Relevancy of Facts, Custom, Mental and Physical State

(Sections 9, 11, 12, and 13 – BSA 2023)

SECTION 9 – Relevancy of Otherwise Irrelevant Facts

(Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts)

Statutory Language:

“Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by such a 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.”

Explanation:

Section 9 allows certain facts to become incidentally relevant, even if they are otherwise not directly connected to the main issue in a case. These facts are permitted because they serve specific auxiliary functions such as introducing, explaining, or connecting a fact that is already relevant.

This section operates to complete the logical framework of the main event and is designed to help courts get the full picture.

Categories of Facts Covered:

1. Facts to Explain or Introduce: These include background information, such as previous events or conversations, that help clarify a relevant fact.
2. Facts that Support or Rebut Inferences: These may not be relevant by themselves, but they can counter or support a conclusion drawn from a relevant fact.
3. Facts Establishing Identity: This includes documents, descriptions, physical features, voice samples, etc., used to identify people or objects.
4. Facts Fixing Time or Place: Examples include clocks, CCTV footage, and location data, which fix a relevant fact to a particular time or place.
5. Facts Showing Relationship Between Parties: To explain an interaction between parties, their prior or ongoing relationship may become relevant.

Examples:

• A CCTV recording that shows the accused entering the scene minutes before the crime.
• A mobile phone location record showing presence in the area.
• Photographs taken with the victim that explain familiarity.
• A signature on a receipt that introduces a document presented as evidence.

Case Law: R v. Richardson (1971)

In this English case, a witness recognized the accused based on his unusual way of walking. The CCTV showed the person limping, and the witness connected it to the accused. The limp itself was not in issue, but it became relevant under this provision as a means of identification.

Indian courts similarly admit physical traits, voice recognition, and other identifiers under Section 9.

The Problems of Relevancy of Otherwise Irrelevant Facts (Section 9 of BSA, 2023)

Statutory Provision – Section 9, BSA, 2023

“Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.”

This provision expands the traditional view of relevance by recognizing that some facts, although not directly related to the fact in issue, may indirectly influence the truthfulness, probability, or perception of the facts in question. Section 9 brings these into the fold of admissible evidence by outlining the specific conditions under which they gain relevance.

Key Features of Section 9

1. Conditional Relevancy: A fact is not inherently relevant but becomes relevant under certain conditions.
2. Inconsistency with Facts in Issue: Facts that contradict main facts can themselves become relevant.
3. Probability Linkage: If a fact affects the probability of another relevant fact, it becomes admissible.
4. Indirect Relevancy: Emphasizes logical connection, not direct causality.
5. Harmonizes with Sections 5 to 8: It serves as a bridge when facts do not fall squarely under earlier sections.
6. Illustrative & Flexible: The section provides examples, but interpretation is left to judicial discretion.
7. Supports the Principle of Fair Trial: Ensures the court has all facts that may logically bear upon the matter.

Detailed Explanation

Clause (1): Inconsistency with Facts in Issue or Relevant Facts

This clause recognizes that a contradiction or inconsistency between two facts itself has evidentiary value. When a fact is inconsistent with a fact in issue or a relevant fact, it casts doubt or raises a presumption that the fact in issue may not be true.

Example:

• The question is whether A committed a murder in Chennai on March 1st.
• Evidence shows A was in Ladakh on that date.
• A’s presence in Ladakh is otherwise irrelevant to the crime, but because it is inconsistent with the prosecution’s claim, it becomes relevant.

Such facts attack the credibility of the prosecution's theory, and their evidentiary value lies in disproving or weakening the existence of the fact in issue.a

Clause (2): Probability Enhancement or Reduction

This clause is based on the principle of logical probativeness. If a fact, alone or combined with other facts, increases or decreases the probability of a fact in issue or a relevant fact, it becomes relevant. This allows courts to evaluate surrounding circumstances that may influence the likelihood of a fact.

Example:

• The question is whether A killed B.
• It is proved that A bought a knife a day before and practiced stabbing.
• The act of buying the knife and practicing is not the murder itself, but it makes it more probable that A committed the murder.

This provision brings in what is often referred to as “circumstantial evidence”, i.e., facts that don’t directly prove a fact in issue but create a logical inference pointing toward or away from it.

Judicial Interpretation & Landmark Case Laws

1. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam, AIR 2003 SC 2506

The Supreme Court held that even if a fact does not directly relate to the offence, any inconsistency that helps the court assess the truthfulness of key facts is admissible. The absence of the accused’s fingerprints at the scene was treated as a relevant fact under Section 9.

2. Queen Empress v. Abdullah, (1885) ILR 7 All 385

This classic case involved the alibi defense. The accused claimed he was elsewhere, and evidence was led to show his presence in a different town. Though that fact did not prove innocence directly, it made the commission of the crime highly improbable, and hence was deemed relevant under Section 9.

