nnj

1. INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT,1872
1

2. Introduction
• The Act is a consolidation of the English Law
of Evidence.
• It is a law of mere procedure and does not
affect substantive rights and since
“alterations in the form of procedure are
always retrospective , unless there is some
good reason why they should not be.
• Rules of evidence must be followed by the
courts in deciding on the rights of the parties.
2

3. •In Ram Jas v. Surendra Nath AIR
1980, the Allahabad High Court
observed that the Law of Evidence
does not affect substantive rights of
the parties but only lays down the
law for facilitating the course of
Justice.
•The Evidence Act lays down the
rules of evidence for the purpose of
the guidance of the courts.
3

4. LAW OF EVIDENCE
•According to Sir James Phitijems
Stephen,” The law of Evidence
decides-
• What facts may and what may not be
proved in such cases.
• What sort of evidence must be given
by which any fact is proved
4

5. Evidence
• The word evidence has been derived from the
latin word “Evidere” which implies to show
distinctly,
• to make clear to view or sight,
• to discover clearly,
• to prove.
5

6. Law of Evidence is the same in
civil and criminal proceedings
• In appreciating the weight of evidence there is a
fundamental difference between civil and criminal
cases.
• A mere preponderance of probability is sufficient in
civil cases ,
• Whereas in criminal cases, before the accused is convicted , the
evidence adduced by the prosecution should not only make the
guilt of the accused highly probable, but any alternative
hypothesis in favour of the accused must be extremely probable
or as it is commonly expressed, the prosecution must prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubt.
6

7. HISTORY OF LAW OF
EVIDENCE
• Before passing of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 Indian did
not possess any uniform law on the subject of evidence.
• In presidency towns the rules of English law of evidence
were followed.
• In other mofussil area where the English law did not
prevail, there were scattered rules of evidence mostly on
the basis of the Mohammadan Law or Hindu Law which
were to some extent biased.
• Whereas the English rules of evidence which appeared to
be most equitable and so the mofussil court gradually
adopted the English rules of evidence as their guide.
7

8. Applicability of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872
• The Act extends to the whole of India.
• It applies to all Judicial Proceedings in or before any court,
including Court Martials.
• Court Martial - A judicial court for trying members of the
armed services accused of offences against military law.
• But not applies to affidavits presented to any court or
officer,
• Not applies to proceedings before an arbitrator.
• Indian Evidence Act came into force on 1st
September , 1872.
8

9. Section 1 of the Evidence Act
applies to all:
1. Judicial proceedings. Proceedings in
which evidence is or may be legally
taken on oath. Judicial proceedings
are legal proceedings in which there is
legal litigation to determine and
enforce legal right.
2. Or before any court.
9

10. Ques.-Q1. Proceedings before the collector
are judicial proceedings or not?
In Erza v. Secretray of State for India (1902) –PC
held that the functions of the collector are not
judicial but administrative and the
proceedings before him are not judicial
proceedings and he is not a court.
The provisions of the Evidence Act are also not
strictly applicable in departmental or quasi
Judicial enquiries .
10

11. • Departmental Enquiries or enquiries
conducted by the tribunals or quasi judicial
enquiries and the strict rules of evidence Act
does not apply in these enquiries only the
rules of natural justice are applied.
• The sufficiency of proof like a criminal charge
is not required in the departmental
proceedings nor the strict provisions of
Indian Evidence Act are applicable.
11

12. •The departmental proceedings
is a quasi judicial one.
•Although the provisions of the
Evidence Act are not applicable
in the said proceedings,
principles of Natural Justice are
required to be complied with.
12

13. 2. COURT
• Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines the word “
Court” as –
• the “Court” includes all judges and Magistrates and
all persons, except arbitrators legally authorized to
take evidence.
• Court means the “Sovereign’s Palace” where justice
is administered and the person who exercise
judicial functions under authority derived either
immediately or mediately from the sovereign .
13

14. AFFIDAVITS
• Section 1of the Evidence Act clearly says that the
Evidence Act has no applications to affidavits
presented to the courts or officer.
• An affidavit is not an evidence.
• Order 19 of CPC,1908- Affidavit.
• An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing made
under the oath to presented in a court or before an
officer.
14

15. • Similarly, Section 295, 296, 297 of the CrPc,
1973prescribes for the rules relating to affidavits
i.e. affidavit in proof of conduct of public servants
and authorities before whom affidavits may be
sworn.
• Both these codes did not define the word affidavit.
• But sub section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
defines the term affidavit. It defines as- Affidavit
shall include affirmation and declaration in the
case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare
instead of swearing.
15

