Sec. 4 A B C D
(c) Sec. 5 (d) Sec. 60 (a) 1 2 3 4
20. Which one of the following is not inclusive in (b) 4 3 2 1
Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for
(c) 3 4 2 1
relevancy ?
(d) 2 3 1 4
(a) Intention (b) Motive
25. The fact, though not in issue, are so connected
(c) Preparation (d) Conduct
with fact in issue, as to form part of a same
21. Which of the following does not find a mention transaction are-
as showing state of mind under Sec. 14 of the
(a) Relevant under the rule of Res Gestae, Section
Evidence Act?
6
(a) Intention (b) Knowledge
(b) Not relevant
(c) Motive (d) Good faith
22. Under which of the following provisions of the
(d) Primary evidence
Evidence Act the word “forming part of the same
transaction” occurs? 26. Match the following and tick the correct code.
(a) Under Sec. 5 (b) Under Sec. 6 List-I List-II
(c) Under Sec. 7 (d) Under Sec. 8 (Section to IEA) (Relevant Facts)
23. ‘A’s death is caused due to negligent driving of A. Section 7 1. Motive of relevant facts
‘B’. In the word “forming part of the same B. Section 8 2. Facts inconsistent with
transaction” occurs? relevant fact
(a) The fact that ‘A’ was a young man of 30 years C. Section 11 3. Cause of relevant facts
(b) The fact that ‘A’ was a young man with good D. Section 14 4. Facts showing existence
physique. of any state of body
Codes: (c) If the statement is of a deceased person, when