3. State v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case), AIR 1999 SC 2640

The Court allowed the introduction of post-conspiracy behavior as relevant under Section 9, even though those acts occurred after the main event, as they helped to evaluate the probability of individual involvement.

Illustrations and Practical Scenarios

1. Alibi Claims: A’s presence in a city far from the crime scene becomes relevant because it creates a logical inconsistency.
2. Behavior Before/After Crime: Absconding, buying weapons, or deleting call logs may not be directly connected but support or weaken a charge.
3. Corroborative Details: A particular shoe print found at the crime scene is of the same brand and size as the accused's — this doesn’t prove guilt but makes it more probable.
4. Emotional State: A diary entry showing depression or revenge may become relevant when proving motive, even though personal feelings aren't generally facts in issue.
5. Witness Conduct: A witness’s delay in reporting can be relevant to assess credibility, even though the delay itself is not a fact in issue.

Importance of Section 9 in Evidence Law

Section 9 plays a balancing role between strict rules of admissibility and practical needs of justice. It ensures:

• Courts are not handicapped by artificial limitations.
• Parties get a chance to refute or reinforce facts through indirect yet logical facts.
• Fact-finding remains comprehensive, particularly when direct evidence is unavailable.
• It recognizes the interconnected nature of reality, where not all truth can be proven by direct evidence alone.

SECTION 11 – Relevant Facts for Proof of Custom

Statutory Language:

“Where the existence of any right or custom is in question, the following facts are relevant—
(a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, modified, recognized, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence;
(b) Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.”

Explanation:

Section 11 addresses how customary rights or practices can be proven in court. In many civil cases, people claim rights based not on formal law but on local traditions or practices. This provision allows proof of such customs through past acts or patterns of behavior.

Customs play an important role especially in:

• Property matters
• Inheritance claims
• Religious or social practices
• Easement and usage rights

Key Elements for a Valid Custom:

1. Antiquity – Must be ancient or long-established
2. Certainty – Clearly defined in scope and application
3. Reasonableness – Must not be oppressive or arbitrary
4. Continuity – Must be continuously observed
5. Not opposed to law – Must not contradict statutory provisions

How Custom is Proven:

• Through Written Records – like registered deeds, agreements, revenue records.
• Through Conduct of Parties – consistent recognition or enforcement of the custom.
• Through Particular Instances – where the custom was exercised or resisted.

Examples:

• A village practice of allowing widows to inherit land.
• A family tradition of the eldest daughter performing religious rites.
• Repeated usage of a path across someone’s land as a right of way.

Illustrations

1. In a Hindu joint family, if the eldest female member has always acted as Karta, evidence of such past instances is relevant to prove the existence of that custom.
2. A village community claims a customary right of fishing in a river. Previous government grants, rent receipts, or panchayat orders that mention or acknowledge the right are relevant.
3. In a tribal area, if women are regularly seen inheriting agricultural land, such instances are relevant to prove customary female succession.
4. A case involves the right of way through private land. Old maps, property documents, and prior judgments where this path was recognized are relevant facts under Section 11.

Case Law: Kamewar Pershad v. Rajkumari (1875)

In this case, the Privy Council accepted oral evidence and past behavior of the parties as proof of a customary right. The plaintiff had used the disputed property in a certain way for generations. The court held that specific instances of usage or recognition of a right are valid evidence under this section.

This case is often cited to show that written documents are not mandatory to prove a custom.

Important Case Laws

1. Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga Sethupathi, (1868) 12 MIA 397

This case is a foundational authority on custom. The Privy Council held that a custom, to be legally recognized, must be ancient, certain, and reasonable. The evidence showed repeated recognition of the custom of female inheritance.

2. Ujagar Singh v. Jeo, AIR 1959 SC 1041

The Supreme Court ruled that evidence of particular instances where a custom was followed—such as daughters inheriting property—was sufficient to infer the existence of a family custom.

3. Narayan v. Gopalrao, AIR 1960 SC 100

This case held that custom must be proved through cogent and consistent evidence. Inconsistencies or isolated incidents would not suffice.

4. Thakur Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231

The Court held that oral evidence from senior members of a family about how a custom was followed in the past can be admitted under Section 11.

How to Prove Custom Using Section 11

Section 11 permits the use of:

• Official Records: Settlement papers, land records, gazetteers.
• Private Documents: Wills, agreements, and property deeds acknowledging the custom.
• Oral Testimony: Elders or community members familiar with the practice.
• Judicial Precedents: Prior court decisions acknowledging the same custom.
• Physical Evidence: Architecture (e.g., a dedicated women's court), ritual instruments, community orders.

