When Every Detail Matters

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) retains the principle that facts closely connected with a fact in issue are admissible as evidence. It allows courts to consider not only the main fact but also surrounding circumstances that form part of the same transaction. This ensures a realistic understanding of events rather than a fragmented view.

When are facts that are not directly in issue still considered relevant?

Facts that are so closely connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact that they form part of the same transaction are relevant, even if they occurred at different times and places.

Are there any examples?

(a)
If A is accused of murdering B by beating him, then whatever was said or done by A, B, or bystanders during the beating, or shortly before or after it, is relevant.

(b)
If A is accused of waging war against the Government of India during an armed revolt where property was destroyed, troops attacked, and jails broken, all these events are relevant even if A was not present everywhere.

(c)
If A sues B for libel in a letter that was part of a series of letters, all the other letters relating to the same subject are relevant even if they do not contain the libel.

(d)
If the question is whether goods ordered from B were delivered to A, and the goods passed through several people, each delivery is relevant.

What is the rule of res gestae?

It means that certain spontaneous statements or acts forming part of the same transaction are admissible as evidence, even though normally hearsay is not allowed. The statement must be natural and directly connected to the incident, leaving no chance of fabrication.

What about extra-judicial confessions?

Such confessions are usually weak evidence. Courts are cautious to rely on them unless there are strong supporting circumstances.

When are facts about cause, occasion, or effect relevant?

Facts are relevant if they are the cause, occasion, or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts. They are also relevant if they show the surrounding circumstances under which the event happened or gave an opportunity for it to occur.

Are there any examples?

(a)
If the question is whether A robbed B, it is relevant that B went to a fair with money just before the robbery and showed others that he had it.

(b)
If the question is whether A murdered B, marks on the ground near the murder spot showing a struggle are relevant.

(c)
If the question is whether A poisoned B, the state of B’s health before symptoms appeared and B’s habits known to A (which gave A an opportunity to poison B) are relevant.

When is motive or preparation relevant?

Any fact that shows or proves a motive or preparation for a fact in issue or relevant fact is itself relevant.

When is conduct relevant?

Conduct of any party or their agent, or conduct of the victim of an offence, is relevant if it is influenced by, or influences, a fact in issue or relevant fact. This applies whether the conduct happened before, during, or after the event.

Are there any illustrations?

(a)
If A is tried for murdering B, the fact that A had earlier murdered C, that B knew this, and that B tried to blackmail A with this knowledge is relevant.

(b)
If A sues B on a bond, and B denies making it, the fact that B needed money at that time is relevant.

(c)
If A is tried for poisoning B, the fact that A bought poison before B’s death is relevant.

(d)
If the question is whether a will is genuine, A’s inquiries about making a will and preparation of drafts before the alleged will are relevant.

(e)
If A is accused of a crime, his attempts to fabricate evidence, conceal witnesses, or destroy material are relevant.

(f)
If A is accused of robbing B, and when told police were coming he ran away, that is relevant.

(g)
If the question is whether A owes B Rs. 10,000, and A stays silent when someone says so in his presence, it is relevant.

(h)
If A absconds after receiving a letter warning him of an inquiry, both the absconding and the letter are relevant.

(i)
If A is accused of a crime and is later found with stolen property or hides tools used for the crime, that is relevant.

(j)
If A was robbed, her immediate complaint is relevant, but merely saying “I was robbed” without a complaint is not relevant.

When are introductory or explanatory facts relevant?

Facts are relevant if they explain or introduce a fact in issue, support or rebut an inference, establish identity, fix time or place, or show relation of parties.

Are there any illustrations?

(a)
If the question is whether a document is A’s will, A’s family and property situation at that time are relevant.

(b)
If A sues B for libel, their relationship at the time is relevant.

(c)
If A absconds after a crime, that is relevant. If he left because of urgent business, that is also relevant to explain his absence.

(d)
If A sues B for making C break a contract, C’s statement that he left because B made him a better offer is relevant.

(e)
If A gives stolen property to B, and B tells A’s wife to hide it, that statement is relevant as explanatory.

(f)
If A leads a mob during a riot, the cries of the mob are relevant to explain the transaction.

When are statements or acts of conspirators relevant?

If two or more people are believed to have conspired, then anything said, done, or written by any of them regarding the conspiracy is relevant against all of them. This applies even if some were unaware of all acts or joined later or left earlier.

Is there an example?

Suppose A is believed to have joined a conspiracy to wage war. B buys arms abroad, C collects money in Kolkata, D persuades recruits in Mumbai, E publishes writings, F transfers money, and H writes a letter describing the plan. All these acts and writings are relevant against A too.

Can irrelevant facts ever become relevant?

(a)
Yes, if they are inconsistent with facts in issue or relevant facts.

(b)
Yes, if they make the existence or non-existence of facts in issue highly probable or improbable.

What are the examples?

(a)
If A is accused of a crime in Chennai on a day, the fact that he was in Ladakh that day is relevant.

(b)
If a crime could have been committed only by A, B, C, or D, then any fact showing that it was not B, C, or D makes A’s involvement more probable.

In cases claiming damages, what facts are relevant?

Any fact that helps the court decide the correct amount of damages is relevant.

When are facts about rights or customs relevant?

They are relevant if they show:

(a)
Transactions creating, claiming, modifying, recognising, or denying the right/custom.

(b)
Instances where the right/custom was exercised, claimed, or disputed.

Is there an example?

If the question is whether A has a right to fishery, then deeds, mortgages, grants, and instances of its exercise or dispute are all relevant.

When are facts about a person’s state of mind or health relevant?

They are relevant if the person’s intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, ill-will, state of health, or bodily feelings are in issue.

Are there any conditions?

(a)     The state of mind must be connected to the particular matter, not general attitude.

(b)
If a person’s past offence is relevant, their previous conviction is also relevant.

Are there any examples?

(a)
If A is accused of receiving stolen goods, the fact that he possessed many stolen items is relevant.

(b)
If A is accused of giving counterfeit currency, the fact that he had many other counterfeit notes is relevant.

(c)
If A’s dog bit others before, that is relevant in a case about negligence.

(d)
If A had accepted false bills earlier, it shows knowledge of fraud.

(e)
If A has previously published defamatory material against B, it shows intention to harm B.

(f)
If A falsely said C was solvent, but everyone believed C was solvent, it shows A acted in good faith.

(g)
If A entrusted work to C and paid him, it shows A’s good faith.

(h)
If A misappropriated found property despite public notice of its loss, it shows lack of good faith.

(i)
If A earlier shot at B, it shows intent when charged with shooting B.

When are similar past acts relevant to decide accident or intention?

If an act is questioned as accidental or intentional, then similar acts by the same person are relevant.

Are there any examples?

(a)
If A’s insured houses keep burning down one after another, it suggests intentional fires, not accidents.

(b)
If A keeps making false entries in account books, it shows intention, not mistake.

(c)
If A delivers counterfeit money to many people around the same time, it shows it was not accidental.

When is a course of business relevant?

When it helps prove whether an act was done, facts showing the ordinary course of business are relevant.

Are there any examples?

(a)
If the question is whether a letter was dispatched, the fact that all letters kept in a certain place were usually posted makes it relevant.

(b)
If the question is whether a letter reached A, the fact that it was posted and not returned is relevant.

Therefore, closely connected facts play a vital role in presenting the whole truth before the court. By admitting such facts, the law avoids technical exclusions and captures the natural flow of events. This principle continues under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) striking a balance between strict evidentiary provisions and the demands of justice.

Muneeb Rashid Malik is an Advocate. He tweets @muneebmalikrash.