16. • What is an affidavit?
• An affidavit is a self made willing declaration in writing, signed
by the deponent (person who makes the affidavit) and
accompanied by an oath. “Affidavit” has originated from a
Latin word which means to “pledge ones faith.” It is to be
signed and witnessed by a notary authority. It is to be signed
without any cross-examination by the affiant.
• In the court of law, you are asked to take an oath on a Holy
Book and swear that you’re telling the truth, likewise on an
affidavit, you do this same thing in writing. You’re under oath,
but your testimony is on paper. They are necessary in a way
that the oral submission/testimony/evidence is only admissible
before a judge but an affidavit can also be used as an
alternative to this.
16

17. • Misleading information in an affidavit can result to criminal
penalties against the affiant, but if the affiant fails to recall
something or misses something then he cannot be charged for
such omission.
• Affidavits as an evidence: Affidavit is an admissible
evidence, however some courts may need you to testify
the affidavit or they may consider it as hearsay
evidence. Since hearsay is not admissible as an
evidence, the affidavit may not be used for evidence if
anyone objects to it unless it is testified.
17

18. ARBITRATION
• The Arbitrators are not bound by the
technical rules of the law of evidence.
• Section 1 of the Evidence Act says that the Act
will not apply to proceedings before an
Arbitrator.
• Arbitration proceedings in India is governed
by the law laid down in the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
18

19. • Section 19 of the Arbitration Act provides the rule of
procedure to be followed by the Arbitral Tribunal .
• Section 19(1) of the Act provides that , The Arbitral
Tribunal shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• It provides that the parties are free to agree on the
procedure to be followed by the Arbitral Tribunal in
conducting the proceedings .
• So, neither the rules of Code of Civil Procedure nor the rules
of evidence Act are to be followed in the proceedings before
an Arbitral Tribunal.
• Only the principles of Natural Justice is to be followed by
the arbitral tribunal.
19

20. Section 3 Interpretation Clause
• Court
• Fact
• Relevant
• Facts in issue
• Document
• Evidence
• Proved- Yes- Fact Exists
• Disproved- Court not exists
• Not proved- yes or no
20

21. Section 3- Evidence
• All Statement 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,
• All documents including electronic records
produced for the inspection of the court such
documents are called documentary evidence.
21

22. Types of evidence
• Oral and Documentary evidence
• Direct and circumstantial evidence
• Direct and hearsay evidence
• Best and inferior evidence
• Real evidence or physical evidence
22

23. 23

24. 24

25. Types of Witness
• Evidence of Eye witness
• Injured Eye witness
• Natural Witness
• Interested witness
• Police witness
• Hostile witness- sec 154
• Chance witness
• Sole witness
• Sterling witness- cogent and reliable
• Evidence of Doctor
25

26. 26

27. Direct Evidence
• Direct evidence consists of the testimony of the
witness who perceived the fact which is in question.
• If a witness says that he saw the incident directly by
his own eyes wide open or that he was present with
the other witnesses and saw the testator sign his
will and other witnesses who also attested the
signature of the testator.
• This is direct evidence.
27

28. Circumstantial Evidence
• Circumstantial evidence is the evidence
which is not directly establishing a fact but
the court on the basis of this evidence may
draw inference whether the disputed facts
were in existence or not.
• Circumstantial evidence is also sometimes
called as Indirect evidence.
28

29. Evidentiary value of
Circumstantial evidence
• There is a misconception that the circumstantial
evidence is a weak type of evidence and a
conviction cannot be based on circumstantial
evidence.
• Strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more
reliable basis for a court to come a verdict.
• There are certain guiding principles to be followed
before a conviction may be based in circumstantial
evidence.
29

30. • The SC held that the law regarding circumstantial
evidence is well settled. When a case rest upon the
circumstantial evidence , such evidence must
satisfy four tests: (Golden Rule)
1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established.
2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
3. The circumstances taken cumulatively , should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the
crime was committed by the accused and none else.
30

31. 4. The circumstantial evidence in order
to sustain conviction must be complete
and incapable of explanation of any
other hypothesis than that of the guilt of
the accused and such evidence should
not only be consistent with the guilt of
the accused but should be inconsistent
with his innocence.
31

32. 32

33. • In case of circumstantial evidence , the onus lies
upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain
of events which shall undoubtedly point towards
the guilt of the accused.
• Where a case rest squarely on circumstantial
evidence . The inference of guilt can be justified
only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with
the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any
other persons.
33

34. • The circumstances from which an inference as to
the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
• 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.- C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996)
34