SECTION 12 – Facts Showing State of Mind or Body

Statutory Language:

“Facts showing the existence of any state of mind such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will, or good-will 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 or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.”

Explanation:

Section 12 is crucial in both criminal and civil cases because many legal issues depend on a person's mental or physical state. This section allows the court to look at behavior, actions, and external expressions to infer what was going on in the person's mind or body.

This helps determine the following:

• Whether an act was intentional or accidental
• Whether a person acted negligently
• Whether there was good faith or malice
• Whether a person was physically or mentally fit to act

When This Section is Used:

1. Intention or Knowledge in Crimes – Like in murder, rape, or theft.
2. Mental Capacity in Contracts – Whether a party was of sound mind when signing.
3. Negligence in Torts – Determining if carelessness caused injury.
4. Good Faith in Civil Disputes – For defamation, fiduciary duties, etc.

Examples:

• Suicide note indicating mental distress.
• Threatening letters showing ill-will.
• Medical reports proving insanity.
• Consistent refusal to cooperate showing bad faith.

Case Law: Queen Empress v. Lakshman (1884)

In this case, the accused claimed insanity as a defense in a murder case. Evidence of his strange behavior, previous medical treatment, and isolation from society was admitted under this provision. The court held that past and present conduct could be examined to decide if he had the mental capacity to form intent.

This ruling has guided Indian courts in using psychological and behavioral evidence.

Section 13 – Facts Bearing on Question Whether Act Was Accidental or Intentional 

Statutory Language:

“When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.”

Explanation

This section permits the introduction of pattern-based evidence to establish:

• That a person’s act was not accidental, or
• That the person had specific knowledge or intent at the time.

The law assumes that if a person repeatedly engages in similar conduct, especially with the same consequences or benefit, it's unlikely to be a coincidence. Therefore, such conduct may be used to infer intention or knowledge.

This is especially important in:

• Insurance fraud
• Forgery or financial misreporting
• Criminal misappropriation
• Cases involving fraud, cheating, counterfeit currency, arson, etc.

Key Features of Section 13

1. Establishes Intention or Knowledge
   Helps the court determine whether the act was intentional or by accident.
2. Pattern of Conduct Rule
   Allows evidence of a series of similar past acts by the same individual.
3. Supports Circumstantial Evidence
   Strengthens the prosecution’s case when direct evidence is lacking.
4. Overcomes Hearsay Barriers
   Prior conduct normally excluded as hearsay becomes relevant under this section.
5. Does Not Require Conviction for Past Acts
   Mere occurrence of similar acts is sufficient — conviction not necessary.
6. Balancing Test
   Courts must ensure such evidence is used judiciously, avoiding prejudice.

Illustrations (as per the Bare Act)

Illustration (a): Insurance Fire Fraud

A is accused of burning down his house to claim insurance.
Facts: A had done the same with several past houses, always insured, always catching fire, and he was paid each time.

These repeated fires point to intention, not accident.

Illustration (b): False Accounting Entries

A is entrusted with collecting money for B and recording it.
In one entry, he shows a lesser amount than received.
It is found that many such false entries were made, always in A’s favor.

This shows a pattern of deliberate fraud.

Illustration (c): Counterfeit Currency Delivery

A gives fake notes to B. The issue is whether it was accidental.
It turns out A also gave fake notes to C, D, and E around the same time.

This repetition suggests A knew the notes were fake.

Important Case Laws Interpreting Section 13

1. Sukhram v. State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 772

Held: Where the accused claimed the fire in his shop was accidental, the prosecution proved he had previously claimed similar fire insurance. The Court admitted these as relevant facts to show intention.

2. Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales, (1894) AC 57

Held: Similar facts relating to prior murders of infants by the same accused were allowed to show the methodical, intentional nature of the crime.

3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1449

Held: Repeated false entries by an employee, similar in pattern and always to his benefit, were relevant to show deliberate fraud, not a bookkeeping error.

4. Bharat Singh v. Bhagirath, AIR 1966 SC 405

Though relating to civil facts, the Court acknowledged that prior acts with similar effects can be admissible to show motive or malice.

Conclusion

Sections 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provide an extended framework for interpreting the context behind relevant facts. These provisions are essential in cases where facts do not speak for themselves and require background understanding, intentional analysis, and behavioral explanation.

They offer courts the tools to understand:

• How irrelevant facts can become relevant by connecting them to the bigger picture (Section 9)
• How customs and traditional rights can be legally proven (Section 11)
• How intention, good faith, knowledge, and physical conditions matter (Section 12)
• How the behavior or condition of other people involved must also be evaluated (Section 13)

These sections serve to fill evidentiary gaps, build credible narratives, and assist judges in delivering fair and informed judgments.