In the context of legal evidence, relevance refers to the significance and connection of a particular piece of information or evidence to the issues at hand in a legal case. The central idea is that relevant evidence makes the existence of a fact more or less probable than it would be without that evidence. While the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not explicitly define relevancy, it outlines in Sections 5 to 55 various ways in which facts may be associated with one another, forming the basis for determining relevance.

At its core, relevancy acts as a crucial link between a statement of proof and the statement that needs to be proved. This link is established by demonstrating an association between different facts, as stipulated in the provisions of the Evidence Act. Two fundamental principles guide the application of relevancy: first, nothing should be admitted if it is not logically verified in relation to the matters that need proof, and second, everything that is verified and probative should be admitted unless clear legal grounds exclude it. The exclusion of relevant evidence is possible under certain circumstances. A court may choose to bar relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed significantly by the risks of unfair bias, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or the unnecessary presentation of cumulative proof. This careful balancing ensures that the admission of evidence serves the interests of justice and the fair determination of facts.

Every event is a fact in itself and is made up of a number of facts. The law of evidence was developed to prove facts. The chapter “Relevancy of Facts” can be considered a tool to identify facts appropriate to the case, but there is a difference between facts that are relevant and facts that are admissible. The concept of relevancy is based on logic and probability, while the question of admissibility is decided based on the laws in force.

Meaning of Facts

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), defines a fact as:

1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by senses.
2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Relevancy of Facts

Chapter II of the IEA deals with the relevancy of facts under Sections 5 to 55. The relevant facts are provided under Sections 5 to 16. The provisions discussed here are:

• Section 5: Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.
• Section 6: Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction.
• Section 7: Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue.
• Section 8: Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct.
• Section 9: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
• Section 14: Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body, or bodily feeling.

Evidence of Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts – Section 5

Evidence may be given of:

1. The existence and non-existence of every fact in issue.
2. Such other facts as are declared to be relevant, and no others.

No evidence can be given of a fact that a person is disentitled to prove under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.

Illustration:

(a) A 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:

• A’s beating B with the club.
• A’s causing B’s death by such beating.
• A’s intention to cause B’s death.

Relevancy of Facts Forming Part of the Same Transaction – Section 6

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.

Illustrations:

(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and jails are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.

Doctrine of Res Gestae

Under English law, the facts that form part of the same transaction come under res gestae. Res gestae means the things done or words spoken in the course of the same transaction. A transaction is a group of facts so connected as to be referred to by a single legal name, such as a crime, a contract, a wrong, or any other subject of inquiry which may be at issue.

Case Laws:

• R v. Bedingfield (1879): In this English case, where a woman with her throat cut came out of the room shouting, “Aunt, see what Bedingfield has done to me,” Cockburn C.J. held that the statement was not admissible as res gestae as it was made after the incident was over.
• Gentela V. Rao v. State of AP (1996): The appellants were accused of setting a bus on fire, resulting in the death of 23 people and injuries to several others. The statements of the victims were recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. These statements were presented as evidence under Section 6, claiming they were part of the res gestae. However, the SC declined to admit these statements as evidence under Section 6, citing a temporal gap between the incidents, which rendered them inadmissible.

Facts Which Are the Occasion, Cause, or Effect of Facts in Issue – Section 7

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.

Illustrations:

(a) The question is whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

Case Law:

• R v. Richardson (1758): In this English case, the deceased girl was alone in her cottage. Being alone was considered to be an occasion for murder.

Motive, Preparation, and Previous or Subsequent Conduct – Section 8

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to a fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offense against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

Explanation 1: The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements, but this explanation does not affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.

Explanation 2: When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.

Illustrations:

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

(b) 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.

(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.

(k) The question is whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to the offense, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that he said he had been robbed, without making any complaint, is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under Section 157.

Constituents of Section 8

• Motive: Motive is something that compels a man to do a particular act. It primarily refers to the underlying reason or purpose that drives a person to commit a crime. For instance, in a murder case, the prosecution may seek to establish a motive to explain why the accused would want to harm the victim. Motive is relevant as it can provide a context for the crime and help establish intent. Illustration: A is prosecuted for the murder of B. The fact that A had a motive to kill B, such as a longstanding feud or a financial dispute, is relevant to the case.
• Preparation: Preparation refers to the steps taken by the accused in anticipation of committing the crime. This can include actions such as acquiring weapons, planning the crime scene, or creating an alibi. Evidence of preparation can show that the accused had a deliberate plan and intent to commit the crime. Illustration: A is accused of robbing a bank. The fact that A was seen purchasing a mask and a weapon shortly before the robbery is relevant as preparation.
• Previous Conduct: Previous conduct refers to the actions or behavior of the accused prior to the commission of the crime. This can include patterns of behavior, prior threats, or previous criminal acts. Previous conduct is relevant as it can establish a pattern or intent. Illustration: A is on trial for domestic violence against B. Evidence that A had a history of abusive behavior towards B or others is relevant, as is previous conduct.
• Subsequent Conduct: Subsequent conduct refers to the actions or behavior of the accused after the commission of the crime. This can include fleeing the scene, attempting to cover up evidence, or making false statements. Subsequent conduct is relevant as it can indicate consciousness of guilt and an attempt to avoid detection. Illustration: A is accused of theft. The fact that A was found disposing of stolen goods shortly after the theft is relevant as subsequent conduct.

Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts – Section 9

Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.

Illustrations:

(a) The question is whether a given document is the will of A. The state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.

(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libelous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts.

(c) The question is whether a certain document is the deed of A. The circumstances under which it was signed, and other factors that explain the nature of the document, are relevant.

Case Law:

• State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court held that the identity of the informer who provides the information about the commission of an offense must be disclosed if the evidence is necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.

Facts Showing Existence of State of Mind, Body, or Bodily Feeling – Section 14

Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will, or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind, body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.

Illustrations:

(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. It is proven that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as it tends to show that he knew each and every one of the articles to be stolen.

(b) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s, which B knew to be ferocious. The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y, and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.

(c) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession a counterfeit coin that he knew to be counterfeit. The facts that he was in possession of a number of other pieces of counterfeit coin, and that he had sold them to different people, knowing them to be counterfeit, are relevant.

(d) A is accused of the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. In the trial, the fact that A had previously threatened to shoot B is relevant.

(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intending to harm the reputation of B. The fact of the publication of the imputation and the circumstances under which it was published are relevant.

(f) A is accused of causing grievous harm to B by running over him with a car. The fact that A was driving at a high speed and in a negligent manner is relevant.

Conclusion

The concept of relevancy under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, encompasses a wide range of facts and circumstances that can shed light on the matters in issue in a legal proceeding. The Act provides a structured framework for determining which facts are relevant and admissible, ensuring that the evidence presented in court is logically connected to the issues at hand and contributes to a fair and just resolution of the case.