35. •State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastav
AIR 1992- SC held that , while
appreciating circumstantial evidence
the court must adopt a very cautious
approach and should record a
conviction only if all the links in the
chain are complete pointing to the guilt
of the accused and every hypothesis of
innocence is capable of being negative
on evidence.
35

36. Can a conviction be based solely
on circumstantial evidence?
•SC has in various cases held that there
is no doubt that a conviction can be
based solely on circumstantial evidence
but it should be tested by the touch
stone of law relating to circumstantial
evidence as laid down by SC itself.
36

37. • Thus, after discussing the catena of cases decided
by the Apex Court regarding the principle laid
down for the cases based on circumstantial
evidence , we may summarized the principle in
one sentence,
• That each and every incriminating circumstance
must be clearly established by reliable, cogent ,
convincing and cliching evidence and the
circumstance so proved must form a chain of events
from which the only one conclusion about the guilt
of the accused can be drawn and no other
hypothesis against the guilt of the accused is
possible.
37

38. The mere suspicion would not be sufficient ,
unless the circumstantial evidence tendered by
the prosecution leads to conclusion that “It must
be true” and “not may be true”.
38

39. 39

40. SEC 4 –
MAY PRESUME (SEC 114)
SHALL PRESUME (SEC 113A,113B,114A)
CONCLUSIVE PROOF(SEC 112)
40

41. 41

42. • May presume
• is a condition when the court enjoys its discretion
power to presume any/ certain/ few facts and
recognize it either proved or may ask for
corroborative evidence to confirm or reconfirm
the presumption set by the court in its discretion.
• Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that
a fact or a group of facts may be regarded as
proved, until and unless they are disapproved. The
concept is defined under Section 4 of this act that
‘May Presume’ deals with rebuttable presumption.
42

43. • [113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman. –
• When the question is whether the commission of
suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband
or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she
had committed suicide within a period of seven years
from the date of her marriage and that her husband
or such relative of her husband had subjected her to
cruelty,
• the court may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been
abetted by her husband or by such relative of her
husband.
43

44. • 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. –
The Court may presume the existence of any fact
which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being
had to the common course of natural events, human
conduct and public and private business, in their
relation to the facts of the particular case.
• 1. The Court may presume (a) that a man who
is in possession of stolen goods soon after the
theft is either the thief or has received the
goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he
can account for his possession;
44

45. 2. that judicial and official acts have been regularly
performed;
3. that evidence which could be and is not produced
would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person
who withholds it;
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF FACT- MAY
PRESUME
45

46. • Whereas, shall presume denotes a strong
assertion or intention to determine any fact.
• Section 4 of Indian evidence Act explains the
principle of ‘Shall Presume’ that the court
does not have any discretionary power in the
course of presumption of ‘Shall
Presume’, rather the court has presumed facts
or groups of facts and regard them as if they
are proved until they are disproved by the
other party.
46

47. •Section 4 of the Indian Evidence
Act explains that the concept of
‘Shall Presume’ may also be
called ‘Presumption of Law’ or ‘’
or ‘Obligatory Presumption’ or
‘Rebuttable Presumption of Law’
47

48. • sec[114A. Presumption as to absence of consent in
certain prosecution for rape. –
• In a prosecution for rape -where sexual intercourse
by the accused is proved and the question is
whether it was without the consent of the woman
alleged to have been raped
• and such woman states in her evidence before the
court that she did not consent,
• the court shall presume that she did not consent.
• SHALL PRESUME- REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF
LAW
48

49. 49

50. •While, Conclusive Presumptions/
Proofs, this can be considered as
one of the strongest presumptions a
court may assume but at the same
time the presumptions are not
completely based on logic rather
court believes that such
presumptions are for the welfare or
upbringing of the society.
50

51. • 112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of
legitimacy. –
• The fact that any person was born during the
continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and
any man,
• or within two hundred and eighty days after its
dissolution,
• the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive
proof that he is the legitimate son of that man,
• unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage
had no access to each other at any time when he could
have been begotten.
51

52. • With regards to Conclusive proofs, the law
has absolute power and shall not allow any
proofs contrary to the presumption.
• This is the strongest kind of all the existing
presumptions whereas Section 41, 112 and of
the Evidence Act and S. 82 of the Indian Penal
Code are one of the most important
provisions related to the irrebuttable form of
presumptions or Conclusive Presumption.
52

