This article has been written by Manpreet Kaur, from Lovely Professional University, Phagwara

Introduction:

The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is a significant piece of legislation that governs the standards of proof and evidence rules that apply in court procedures in India. Its primary concern is establishing what types of ‘facts’ may be considered admissible evidence. Facts serve as the foundation for legal arguments, which influence case verdicts. They are necessary for presenting a coherent client’s consideration, determining the admissibility of documentation, and making genuine decisions. The presentation of evidence is critical in determining the outcome of any legal proceeding to provide a fair and effective justice system.

Similarly, in the legal systems of the United States and the United Kingdom, the determination of facts is the foundation of the decision-making process, whether by a judge or a jury. The relevance and correctness of facts have a considerable impact on the outcome of cases and the administration of justice. As a result, in judicial processes, an in-depth understanding and presentation of facts are critical. In this article, we’ll look at the distinction between the two kinds of facts and their implications in the context of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.

Meaning:

Facts: A fact is an information that is represented as factual or as representing reality. Facts are objective, empirical pieces of knowledge that describe real-world occurrences or circumstances. They are tangible characteristics of an incident, circumstance, statement, object, historical event date, and so on that may be demonstrated to be true or false.

Fact in issue: In a legal dispute, a fact in issue is a fact that is directly questioned or argued by the parties involved in the legal procedure. These are the facts that are directly related to and determine the allegations, claims, or main issues raised in the case. These legally significant factual elements make up the basis of the dispute, and it is essential to establish them to determine the parties’ essential rights and duties concerning occurrences of events relevant to the proceedings, such as a crime, violation of contract, and so on.

For instance, in a criminal case, the fact in question may be whether the defendant committed the crime for which they are charged.

Relevant Facts: Along with the facts at hand, there are extra factual aspects that influence interpretations or the trustworthiness of the main evidence. Relevant facts are pieces of information that have an impact on the subject at issue.

These pertinent facts provide supplemental information that provides further insight into the possibility, consequences, or broader context of the situation at issue. They may corroborate or challenge information in a dispute without directly influencing the outcome. They are admissible as evidence in court because they can assist the judge or jury in comprehending the case and reaching a fair verdict. Witness testimony, physical evidence, and expert views are examples of relevant facts.

Not all facts are relevant, and only those with logical relevance to the issue at hand will be taken into account.

In DPP vs Kilbourne, 1973, Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, “Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof. Relevant evidence is evidence that makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable.”

Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act:

Section 3. Interpretation-clause:

In section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act various important definition has been provided. Such as, court, fact, fact in issue, relevant fact and evidence etc.

1.Facts: Anything, state of things, or relationship of things that can be sensed (external fact).

For example,

(i) It is a fact when certain things are placed in a specific way or pattern.

(ii) It is a fact when someone sees or hears something.

(iii) The words stated by a person are facts.

Any mental condition that a person is aware of is an internal fact.

For example,

(i)consider a person’s viewpoint.

(ii)A person’s intentions.

(iii)A person who is acting in good faith or fraudulently.

(iv)A person’s intentional choice of words.

(v)Experiencing a certain sensation at a specific time.

(vi)The reputation of a person.

Two types of facts under evidence act:

Two kinds of facts provided under section 3 under the definition of fact that’s are:

1. Physical facts
2. Psychological facts

Physical Facts: Physical facts are factual situations connected to tangible elements in a situation that may be directly observed, measured, or verified using empirical evidence. They are based on true observations made by human senses related to real-world material circumstances and happenings.

Examples include visible features such as a person’s appearance or injuries, things left at a crime scene, and so on; audible details such as overheard statements, noises, and so on; and measurable physical states such as vehicle speed, property damage, and so on.

Physical evidence is based on sensory findings that are more objective and less disputable. This realm includes forensic, trace, and physical evidence.

Psychological facts: Intangible inner components of human psychology, like emotional states, knowledge, beliefs, motivations, personality traits, and so on, are all covered by psychological facts. These cannot be immediately detected physically, yet they frequently manifest as outwardly observable expressions, communications, and behaviors.

To demonstrate inner mental states that influence outer behavior, psychological facts depend more on circumstantial evidence and verbal testimony.

Examples include aggressive inclinations, sorrowful reactions, biases, motivations for behaviors, and so forth.