A B C D it relates to cause of his death.
(a) 1 2 3 4 (d) If the statement is part of the transaction-in
(b) 3 1 2 4 issue.
(c) 3 4 1 2 33. In which Section of the Indian Evidence Act the
words “facts not otherwise relevant, becomes
(d) 4 3 2 1
relevant” are provided?
27. A’ is accused of murder of ‘B’ by pistol alleged to
(a) Section 9 (b) Section 11
be purchased on 15th September at Dehradun.
A makes a statement that on 15th September he (c) Section 12 (d) Section 14
was at Lucknow, not at Dehradun. A’s statement 34. A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing
is a relevant fact under: them to be stolen. It is proved that he was in
(a) Section 8 (b) Section 11 possession of a particular stolen article. The fact
that, at the same time, he was in possession of
(c) Section 9 (d) Section 14
many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending
28. Under which one of the following sections of the to show that he knew each and all of the articles
Indian Evidence Act, the doctrine of ‘Res gestae’ of which he was in possession to be stolen. The
has been dealt with above is the illustration of
(a) Section 5 (b) Section 6 (a) Section 8 of the Evidence Act
(c) Section 7 (d) None of the above (b) Section 12 of the Evidence Act
29. Under which one of the following sections of the (c) Section 14 of the Evidence Act
Evidence Act the previous conviction of a person
(d) Section 13 of the Evidence Act
is relevant
35. A wife had only seen a speeding vehicle, which
(a) Explanation I to Section 14
had crushed the husband at a little distance. She
(b) Explanation II of Section 14 had not seen the accident herself. The husband
(c) Explanation III of Section 14 died of heart attack a day later. Can wife’s
(d) Explanation IV of Section 14 evidence be taken of what the injured husband
30. Which one of the following sections of the Indian said to her after the accident?
Evidence Act provides the provision regarding (a) Yes, it being a dying declaration
‘plea of Alibi’ (b) No, it is merely a hearsay evidence
(a) Section 7 (b) Section 6 (c) No, because it is a privileged communication
(c) Section 4 (d) Section 11 (d) Yes, it being a part of res-gestae
31. Identification parade is relevant under 36. The question is whether ‘A’ committed a crime
(a) Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act at Lucknow on certain day. The fact that, on that
(b) Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act day ‘A’ was at Delhi, is a relevant fact under which
(c) Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act Section of the Indian Evidence Act?
(d) Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act (a) Section 9 (b) Section 10
32. In which of the following cases hearsay evidence (c) Section 11 (d) Section 12
is not admissible? 37. Under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act
(a) Statement of experts expressed in treaties, if (a) Motive is relevant
the author is dead or cannot be found, (b) Preparation is relevant
(b) Where eye-witness told the facts to another (c) Conduct is relevant
person, statement of that person. (d) All of the above are relevant
EVIDENCE 63
38. In the Indian Evidence Act previous conviction (a) Preponderance of probability
of a person is relevant under which of the (b) Preponderance of probability beyond
following Sections? reasonable doubt
(a) Section 14, Explanation I (c) Preponderance of possibility beyond
(b) Section 14, Explanation II reasonable doubt.
(c) Section 15 (d) Preponderance of higher probability or
(d) Section 16 improbability as well as beyond reasonable
doubt.
39. Which of the following statements in respect of
admissibility and relevancy is correct? 43. Which one of the following statements is correct?
(a) An admissible fact is always a relevant fact. In a trial of ‘A’ for the murder of ‘B’, marks on
the ground produced by a struggle at or near the
(b) A relevant fact is always an admissible fact.
place of murder is a fact
(c) A relevant fact is considered by the court as
(a) Forming part of the same transaction.
material fact, but judgment is not based upon
it. (b) Necessary to explain or introduce relevant
fact.
(d) An admissible fact is a stage where the court
(c) Showing existence of state of mind or of
taking any relevant fact on the record of the
body.
case, decides any right or liability and bases
its judgment on it. (d) As to the occasion, cause or effect of facts in
issue.
40. Which one of the following statement is correct?
44. Match List-I with List-II and select correct
Facts forming part of the same transaction are
answer using the codes given below the list:
facts
List-I
(a) Which occurred at the same time and place.
A. Noor Mohd. v. Imtiaz Ahmad
(b) Which occurred at a different time and place.
B. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab
(c) Which are connected with other facts on the
C. Sardual Singh v. State of Bombay
basis of time, place, object, parties, acts or
omissions. D. Raghunath v. State of U.P.
(d) None of the above. List-II
41. Which one of the following statements is correct? 1. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The latest approach towards the evidentiary value
of “identification parade”, as laid down by the 3. Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act .
Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. is 4. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act.
that it is Codes:
(a) Mandatory evidence A B C D
(b) Evidence which may be dispensed with (a) 1 2 3 4
(c) Corroborative evidence in criminal (b) 3 4 1 2
proceedings (c) 1 4 3 2
(d) Evidence to support or to rebut any fact (d) 3 2 1 4
before the court in criminal proceedings. 45. Which one of the following statements is correct?
42. Which one of the following statements is correct? A struck B on the neck with a knife and this was
The ‘alibi’ under section 11 of the Indian seen by C who exclaimed, “A is killing B”. C’s
Evidence Act, 1872 is decided on the basis of exclamation is
(a) Relevant because it was spontaneous. (d) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally
(b) Relevant because it forms part of the shooting him dead. Evidence is given that A
transaction. was in the habit of shooting at people with
(c) Relevant because it is relatable to the intent to murder them.
transaction 49. Which one of the following statements is correct?
(d) Relevant because it is a fact in issue. “Hearsay evidence” becomes relevant
46. “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they (a) When it is ratified by admission or
are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant confession.
fact”. Which of the following sections of the (b) When it comes under the ambit of section 6
Indian Evidence Act contains the aforesaid of the Indian Evidence Act.
principle of law? (c) When it is mentioned in any public
(a) Section 9 (b) Section 10 document or is presumed by the court
(c) Section 11 (d) Section 12 (d) In all of the categories mentioned above.
47. Which of the following pieces of evidence is not 50. In case of murder by A of B which facts are
relevant under the Indian Evidence Act? relevant
(a) A tried for the murder of B. Evidence is given (a) That A left immediately the place of crime