53. CHAPTER II
OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS
SECTION 5-55
• 5. Evidence may be given of facts in issue
and relevant facts. –
• Evidence may be given in any suit or
proceeding
• of the existence of non-existence of every
fact in issue and of such other facts as are
hereinafter declared to be
relevant,(SECTION 6-55 ) and of no others.
53

54. 54

55. • A (Accused) is tried for the murder of B
by beating him with a club with the
intention of causing his death. At A’s
trial the following facts are in issue: –
1. A’s cause beating to B;
2. A’s causing B’s death by such beating;
3. A’s intention to cause B’s death.
55

56. 56

57. FACT IN ISSUE AND RELEVANT
FACT
1) A fact in issue is the ultimate facts in
dispute, i.e., “principal facts” or “factum
probandum”.
A relevant fact is which helps to
prove/disprove the facts at issue, i.e.,
“evidentiary fact” or “Factum probandi”.
2) Facts at issue are significant in nature Relevant facts are non-significant.
3) The facts at issue are the basis of the
“law of evidence”.
They are part of the law of evidence.
4) These are confirmed/Affirmed by one
party but denied by the other party.
The relevant facts are the foundation of the
inferences made.
57

58. Relevancy -Meaning
• The evidence act did not define the term
relevancy.
• Instead of defining the term relevancy the
section 3 of the Indian evidence act defines
the term “ relevant” which means, one fact is
said to be relevant to another when the one is
connected with the other in any of the ways
referred to in the provisions of this Act
relating to the relevancy of the facts.
58

59. • Section 5 of the Evidence Act lays down the basic
rule of the law of evidence relating to relevancy.
• It provides that evidence may be given in any suit or
proceeding of the existence or non existence of
every facts in issue and relevant fact as are declared
to be relevant in sections 6 to 55 of the Act and of
no others.
• Thus, we can say that one fact is relevant to the
other fact when one fact is connected with the other
in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of
this Act relating to the relevancy of facts from
section 6 – 55 of the Indian Evidence Act.
59

60. • Relevancy refers to the degree of connection
and probative value between that is given in
evidence and the fact which is to be proved.
• A fact is relevant when it is so related to the
fact in issue, that they render the fact in
issue probable or improbable.
60

61. RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILTY
• Relevancy is determined and is founded on logic, human
experience and common sense,
• whereas the admissibility of evidence depends on the law.
• Relevancy means which is logically probative and
admissibility means which is legally receivable in evidence
by the courts.
• There is distinction between the expressions logical
relevancy and legal relevancy.
• A fact to be logically relevant to another fact must bear a
casual connection or relation with other fact to be proved.
61

62. • `Relevancy' and `Admissibility' are two different
terms and connotes different meaning Section 5 of
Indian Evidence Act says "in every suit or
proceeding evidence may be given of existence or
non- existence of fact in issue or any other fact which
is relevant as declared by Section 6 to 55."
• So question of relevancy has been dealt with
in Section 6 to 55 of Evidence Act (RELEVANCY)
• and question of admissibility of relevant facts has
been dealt with from Section 56 onwards of
Evidence Act. (ADMISSIBLE)
62

63. • RELEVANT:- Expression "Relevant" has been defined
u/s 3 of Indian Evidence Act as " One fact is said to
be relevant to another when one is connected with
other in any of the ways referred to in provisions of
this Act relating to the relevancy of facts“.
• Term `Relevancy' means a fact which is logically
probative. Fact which helps the court in deciding the
controversy or fact in issue.
• Rule of relevancy implies that certain fact is
connected or is so important to be proved for
adjudicating the controversy or fact in issue.
63

64. • There is a distinction between the expressions logical
relevancy and legal relevancy.
• A fact to be logically relevant to another fact must bear a
casual connection or relation with other fact to be proved. It
must have tendency to render probable , the existence or non
existence of the other fact.
• All facts logically relevant are not legally relevant.
• Relevancy in the evidence act is not exclusively based on pure
logic but is based on law also,
• As no fact however, logically relevant is receivable in evidence
unless it is declared by the Evidence Act as relevant.
• Only if it is legally relevant only then it will be received in
evidence otherwise it cannot be received in evidence.
64

65. • Admissibility involves the process whereby the court
determines whether the law of evidence permits that
relevant evidence to be received by the court.
• The concept of admissibility is often distinguished from
relevancy.
• Relevancy is determined by logic and common sense,
practical or human experience and knowledge of affairs.
• On the other hand, the admissibility of evidence depends
first on the concept of relevancy of a sufficiently high
degree of probative value,
• and secondly on the fact that the evidence tendered does
not infringe any of the exclusionary rules that may be
applicable to it.
65

