Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue
Reference: The Indian Evidence Act
Section 7
Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediately 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.
This Section makes a large number of collateral facts which do not form part of the transaction itself relevant. For example, a contemporaneous tape recording of a relevant conversation is relevant and can be used to confront a witness or shake his credit. (Dial Singh Narain Singh v. Rajpal Jagan Nath, 1969) However, such a recording must be treated with caution.
In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shankar Kurtekar, 1999, it was held that the only plausible explanation of how a tape (in the absence of any other explanation) had music both before and after the taped conversation was that it had been tampered with.
In R. v. Richardson, the fact that the deceased girl was alone in her cottage at the time she was murdered was held to be relevant as it constituted the occasion of the murder and footprints at the location of shoes which had been mended with iron knobs or nails were held to be one of the effects.
In Indian Airlines v. Madhuri Chaudhari, 1965, the Calcutta High Court held that the report of the Enquiry Commission regarding an air-crash was relevant in establishing the cause of the accident.
In Rattan v. Reginam, 1971, the fact that a man who had murdered his wife had been having an affair was held to be relevant as being the state of things or background in which the crime occurred.
However, a fact in issue cannot be proved by similar facts which are not a part of the same transaction merely by virtue of Section 7.
Section 7
Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediately 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.
This Section makes a large number of collateral facts which do not form part of the transaction itself relevant. For example, a contemporaneous tape recording of a relevant conversation is relevant and can be used to confront a witness or shake his credit. (Dial Singh Narain Singh v. Rajpal Jagan Nath, 1969) However, such a recording must be treated with caution.
In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shankar Kurtekar, 1999, it was held that the only plausible explanation of how a tape (in the absence of any other explanation) had music both before and after the taped conversation was that it had been tampered with.
In R. v. Richardson, the fact that the deceased girl was alone in her cottage at the time she was murdered was held to be relevant as it constituted the occasion of the murder and footprints at the location of shoes which had been mended with iron knobs or nails were held to be one of the effects.
In Indian Airlines v. Madhuri Chaudhari, 1965, the Calcutta High Court held that the report of the Enquiry Commission regarding an air-crash was relevant in establishing the cause of the accident.
In Rattan v. Reginam, 1971, the fact that a man who had murdered his wife had been having an affair was held to be relevant as being the state of things or background in which the crime occurred.
However, a fact in issue cannot be proved by similar facts which are not a part of the same transaction merely by virtue of Section 7.
Labels: Evidence
<< Home