2.Facts in issue: The facts in issue are those that are required to be proven, and they are also known as “principal facts” or factum probandum. When the parties’ rights and liabilities are based on a facts that is in dispute or disagreement, that fact is in issue.Proof of facts in issue decides the merits and outcomes of cases.

For example,

‘X’ is accused of defamation for defaming ‘Y’. The following facts could be at issue: ‘X’ harmed ‘Y’s reputation; ‘Y’s business suffered damages as a result of ‘X’s defamation; ‘X’ authored and published defamatory comments about ‘Y’ with malice, etc.

The facts in the issue define both the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ arguments. To persuade the court’s decision in their favor, the parties must demonstrate that the facts in dispute favor their pleas. What constitutes the facts in dispute is determined by the substantive law applicable to the offense. In criminal proceedings, the facts in question are determined by the contents of the charge sheet, whereas in civil trials, issues are framed.

The facts in the issue serve as the foundation for the parties’ arguments, and when these facts are proven to the court’s satisfaction, a decision can be made.

3.Relevant facts: Relevant facts are those that are required to prove or disprove a given fact. Relevant facts are sometimes known as evidential facts (factum probans). These facts are not in issue – they are not the primary root of the dispute or argument between the parties. Rather, pertinent or evidentiary facts delve deeper into the background or circumstances of the facts in hand, allowing inferences to be drawn about them.

Admissions and confessions, declarations by those who are not witnesses, precedents from case laws, statements made under special circumstances, facts that form a chain of rational thought with the facts in issue, third-party opinions, and evidence as to a person’s character are all examples of relevant facts.

Relevant facts suggest a relationship between facts that, based on a reasonable chain of logic and common sense, either prove or disprove each other’s existence. Relevant facts serve as supplemental material to persuade the court’s view in favor of the party making the argument regarding the facts at issue.

For example, ‘A’ is suspected of stealing. An important piece of information is that ‘A’ has a history of pick-pocketing and shoplifting and has previously been prosecuted. The question would be whether A committed stealing.

Relationship between Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts:

It is important to understand the relationship between the facts at issue and the relevant facts in judicial proceedings. During the stage of formulating issues or charges, the courts determine the facts in issue based on the facts and pleadings of the case. On the other hand, relevant facts are reviewed during the case’s trial to support or disprove the facts in issue. The facts in issue are concerned with establishing rights, liabilities, or disabilities, while relevant facts assign possibilities to the existence or absence of those liberties and responsibilities. The facts at issue are the fundamental facts that must be proven, while relevant facts offer the required evidential support.

Facts in issue are the major disputed facts that decide a case’s conclusion, whereas relevant facts are the supporting evidential facts that assign probabilities to the existence or absence of rights and obligations.

Proved, disproved and not proved to fact:

Proved, disproved and not proved to fact is a very essential in the case to meet the end of justice. Proved and disproved of fact is important to decide the case and provide fair decision Section 3 also provide definition of prove, disproved and not proved.

Proved: When a court believes beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists or believes that a reasonable individual would act in a specific manner based on his belief that such fact exists, the fact is said to be “proved.”

Disproved: When the court believes beyond a reasonable doubt that a fact does not exist, and a reasonable man would act on that belief after understanding all the facts of the case, the fact is said to be “disproved.”

Not proved: A fact is said to be “not proved” when it has not been proven or disproven, and a reasonable person would not believe in the fact’s existence or non-existence.

Relevancy Of Facts:

Section 5. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts:

Section 5 deals with Principle of Relevancy

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 are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.

Explanation: This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure.

Illustrations

(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:––

1. A’s beating B with the club;
2. A’s causing B’s death by such beating;
3. A’s intention to cause B’s death.

Section 6: Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction: 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.

According to Sir James Stephen: A transaction is a series of events linked together to be referred to by one legal name, such as a crime, contract, wrongdoing, or any other subject of inquiry.

According to Phipson, a transaction is a series of physical facts that includes spoken words.

Facts that are related to the same transaction.

The transaction comprises physical acts as well as the words said during the physical act, whether spoken by the person doing the physical act or by someone else.

As an example, A is suspected of murdering B by hitting him. Whatever A or B or spectators said or did at the time of the beating, or shortly before or after it became part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

“When a transaction involves multiple physical actions, those actions must be linked by their proximity in time and location, their continuity, and their shared intent in order to be considered part of the same transaction.