66. • Relevancy is not primarily dependent on the rules
of law but admissibility is founded on law.
• Thus, relevancy usually known as logical relevancy
while admissibility is known as legal relevancy.
• Relevancy is a question of fact which is the duty of
the lawyers to decide whether to tender such
evidence in the court.
• On the other hand , admissibility is the duty of the
court to decide whether an evidence should be
received by the court.
66

67. • These examples are of the relevant facts though
these are logically relevant is not legally relevant.
• The expression relevancy and admissibility are
not the same thing .
• The expressions relevancy and admissibility are
often taken to be synonyms but they are different ,
their legal implications are different.
• All admissible evidence is relevant but all relevant
evidence is not admissible.
• Relevancy is the genus of which admissibility is
the species.
67

68. • Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC
1850- SC observed that more often the
expressions “ relevancy and admissibility” are
used as synonyms but their legal implications
are distinct and different for more often than
not facts which are relevant are not admissible ,
so also facts which are admissible may not be
relevant.
68

69. • Evidence is admissible and should be received by
the court to which it is tendered unless there is a
legal reason for its rejection.
• Admissibility also denotes the absence of any
applicable rule of exclusion.
• Facts should not be received in evidence unless
they are both relevant and admissible.
• A fact to be qualify to be an admissible in evidence
, it should be first logically relevant and then it
should also be legally relevant. It must come under
the category and framework of relevancy of facts
as provided in section 5 to section 55.
69

70. Relevancy and Admissibility
Relevancy Admissibility
1. Relevancy is based on logic and
probativity .
1. Admissibility is not based on logic but on
strict rules of law.
2. The rules of relevancy are described from
section 5- 55 of the Act, 1872
2. The rules of admissibility is described after
section 56 of the Act, 1872
3.The rules of relevancy declare what is
relevant.
3. The rules of admissibility declare whether
certain types of relevant evidence is
admissible or are to be excluded.
4. The rules of relevancy indicate the facts
permitted to be proved which then become
admissible.
4. Admissibility is the means and modes for
admissibility of relevant evidence.
5. The facts which are relevant are not
necessarily admissible.
The facts which are admissible are not
necessarily relevant.
70

71. SECTION 6 RES GESTATE
• "things done“
• it refers to a exception to the hearsay rule
for statements made spontaneously or as
part of an act.
• Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act discusses the relevancy
of facts that form part of the same transaction. Section 6 is
based on the English principle res gestae, which on
translation means things said and done in the course of the
transaction. Hence res gestae includes act as well as a
statement.
71

72. SECTION 6
• Relevancy of facts forming part of same
transaction-
• Facts which though not in issue ,
• are so connected with a fact in issue
• as to form part of same transaction , are
relevant,
• whether they occurred at the same time and
place or at different times and place.
72

73. Section 6
• Fact consist of a series of fact or be the result
of one or more facts and so may be
conveniently called a transaction.
• If such transaction be in issue, all facts,
whether they be acts or omissions or
declarations which either are part of the
transactions are admissible and are usually
called the Res gestae
73

74. • In Mahedra Pal vs State (1955), the place where the murder
took place was occupied by a number of persons apart from
the deceased and the eyewitnesses.
• Those persons who came immediately after the murder and
were informed by the eye-witnesses as to who the two
accused has been, their deposition was judged to fall within
the ambit of Section 6.
• Where on hearing sounds of gunshots from the house of the
victim, his neighbors run to the spot within minutes and he
told them the names of the assailants who had shot at him
and his wife, his statement to them was relevant under this
section 6.
74

75. • The case of Ratten v. Queen (1971) is an illustration
on the point
• Here a man was charged with the murder of his wife.
He defended himself in the court saying that the shot
went off accidentally. However, there was evidence to
show that the deceased wife contacted the telephone
operator and said, “Get me the police please”. But
before the operator could connect call to the police
the lady who spoke in distress gave her address and
then the call ended suddenly. Thereafter the police
went to the address so given and found the dead
body of a woman, that is, the wife of the accused.
75

76. • In another case of Badruddin v. State of
Maharashtra -
• the accused dragged the deceased from his
house to Chowk area and began to beat him.
Z (eye witness)who was present when the
beating began ran to the village police patel,
while the beating was in progress and told
him that the deceased was being beaten by
the accused. The police Patel was allowed to
give evidence of what Z told him, it being a
part of the transaction.
76

77. • Under the doctrine of Res Gestae hearsay is also
admissible.
• For example, in the case of R v. Foster the deceased was
killed in an accident by a speeding truck. The witness had
only seen the speeding vehicle towards the deceased and
not the actual accident, his view being blocked by another
vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Immediately
after the accident the witness went to the deceased and he
explained to him the nature of the accident.
• The witness was allowed to give evidence of what the
deceased said, it being a part of the transaction.
77