that A murdered C, that B knew that A had before police reached
murdered C and that B had tried to extort
(b) That A told his friends about taking revenge
money from A by threatening to make his
for his father’s death
knowledge public.
(c) That A was seen fleeing with a knife
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the repayment of
immediately after murder of B
money. B denies the making of the bond.
Evidence is given that B required money at (d) All of the above
the time of the bond. 51. Mark the incorrect statement:
(c) A customs officer gives evidence that the (a) The terms ‘relevancy’ and ‘admissibility’ are
accused B made a confession of his crime to co-extensive or interchangeable terms.
him. (b) All admissible evidence is usually relevant,
(d) A is tried for the murder of B by poison. but all relevant evidence is not admissible.
Evidence is given that before the death of B, (c) Relevancy is the genus of which admissibility
A procured poison similar to that which was is a species
administered to B. (d) Relevancy and admissibility are neither
48. Which of the following pieces of evidence is not synonymous nor is the one included in other.
relevant under the Indian Evidence Act? 52. The question is whether A owes b Rs. 10,000.
(a) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to The facts that A asked C to land money and D
another person a counterfeit coin which he said to C in A’s presence and hearing–“I advise
knew to be counterfeit. Evidence is given that you not to trust A, for he owes B Rs. 10,000",
he was also in possession of other counterfeit and that A went away without making any answer
coins. is a:
(b) A sues B for damage done by B’s dog which (a) Relevant fact. (b) Irrelevant fact.
he knew to be ferocious. Evidence is given (c) Fact in issue. (d) None of the above.
that the dog and previously bitten X, Y and
53. Only such fact are made relevant by the Evidence
Z and that they had made complaints to B.
Act as are encompassed by:
(c) A is charged with shooting at B with intent
(a) Section 5 to Section 55 of the Evidence Act.
to kill him. Evidence is given that A had
previously shot at B. (b) Section 5 to Section 32 of the Evidence act.
EVIDENCE 65
(c) All the Sections of the Evidence Act. 58. A is accused of a child’s murder. The following
(d) Only such facts which can be proved as per facts are constructed in the case:
Section 59 and Section 60 of The Evidence I. An hour before the murder, A went to the
Act. place of murder with the child.
54. Test identification Parade pertains to the field II. A alone returned home.
of: III. Collar of A’s shirt found to be blood-stained.
(a) Investigation The evidence which takes into account the above-
(b) Trial mentioned facts is called:
(c) Satisfaction of the investigation officer that (a) Direct evidence
he is proceeding in the right direction (b) Circumstantial evidence
(d) Both (a) & (b) above (c) Real evidence
55. Which of the following is/are correct statement(s) (d) Secondary evidence.
(a) Evidence excluded by the Evidence Act is 59. Identification Parade are held at the instance of
inadmissible even if it seems essential for (a) The Metropolitan Magistrate
ascertainment of truth (b) Station House Officer
(b) Parties cannot contract themselves out of the (c) Inquiring Officer
provision of the Evidence Act (d) Complainant
(c) Both (a) and (b) 60. To ensure fairness and accuracy in a Test
(d) Neither (a) nor (b) Identification Parade, the requirement is
56. Tape-recorded conversation is admissible in (a) Parading persons of same social status
evidence if (b) Parading persons of same or similar physical
(a) Conversation is very important appearance along with the suspect
(b) Conversation can save the culprit (c) Parading be done in presence of all the
witnesses simultaneously
(c) Conversation is relevant to the matters in
(d) None of these
issue but the voice is unidentified
61. Mark the incorrect statement:
(d) Conversation is relevant to the matters in
issue and the voice is identified (a) The terms ‘relevancy’ and ‘admissibility’ and
co-extensive and inter-changeable.
57. A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing
them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he (b) That evidence must be relevant in order to
refused to sell them below their value. Which of be admissible.
the following is correct (c) That facts which are relevant may not be
(a) A may prove the statements, though in the admissible.
nature of admission, because they are (d) That ‘relevancy’ is the genus of which
explanatory of conduct influenced by facts 'admissibility' is a species.
in issue 62. Mark the incorrect statement:
(b) A may not prove the statements because they (a) Evidence is always allowed of facts which are
are self-serving admission. necessary to introduce the main fact or some
(c) A may not prove the statement because as relevant fact.
accused he cannot be a witness in his own (b) Evidence can be given of facts which support
defence or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in
(d) All these are incorrect issue or relevant fact.
(c) Facts which contradict the inference of guilt (a) Are irrelevant (b) Are relevant
will also be relevant. (c) Are partly relevant (d) None of the above
(d) Circumstances of the situation are not 67. Which one of the following term is not inclusive
relevant to prove an identity. in Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act ?
63. The question is, whether A was ravished. The (a) Intention (b) Preparation
fact that without making a complaint, she said
(c) Motive (d) Conduct
that she had been ravished:
68. In determining whether a document is the will
(a) Is relevant as conduct.
of testator, Mrs. T
(b) Is not relevant as conduct.
(a) The fact that she consulted lawyers with
(c) Can not be relevant as a dying declaration. reference to making a will, is a relevant fact
(d) Can not be relevant as corroborative evidence. (b) The fact that Mrs. T made enquires about
64. A is accused of murdering B. The following facts matters to which the will relates is a relevant
are constructed in the case: fact
I. An hour before the murder, A took B in his (c) Both (a) and (b) are relevant
car to a certain place.
(d) None of these
II. A alone returned home.
69. Which provision/provisions of the Indian
III. A’s cloth were found to be blood-stained. Evidence Act embody the concept of res gestae?
The evidence which takes into account the above (a) Section 6 and no other section
mentioned facts is called.
(b) Section 6 and 7
(a) Circumstantial evidence.
(c) Section 6, 7 and 8
(b) Direct evidence.
(d) Sections 6 and 8
(c) Secondary evidence.
70. The “test identification parade is only an aid to
(d) Real evidence.
investigation. The practice is not born out of
65. Which of the following statements, as per procedure, but out of prudence-” was held by
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is Supreme Court of India in:
not correct ?
(a) Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs.
(a) Facts which are inconsistent with any fact in State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352