For instance, suppose that A strikes B on the neck with a knife, and this act is witnessed by several individuals who shout, ‘A is killing B!’ This exclamation is considered to be part of the same transaction because it was made in response to the violence that was taking place.”

Section 7: Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue: 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.

Example: 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.

Section 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct:

Section 8 provides for the relevancy of three principal facts. They are :

1. Motive
2. Preparation, and
3. Conduct

Section 8 deals with the relevancy of motive, preparation and conduct. It lays down that A fact that demonstrates or constitutes a motive for any fact in question or relevant fact is relevant.A fact that comprises or demonstrates preparation for any fact in question or relevant fact is relevant. previous or subsequent conduct of any party or agent to any party to any suit or proceeding, about such suit or proceeding, or reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact, is relevant provided such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and previous or subsequent conduct of any person the subject of any proceeding or suit is relevant provided such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.

A statements accompanied and explaining acts and statements made in the context and hearing of a person whose conduct is relevant, if the statement influences such conduct.

Example:

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. This shows Motive.

The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A. The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate, that he constituted vakils in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts of other wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant. This shows Preparation.

The question is, whether A owes B Rs. 10,000. The facts that A asked C to led him money, and D said to C in A’s presence and hearing – I advise you not to trust A, for he owes B 10,000 rupees and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts. This show Conduct.

Case Law – R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 AIR 157,where the Supreme Court held that a tape-recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused, which revealed the demand and acceptance of bribe, was a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Act, as it showed the motive or preparation for the crime.

Section 9.Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts:

This section addresses different types of facts that become relevant if they help establish or interpret facts that are already important to legal proceedings.

Explanatory Facts: Facts required to explain or clarify facts in issue, or facts primarily relevant to promote appropriate understanding.

Supporting/Rebutting Facts: Facts that reinforce or refute reasonable inferences based on pertinent facts are referred to as supporting/rebutting facts.

Identity Facts: Facts that aid in determining the identities of people/objects linked to pertinent facts.

Time & Place Fixing Facts: Facts that aid in determining the time or location of the occurrence of pertinent facts.

Relation Fixing Facts: Facts illustrating relationships between people involved with pertinent facts such as roles, familial affiliations, and so on. This aids in concluding behavior, motives, and so on.

Example:

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.

A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.

Case Law: In State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (AIR 2000) the Supreme Court ruled that the accused’s presence close to the crime site shortly after it occurred was a relevant fact under Section 9 of the Act since it introduced or clarified the fact at hand, which was the offender’s identification.

Section 11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant: This section presents two situations in which information that would not normally be relevant to a case could become so:

Contradictory Facts: Contradictory facts also become relevant if they contradict or remain inconsistent with facts that have previously been determined to be relevant, such as facts related to the topic at hand or related facts. Their significance comes from casting doubt on the widely acknowledged version of pertinent facts.

Facts that Alter Probability: These are facts that, while not directly relevant, increase the likelihood that a relevant fact will exist or not, making it more likely or less likely. This includes information that, when taken together, strengthens the validity of pertinent information.

Hence,that relevance must not remain restricted to facts forming primary evidence but should encompass secondary facts that question, corroborate or enhance inferences derived from existing relevant facts to discover truth comprehensively.

Principle of plea of alibi: section 11

The plea of alibi principle is founded on the Roman maxim “ei qui non negat incumbite probation”. This means that the claimant, not the one making the denial, must provide proof. If someone claims to have done something, they may provide evidence that lessens the likelihood of their presence when the act occurred. Such evidence is acceptable, even if it does not prove that the person was not present. An alibi can serve as a strong defense against the accusation of committing a crime if proven to be true. The fundamental idea behind an alibi is that it must be at odds with both the claimed time and location of the presence, and thus with active involvement in the fact. Since the factum probandum is a negative proposition due to its logical operator, the evidentiary fact may be an affirmative statement.

Illustration: The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.

The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.

In Case of Binay Kumar Singh (1997) It was decided that a plea of alibi is not covered by any of the special or general exceptions listed in the Indian Penal Code or other laws. According to the rule of evidence outlined in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts that contradict the main fact at hand are nevertheless relevant.