78. • Hearsay as Res Gesate
• The doctrine of res gestae is one of the exceptions to
the principle of hearsay.
• Hearsay evidence refers to the statement by a
person who has not himself seen the happening of
the transaction, but has heard about it from others.
• For example, a person who has himself witnessed an
accident can give evidence of it to the court. But his
wife who heard about the accident from him, cannot
give evidence of it to the court, her knowledge being
indirect or hearsay.
78

79. • Second hand statements are considered
trustworthy for the purpose of admission as
evidence when deposed by a witness because they
were made spontaneously and concurrently with
an event.
• Under the hearsay rule , a court normally refuses to
admit as evidence of hearsay nature. If a witness
say that he heard someone to say a thing then this
is not admissible in evidence because this is
hearsay statement and section 60 of the Evidence
Act prohibits hearsay evidence to be given and
provides that oral evidence must be direct. The
doctrine of res gestae provides and exception to
this rule.
79

80. • Two reason why hearsay evidence is inadmissible-
The one is unfairness to the accused .
The second is the possibility of inaccuracy.
• However Res gestae is based on the belief that
because certain statement is made naturally,
spontaneously and without deliberation during the
course of an occurrence, they carry a high degree of
credibility and leaves no room for
misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
• The doctrine of res gestae provides that such
statements are more trustworthy than other second
hand statements and therefore should be
admissible in evidence.
80

81. • But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the
provisions of section 6, what is required to be
established is that it must be almost contemporaneous
with the acts and there should not be an interval which
allow fabrication.
• Res gestate thus means the things done or act done.
Res gestae are those facts which naturally form a part
of same transaction.
• These facts become relevant due to their association
with the main transaction which is a fact in issue in a
proceeding.
• These facts are admitted as facts forming part of same
transaction.
81

82. • To form particular statement as part of same
transaction utterances must be simultaneous
with the incident or substantial contemporaneous
that is made either during or immediately before
or after its occurrence.
• There must not be any interval and if there is an
interval, however slight it may be, which was
sufficiently enough for fabrication then the
statement is not part of res gestae.
• Thus the test for applying the rule of res gestae is that the
statement should be spontaneous and should form part of
the same transaction ruling out any possibility of
concoction.
82

83. • the statement was made at the spur of the moment
without an opportunity to concoct and fabricate
anything.
• Where the judges are satisfied that the reaction
was the most immediate result of the
circumstances being relevant to the facts in issue,
they have allowed such evidence to be admitted.
83

84. • Cockburn C.J., delivering the
judgement said that -
Such statements in order that they may
be admissible as res gestae
• should be contemporaneous with the
transaction in issue,
• so as to give no time/opportunity for
concoction or fabrication.
• The statements should not amount to a
mere of a past occurrence.
84

85. • 7. Facts which are occasion, cause or effect
of facts in issue
• COLLATERAL FACTS
Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect,
immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or
facts in issue, or which constitute the state of
things under which they happened, or which
afforded an opportunity for their occurrence
or transaction, are relevant.
85

86. • Scope:
• The scope of Section 7 is wider than Section 6. Section 6 deals with
relevant facts forming part of the same transaction, whereas Section 7
provides for the relevancy of several classes of facts.
• Sometimes, it is difficult to prove whether fact forms part of the same
transaction, but there are several collateral facts which are not part of
the same transaction, are required to be judicially considered for ends of
justice provided they constitute the occasion, cause or effect or provide
opportunity for the happening of the facts in issue.
• “Evidence relating to collateral facts is admissible when such facts will, if
established, establish reasonable presumption as to the matter in
dispute and when such evidence is reasonably conclusive.” The
relevancy is determined by human experience.
86

87. Object of section 7
• The object is to make these collateral facts
relevant as to throw some light on a fact in
issue or support a relevant fact because these
collateral facts are cause or effect are giving
an opportunity for a fact in issue which is to
be proved.
• That is why these facts are declared as
relevant in section 7.
87

88. • This section include following types of facts –
• 1. Occasion –
• Occasion means the circumstances in which an
event occurred. Evidence of such circumstance
is eligible to given.
• For example, in the case of R vs Richardson,
where a person was charged with the rape and
murder of a girl, the fact that the girl was alone
in her cottage at the time of her murder is
relevant because it provided the occasion in
which the crime happened.
88