issue, shall not be relevant
(b) Shivaji VS. Nagendra, AIR 2010 SC 2261
(b) Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if
(c) S. Jaiswal Vs. Alok, AIR 2010 SC
by themselves or in connection with other
facts, they make the existence or non- (d) Sujata Vs. S.K. Bahera, AIR 2010
existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact 71. The previous conviction of a person is relevant
highly probable or improbable under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 under:
(c) Any fact is relevant which shows or (a) Section 14 Explanation I
constitutes a motive or preparation for any (b) Section 14 Explanation II
fact in issue or relevant fact (c) Section 8 Explanation I
(d) Admissions are not conclusive proof of the (d) Section 8 Explanation II
matters admitted, but they may operate as
72. Identification of a suspect by photo is :
estoppel under the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (a) Not admissible in evidence
66. Facts, which though not in issue, are so connected (b) Admissible in evidence
with a fact in issue as to form part of the same (c) The suspect must be present
transaction, whether they occurred at the same (d) Both, not admissible in evidence and the
time and place or at different times and places:- suspect must be present
EVIDENCE 67
73. There is a charge upon 'A' committing murder 80. Choose the true statement about propositions:
at Kolkata on a certain day. He takes plea that Propositions :
on that on that day he was at Mumbai. This I. Sections 6 prescribes rule for relevancy of an
statement of 'A' is relevant under which section evidence which is ‘part of same transaction.
of the Evidence Act?
II. Proximity of time, place and continuity of
(a) Section 8 (b) Section 9 action are suggestive of part of same
(c) Section 11 (d) Section 14 transaction
74. Defence of alibi is governed by : III. Psychological acts may also form part of same
(a) Section 9 of the Evidence Act transaction
(b) Section 12 of the Evidence Act Assertions:
(c) Section 11 of the Evidence Act (a) I and II are correct, III is incorrect
(d) Section 6 of the Evidence Act (b) II and III are incorrect, I is correct
75. Test identification parade conducted during (c) I and III are correct, II is correct
investigation of a case is admissible in evidence (d) All are correct
under which of the Section of the Evidence Act? 81. ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ entered into conspiracy on
(a) Section 6 (b) Section 7 December 26, 2017 to explode a bridge. In
(c) Section 8 (d) Section 9 accordance with the conspiracy, the bridge was
76. Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Rule of to be exploded on January 26,2018 However,
"Res gestae" is applicable in : Mr Y was arrested on January 24, 2018 He made
(a) Civil case only statement to police about the conspiracy
However, remaining two conspirators successfully
(b) Criminal cases only
executed the conspiracy Later on, the remaining
(c) Civil as well as Criminal cases
two conspirators were also arrested and all were
(d) Not applicable in any case charged under various provisions of India Penal
77. A is tried for murder of B by intentionally Code, 1860. During trial, prosecution reasonably
shooting him dead. The fact that A was in the established the fact of conspiracy between X, Y
habit of shooting at people with intent to murder and Z, to explode the said bridge In this reference,
him - which of the following fact is relevant under
(a) is relevant. Section 10 Evidence Act 1872 ?
(b) is irrelevant. (a) A letter written by ‘X’ to ‘Y’ on December
(c) is relevant but cannot be proved. 20, 2017 inquiring the possibility of a
(d) None of the above meeting
78. Res Gestae is allowed as an exception to: (b) Confession made of ‘Y’ to the police officer
on January 24, 2018
(a) Confession
(c) Confession made of ‘Z’ to the police officer
(b) Dying declaration
on January 30, 2018
(d) An email sent by Y, dated January 16, 2018
(d) Documentary evidence to the supplier of explosives
79. Which of the following is a question of law as 82. Choose the true statement about propositions
per Evidence Act 1872 ?
Propositions:
(a) Relevancy (b) Admissibility
I. Section 11 of Evidence Act provides residuary
(c) Both (a) & (b) (d) None of the above clause for relevancy of facts
II. Section 11 is based on general theory of (c) The statement must have been made any time
relevancy after the act
III. Section 11 is independent one, and not (d) Either (a) or (b)
controlled by other provisions of Evidence 87. Queen vs. Abdulla (1885) ALL 385 case Law is
Act related to—
Assertions: (a) Conduct (b) Consequences
(a) I and II correct, III is incorrect (c) Motive (d) Preparation
(b) II and III are incorrect, I is correct 88. ‘X’ is prosecuted for the murder of ‘Y’. During
trial. Evidence is adduced that ‘X; and ‘Y’ and
(c) I and III are correct, II is incorrect verbal altercation, in which accused ‘X’ had
(d) All are correct threatened to kill ‘Y’. The fact that, soon after
83. ‘X’ is tried for committing murder of ‘Y’ by the threatening, ‘X’ had purchased the same knife
intentionally shooting at him, with reference to which was used to stab ‘Y’, is admissible under
his ‘intention’, prosecution adduced the fact that ________ of Evidence Act, 1872.
‘X’ had attempted to shoot ‘Y’ at an earlier (a) Section 6 (b) Section 7
occasion. The fact is relevant under _________ (c) Section 8 (d) Section 10
of Evidence Act, 1872. 89. The father of accused did not support the
(a) Section 6 (b) Section 11 prosecution during the trial that he told the
(c) Section 14 (d) Section 15 witness that his son (accused) had committed
the murder. The statement of the witness would
84. The evidence relating to conspiracy is
be in the nature of
(a) Common motive of the conspirators and any (a) Secondary evidence (b) Hearsay evidence
act done in pursuance of it
(c) Res gestae (d) None of the above
(b) Common intention of the conspirators and
90. Which of the following is ture if Shyam is accused
anything in writing in pursuance of it of crime?
(c) Common intention of the conspirators and (a) The fact that after the commission of the
anything said, done, written by any of them crime, Shyam absconded from his house is
in furtherance of that intention irrelevant.
(d) Common motive of the conspirators and the (b) The fact that, at the time when he left hom,
statement of a witness Shyam had sudden and urgent business at
85. Test Identification Parade is the place to which he went, is irrelevant.
(a) Substantive evidence (c) The details of the business on which he left
(b) Corroborative evidence is not relvant even if it were to show that the
business was sudden and urgent
(c) No evidence
(d) None of the above is true
(d) Hearsay evidence
91. When existence of a state of mind or body or
86. In order to make the evidence admissible as part bodily feeling is in issue, which of the following
of ‘res gestae’ _________ . facts are relevant?
(a) The statement must have been made (a) Intention and knowledge
immediately after the act
(b) Negligence and rashness
(b) The statement must have been (c) Ill will or good will
contemporaneously with the act
(d) All of the above

