Lecture 4 - of Relevancy of Facts - Part 1
Lecture 4 - of Relevancy of Facts - Part 1
Lecture 4 - of Relevancy of Facts - Part 1
Part 1
(Section 5-17)
Unit 1-Lecture 4
Ms. Jyoti Singh
Assistant Professor,
St. Joseph’s College of Law.
Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence
or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as
Section are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.
Working
test for Proximity of time,
Transaction
Community of purpose.
effect of
facts in issue
Ms. Jyoti Singh, Assistant Professor of Law, SJCL.
Illustration:
• R v. Tolson (1864): This case is about photograph identification. In order to confirm the first husband’s
identification with the person who attended his marriage as a witness on the marriage certificate. The
photograph was acceptable as evidence to identify the image’s visual representation of the accused
person. The witnesses talk from their recollections of the event through photos. This is just an
identification of an accused based on images recognized by witnesses. As a result, the Court decided
that pictures, drawings and photofits of crime scenes may be accepted.
• Rajnath Singh, Mahatim Singh, Ram Manam, Munnu Alias Monu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1978): This case involves dacoity in relation to a Test Identification of Parade. At night, four
dacoits break into Sheo Shanker Tiwari’s residence in Sakkapur village. They barged into the house
carrying weapons such as a gun, a knife and lathis. They also carried torches. These dacoits tied the
family to their beds while they were asleep. They were being threatened with weapons by the dacoits.
They took items and escaped from home. They discovered one of the dacoits names and filed a
complaint against him. The names of the others were unknown, but the family recognized them. They
were identified by the parade test. The eyewitness tracked down the others, who were arrested and
punished.
• Jawala Singh v. Prem Singh: In order that a collateral fact may be admissible as
relevant under section 11, two requirements are necessary:
1. that the collateral fact must itself be established by reasonably conclusive evidence.
2. That it must, when established, afford a reasonable presumption or inference as to the
matter in dispute.
• Khavar Sultan v. Rukha Sultan: Section 11(20 of the IEA makes facts which may
otherwise not be relevant to the controversy whereby themselves or in connection
with other facts such facts make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue
probable or improbable.
A deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s
father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the
mortgage, particular instances in which A’s father exercised the right, or in which
the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.
The facts that A lived in several houses successively each of which he insured, in each of which a
fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are
relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book
showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he
received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or
intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry
is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.