89. • 2. Cause – Facts that form the cause of facts in
issue are relevant.
• For example, A is charged of criminal
misappropriation of funds from a bank. The
fact that A was hugely in debt at the time of
committing the crime is a relevant fact
because it indicates a possible cause of the
commission of the crime.
• This is similar to motive as given in Section 8.
However this may not always be the case.
89

90. • Another example,
• suppose the question is whether A murdered B.
Before the murder there was a quarrel between A
and B in connection with the money which was
borrowed by B from A and the deceased B did not
pay it to A on his several demands (CAUSE)
• and also the fact B was alone in the night when the
murder took place. (OCCASION)
• These all facts which are collateral facts are the
cause and occasion of the Murder and hence they
are relevant under section 7 of the Evidence Act.
90

91. 3. Effects – Every act causes some effect that leads to
some other happening. These effects not only record
the happening of the main act but also throws light
upon the nature of the act.
• For example, where a person is poisoned, the
symptoms produced are effects of the fact in issue
and so are relevant.
• The question is, whether A murdered B.
• Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or
near the place where the murder was committed,
are relevant facts.
91

92. • An effect is the last result or consequence of an act
done.
• The effect is the evidence of the act done and what
is the nature of the act, may be inferred from the
effect whether it is immediate or otherwise of a
relevant facts or facts in issue.
92

93. Example of “EFFECT”
• If there is marks of blood which is sprinkled
on the wall and the floor of a house then a
common man may easily draw an inference
that a living thing whether a human being or
an animal has either been killed or seriously
injured at this place.
• So, the presence of blood at the floor and wall
is the effect of the occurrence and which is
directly related to the fact in issue, hence are
relevant in section 7.
93

94. • 4. Opportunity – Circumstances which provide an
opportunity for the happening of a fact in issue
are relevant.
• For example, a break from the daily routine of a
person may be the opportunity that is used by the
person to commit the crime.
• For example, in R v. Richardson, the fact that Richardson
left early from work at about the time of murder under the
pretense of going to a smith’s shop is relevant because it
provided an opportunity for the fact in issue, namely her
rape and murder, to happen.
94

95. • 5. State of Things – Facts which constitute the state of
things under which or in the background of which
the principle facts happened are relevant.
• For example, in a case Rattan v. Reginum, AIR 1971, a
person shot his wife and his plea was that it was an
accident. The fact that he was unhappy with his wife
and was having an affair with another woman, was
held to be a relevant fact.
• The question is, whether A poisoned B.
• The state of B`s health before the symptoms ascribed to
poison and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an
opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant
facts.
95

96. • MOTIVE, PREPARATION AND PREVIOUS OR
SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT (Section 8)
• Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Ac, 1872 lays down
the provisions relating to the relevancy of three
facts, which are important in connection with every
kind of civil or criminal cases. These are:
• i. Motive
• ii. Preparation; and
• iii. Conduct. (Previous conduct and subsequent
conduct)
96

97. 1.MOTIVE
• The word 'motive' means “the
reason behind the act or conduct or
an act to be achieved in doing an
act.“
• Salmond describes motive as " the
ulterior intent". It may be good or
bad.
97

98. • Motive is that state of mind that prompts a
person to develop an intention.
• The motive in other words is represented as
an unexpressed intention.
• Motive is dealt with as a clue or the
underlying cause to the intention.
• A person’s motive can be inferred by
analysing various factors that contributed to
the commission of the offence.
98

99. • The Supreme Court of India defined motive is
something which induces or activates a
person to make an intention and knowledge,
with respect to awareness of consequences of
the act.
• It is expressed that if the offence has been
commenced voluntarily then could be no
possibility of the absence of motive.
• Although it is very difficult to obtain the
evidence of motive still evidence of motive
becomes very important in the case of
circumstantial evidence.
99

100. • Although motive and intention are the same
there is a thin line of difference between
them-
• The chief difference between intention and
motive is that intention definitely designates
the mental state of the accused i.e. what's
going on his mind, at the period of the
commission of a crime,
• whereas motive implies the motivation i.e.
what drives a person to do.
100

101. • In some cases, it is observed that sometimes
motive behind the execution of a crime may
be good but the intention is always bad or
guilt-oriented.
• Example:
A thief steals money and helps the poor.
101

102. • Kundula Bala Vs State of A.P (1993): The son-in-law
before his marriage demanded a piece of land from
the deceased. But after the marriage, the deceased
refused to transfer the ownership of the property
and expressed that he would give this property to
his daughter. Such inferences of the father in law
induced the accused in committing a crime and
after some time the crime commenced.
• The court observed that there is a strong motive
with the accused of committing the crime as the
father in law refused to transfer the property in the
accused name.
102