Ch-1 & Ch-2 (I) - Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch-1 & Ch-2 (I) - Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch-1 & Ch-2 (I) - Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE 1

1. TITLE, EXTENT & COMMENCEMENT (SEC. 1)

This Act does not applies to

2. INTERPRETATION CLAUSE (SEC. 3)

3. “MAY PRESUME”, “SHALL PRESUME”, “CONCLUSIVE PROOF”(SEC. 4)

(b) Presumption of law and presumption of fac [RJS 1970]

Relevant Facts are contained in part I of Indian Evidence Act. It

1. EVIDENCE MAY BE GIVEN OF FACTS IN ISSUE AND RELEVANT FACTS (SEC. 5)

2. RES GESTAE: MEANING (SEC. 6)

3. OCCASION, CAUSE, EFFECT, ETC. (SEC. 7)

4. MOTIVE, PREPARATION & CONDUCT (SEC. 8)

5. FACTS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN OR INTRODUCE RELEVANT FACTS (SEC. 9)

6. CONSPIRACY (SEC. 10)

7. WHEN FACTS NOT OTHERWISE RELEVANT BECOME RELEVANT (SEC. 11)

8. SUITS FOR DAMAGES (SEC. 12)

9. RULES FOR PROVING CUSTOMS AND RIGHTS (SEC. 13)

By Transactions By Particular Instances

10. STATE OF MIND, BODY OR BODILY FEELING (SEC 14)

11. ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL ACTS (SEC. 15)

12. EXISTENCE OF COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEN RELEVANT (SEC. 16)

Codes: (c) If the statement is of a deceased person, when

You might also like