Section 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine amount are relevant. This section covers lawsuits that seek damages or monetary compensation for losses or injuries sustained. It states that any information that could help the court determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded based on the specifics of the case, or to more accurately calculate the damages, is relevant in these types of damage cases. Relevant evidence for courts also includes facts that prove liability and additional facts that reveal the type and extent of actual losses or suffering experienced, which are used to determine the claimed damages.

Section 13. Facts relevant when right or custom is in question: This section addresses lawsuits in which the primary legal question being considered is whether or not a claimed right or customary practice exists.

It says that in cases where the disagreement is about whether a party genuinely has a certain right driven by customs or traditions, or whether a customary behavior is a recognized standard, evidence supporting the affirmation, denial, or deviation of an alleged customary right becomes relevant.

The court uses customary law to determine the validity of customary rights and norms. Conflicts involving these rights and norms, as well as instances that confirm or refute their historical existence and continuation, must be considered.

Section 14.Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling: This section discusses how facts that support the existence of specific psychological states or physiological sensations can be applied in a case. These mental or physical states become significant when they are relevant to the matters in question or are disputed facts.

In other words, any factual circumstances that demonstrate the existence of psychological or bodily states in relation to the specific matters under consideration become relevant evidence when issues like intention, knowledge, good/bad faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will/goodwill, etc. Become relevant to ascertain as facts to decide cases.

Illustrations: A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved 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 tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession to be stolen.

Section 15. Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional: 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.

Illustrations: (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 accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit rupee. The question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental

In R v. Foster 1843 The accused was charged with manslaughter after running over a person to death. Although the car was traveling quickly, a witness missed the collision. He approached the victim as soon as he heard him groan and inquired as to what had transpired. After that, the deceased spoke about what caused the injury. The court determined that the deceased’s immediate statements on the accident’s cause are unquestionably admissible.

Section 16. Existence of course of business when relevant: If there is a question about whether a specific action actually happened, the existence of a regular, established way of doing things (a course of business) that would naturally include that action is relevant evidence in the case.

Illustrations: The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched. The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.

USA, Laws Related To Relevancy Of Facts:

In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) for federal cases and related rules in each state for state-level matters essentially control the standards regulating the relevance of facts in legal proceedings. To give federal courts a uniform set of guidelines for determining whether evidence is admissible, the Federal Rules of Evidence were developed. Below is a summary of some important factors on the applicability of facts in the American legal system:

Admissibility and Relevance:

Rule 401 – What Constitutes “Relevant Evidence”

Evidence is relevant if it tends to increase or decrease the likelihood of a fact relative to its absence and the fact matters in deciding the course of action.

Rule 402 – Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible:

Unless specified otherwise by the US Constitution, a federal statute, these guidelines, or any guidelines established by the Supreme Court, pertinent evidence is admissible. Evidence that isn’t relevant can’t be admitted.

Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons:

Evidence that is relevant but whose credibility is significantly exceeded by the possibility of unfair prejudice, issue confusion, jury misdirection, excessive delay, time wastage, or wasteful presentation of cumulative evidence may be excluded.

Relevance in Civil matters:

Both criminal and civil matters are covered by Rule 401, which defines “Relevant Evidence” as:

As was previously indicated, Rule 401 offers a comprehensive definition of relevant evidence that applies to both criminal and civil proceedings.

The difference between facts in issue and relevant facts

Conclusion:

The Indian Evidence Act provides a comprehensive framework for understanding and presenting facts in court. It outlines various types of facts, their relevance, and the rules for their admission. Understanding these principles is crucial for a fair and efficient legal system that ensures arguments are based on admissible and relevant evidence. The Indian Evidence Act is based on these principles and provisions, which define the parameters for the admission and relevance of different types of facts in court. The primary facts that are contested or disputed between the parties and have an impact on the case’s outcome are called facts in issue. Relevant facts are those that support or contradict the facts at hand and make sense in relation to them.

Reference:

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, ;The Law of Evidence;, 21st Edition, 2006, Wadhwa & Company, Nagpur.
3. Batuklal, ;The Law of Evidence;, Sixteenth Edition, Reprinted 2007, Central Law Agency, Allahabad.
4. DPP vs Kilbourne, 1973,
5. R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 AIR 157,
6. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (AIR 2000)
7. Binay Kumar Singh case (1997)
8. R vs Foster 1843,
9. Complete Guide to Relevant Facts
10. https://blog.ipleaders.in/hh