103. • In, Gurmej Singh Vs State of Punjab (1992): The
deceased has won the election against the accused.
It is also seen that they don’t have good relations
between and they have always had a quarrel with
each other. The reason behind frequent quarrels
was that the accused diverted dirty water stream
towards the house of the deceased.
• The court observed that there were pending
litigation between them and dirty water stream
induced the frustration between them. After the
death of the deceased, the Court concluded that
dispute related to the passage of dirty water be the
motive of the murder.
103

104. • When there is direct evidence, the evidence
of motive is not of so much significance.
• The evidence of Motive becomes important
to Corroborate the circumstantial evidence ,
• In Sakharam v. State AIR 1992 SC 758, held,
that absence of Motive may not be relevant
when Evidence is overwhelming but it is a
plus point in case where the Evidence
against the accused is only Circumstantial.
104

105. Thus the Motives are –
• A state of mind that accelerates or gives rise to
intention.
• An unexpressed intention.
• An instigation to gear up the intention.
• A clue or the reason or the thought behind the
intention.
Irrelevant to prove someone guilty, but relevant on the
question of intention. When in case direct evidence is
present, the motive becomes immaterial.
105

106. 2) Preparation:
• Preparation consists in arranging the means
necessary for the commission of a crime.
Every crime is necessarily preceded by
preparation.
Illustration
"A is tried for the murder of B, by poison. The fact that, before the
death of B, A produced poison similar to that which was
administered to B is relevant."
The fact that a day prior to the murder of B, A went to the druggist
shop and obtained a particular poison, is relevant to show that he
made necessary preparation for committing the crime
106

107. 3. Conduct
• Section 8 of The Indian Evidence Act also
defines ‘conduct’, conduct here means an
external behaviour of a person.
• To check if the conduct of a person is relevant
to the incident then the court must establish
a link between the conduct of a person who
committed the crime and the conduct of
incident.
107

108. EXERCISE
•
(a) A is tried for the murder of B.
The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A
had murdered C, and B had tried to had extort
money from A by threatening to make his
knowledge public, are relevant.
108

109. 2. A sues B upon a bond for the payment of
money.
B denies the making of the bond. the fact that,
at the time when the bond was alleged to be
made, B required money for a particular
purpose, is relevant.
109

110. • c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.
The fact that, before the death of B, A
procured poison similar to that which was
administered to B, is relevant.
110

111. E) A is accused of a crime.
• The acts that, either before or at the time of,
or after the alleged crime, A proved evidence
which would tend to give to the facts of the
case an appearance favorable to himself,
• or that he destroyed or concealed evidence,
or prevented the presence or procured the
absence of persons who might have been
witnesses, or suborned persons to give false
evidence respecting it, are relevant.
111

112. Section 9-
1. Facts which are necessary to explain a fact in issue or relevant
fact.
2. Facts which are necessary to introduce a fact in issue or
relevant fact.
3. Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact
in issue or relevant fact.
4. Facts which establish the identity of anything or person
whose identity is relevant.
5. Facts which fix time and place at which any fact in issue or
relevant fact happened.
6. Facts which shows the relation of parties by whom any fact
was transacted.
112

113. • When the identity of a thing or a person is in
question then the fact through which a thing
or person may be identified is a relevant fact
within the meaning of section 9 of the
Evidence Act.
• For example, the body of the deceased person
if lying in a place, this may be identified by
the clothes, shoes of the deceased person by
his family members
• or the identity of ornaments stolen in a crime
of theft pr dacoity may be identified by the
victim of the crime.
113

114. • Ram Babu v. State of U.P. AIR 2010 – The SC
observed that as per section 9 of the Evidence
Act, facts which establish the identity of an
accused are relevant.
• Identification Parade belongs to investigation
stage and if adequate precautions are
ensured, the evidence with regard to test
identification parade may be used by the
court for the purpose of corroboration.
114

115. Object of test Identifications:-
• That the witnesses who claim to have seen
the culprits at the time of occurrence are to
identify them from the mist of other persons
without any aid or any other source.
• The main object and idea of holding an
investigation parade during investigation
stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses
based upon first impression.
115

116. Test Identification parade ,
only a circumstance
• The fact that a particular witness has been
able to identify the accused at an
identification parade is only a circumstance
corroborative of the identification in court..
• Thus, it is only a relevant consideration which
may be examined by the court in view of
other circumstances and corroborative
evidence with reference to the facts of a given
case.
116