Law and You >Procedural Laws > Indian Evidence Act, 1872 > Relevant Facts
Facts and proof are the two things that combine to form evidence, which the court may or may not accept as showing the merit or otherwise of a party’s case. Where the court believes the facts shown by a party in any proceeding exist or when it is convinced that a reasonable person would see them as existing, the fact is said to be proved. If the court is not satisfied that those facts exist or is convinced that a reasonable person would not see them as existing, the fact is said to be “disproved”. Thus ‘Facts’ are important in any case. In last article we have discussed ‘Facts in Issue’. In this article, we shall study the meaning of the term ‘Relevant Facts’.
Defining Fact:
According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ‘Fact’ means and includes:
- anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
- any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
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 a 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.
Relevant Facts:
According to Section 3 of the Indian evidence Act, 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 facts. ” The said provisions are contained in sections 5 to 55 of the Evidence Act.
Where in a case direct evidence is not available to prove a fact in issue then it may be proved by any circumstantial evidence and in such a case every piece of circumstantial evidence would be an instance of a “relevant fact”.
The relevant facts are different from the facts at issue. These are facts that are not in dispute/issue, but they are related to facts that are in dispute/issue. But the connection must be real or logical. In other words, not all connections make the facts meaningful. To be relevant, the facts in question must be logically connected to the facts at issue.
For example, A is accused of B’s murder, and A denies any such act. C saw A with B on the day of the murder. Here, the question of whether A had committed murder or not is a “fact in issue” and the fact that C saw A on the day of murder with B will be the “relevant fact”, i.e., a fact connected to the fact in issue which either helps to prove or disprove.
A relevant fact is admissible if there is a nexus to the fact in issue and not by the exclusionary rule. Also, a relevant fact’s admissibility may well depend upon the particular way in which it is intended to be used.
Facts Recognized to be Relevant Under the IEA:
The facts, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 recognizes as relevant facts are given under Sections 5 to 55 and they may be grouped as follows:
- Facts logically connected with facts in issue or relevant facts (Sections 5 to 16)
- Admissions and Confessions (Sections 17 to 31)
- Statements by persons who cannot be called as witness (Sections 32 and 33)
- Statements under special circumstances (Sections 34 to 37)
- Judgments in other cases (Sections 40 to 44)
- Opinion of third persons (sections 45 -51)
- Evidence as to Character (Sections 52 to 55)
Classification of Relevancy:
A fact may either be logically relevant or legally relevant. It is generally upheld that “Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant or admissible.
Logical Relevancy – A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when by application of our logic it appears that one fact has a bearing on another fact. Where a fact bears such casual relation to the other that it renders probable its existence or non-existence, it is said to be a logically relevant fact. For instance, where it is to be determined whether A has placed the murder weapon in the field or not, the fact that B saw A walking towards the field with the murder weapon is logically relevant. If logically relevant fact is not declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act. A fact may be logically relevant to a particular case but there is no guarantee that it will be legally admissible in the courts. So, all the evidence that are to be produced in the courts have to both logically relevant and legally admissible.
In Hadu v. State, AIR 1951 Ori53 case, the Court observed that if one fact is connected to the other logically, it is called logical relevancy and it may be basedb on the following factors, among others:
- Cause and Effect
- Occurrence at the same time (unity of time)
- Occurrence at the same place (unity of place)
- Common purpose and design
Example: A dead body is found on railway track, it can be inferred that the death of the person took place due to running over the person by the train. If no blood stains are seen near by, then we can infer that the person was killed somewhere else and his body is thrown on the railway track to create misleading impression that the person was run over by the train.
Legal Relevancy – A fact is said to be legally relevant when it is expressed as relevant under Section 5 to 55 (Relevancy of Fact). The Evidence Act recognizes some of the kinds of causal relations. Thus, those kinds of causal relations which are recognized by law are known as legally relevant fact. For instance, an accused gives the following statement- “I have kept in the field the knife with which I killed A.” While the statement may be logically relevant to establish the guilt of the accused, its legal relevancy extends to only so far as it confirms the fact that the accused had kept the knife in the field. This is so because section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly lays down that only that part of the information may be proved which clearly relates to the fact thereby discovered.
Distinguishing Between Logical Relevancy and Legal Relevancy:
| Logical Relevancy | Legal Relevancy |
| A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when by application of our logic it appears that one fact has a bearing on another fact. | A fact is said to be legally relevant when it is expressed as relevant under Section 5 to 55 (Relevancy of Fact). |
| If logically relevant fact is not declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act. | Legally relevant fact is admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act. |
| Logical relevancy is not defined under the Section 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act. | Legal relevancy is defined under the Section 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Example: where it is to be determined whether A has placed the murder weapon in the field or not, the fact that B saw A walking towards the field with the murder weapon is logically relevant. | Example: an accused gives the following statement- “I have kept in the field the knife with which I killed A.” While the statement may be logically relevant to establish the guilt of the accused, its legal relevancy extends to only so far as it confirms the fact that the accused had kept the knife in the field. |
Distinguishing between Facts in issue and Relevant Facts:
| Facts at Issue | Relevant facts |
| According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the expression facts in issue means and includes 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 in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. | According to Section 3 of the Indian evidence Act, 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 facts. ” The said provisions are contained in sections 5 to 55 of the Evidence Act. |
| 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 in issue, i.e., “evidentiary fact” or “Factum probandi”. |
| Facts at issue are significant in nature | Relevant facts are non-significant. |
| The facts at issue are the basis of the “law of evidence”. | They are part of the law of evidence. |
| These are confirmed by one party but denied by the other party. | The relevant facts are the foundation of the inferences made. |
| They are a necessary ingredient of a right or liability. | It is a not necessary ingredient of a right or liability. |
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act or Res Gestae is associated with relevancy of facts which form part of the same transaction i.e, “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.
Illustration:
A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.”
Conclusion:
Where in a case direct evidence is not available to prove a fact in issue then it may be proved by any circumstantial evidence and in such a case every piece of circumstantial evidence would be an instance of a “relevant fact”. A fact may either be logically relevant or legally relevant. It is generally upheld that “Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant or admissible. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act or Res Gestae is associated with relevancy of facts which form part of the same transaction.
For More Articles on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Click Here