Sec. 9 deals with relevancy of facts which are introductory or explanatory in nature, or supports or rebuts a fact in issue or a relevant fact, or which establishing identity of a person or thing.
There is a kind of evidence which if considered separately and alone from other evidence would not amount to anything, but if it is taken into consideration in connection with some other facts, proved in the case it explains and illustrates them. Sometimes it gives strength to the evidence given by one side and sometimes breaks the force of the evidence given by the other side such facts which are necessary to explain a fact in issue or relevant facts are relevant under section 9 IEA.
Section 9 IEA:
According to Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant 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.
Illustrations:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) A is accused of a crime. The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant, under section 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue. The fact that, at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly. The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.
(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A.C ., on leaving A’s service, says to A— “I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer”. This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C’s conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.
(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A’s wife. B says, as he delivers it—” A says you are to hide this”. B’s statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.
(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
Comments:
Under sec. 9 the following facts are relevant:
- facts which explain a fact in issue or relevant fact,
- facts which introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact,
- facts which support an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact,
- facts which rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact,
- facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant,
- facts which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened,
- facts which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted.
It should be borne in mind that these seven categories of fact are not admissible generally. They are relevant only in so far as they are necessary for the purpose indicated in each category.
1. Explanatory Facts:
There are many pieces of evidence which have no meaning at all if considered separately, but become relevant when consider in connection with some other facts. Such facts explain the fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, explanatory evidence is not relevant in itself. It is neither one of the “res-gestae” nor probative in any direct line of proof of existence of fact in issue or relevant fact but evidence is always allowed of facts which are necessary to explain main facts.
Example: A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of the mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the riot.
2. Introductory Facts:
Facts which are introductory of a relevant fact, are of great importance in understanding real nature of transaction and being relevant. Therefore, evidence is allowed of facts which are necessary to introduce fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, introductory evidence is not relevant in itself. It is neither one of the “res-gestae” nor probative in any direct line of proof of existence of fact in issue or relevant fact but evidence is always allowed of facts which are necessary to introduce main facts.
Example: C sues D for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to C. D affirms that the alleged matter is libellous but true. Thus, the relation between the parties when the libel was published is a relevant introductory fact.
3. Facts Supporting Inference:
There are facts which are neither relevant as facts in issue nor as relevant facts but they support the inference suggested by the facts in issue or relevant fact or contradict the facts in issue or relevant fact.
Example: After murdering B, A was seen running away from the village. Absconding supports the inference that A might have committed the murder.
4. Facts Rebutting Inference:
There are facts, which can rebut or contradict the inferences suggested by the facts in issue or relevant fact, and hence, relevant.
Example: A is accused of committing robbery just after committal of the offence, A runs away to Calcutta. At the trial of A for robbery the fact that he ran away just after the occurrence is a fact giving inference that he had some concern with the offence. If A adduces evidence to prove that he had a very urgent piece of work at Calcutta and in that connection, he went there it will rebut the inference drawn from the fact that he ran away to Calcutta.
5. Facts Establishing Identity of a Thing:
Facts establishing identity of a thing or a person may be relevant in some cases. When the identity of thing is in question, every fact which will be helpful to identify the thing is relevant.
Example: There was a murder and robbery, the house lady was called to identify the articles of the deceased and other belongings; Identification of the deceased was done by way of the clothes and shoes he was wearing.
6. Facts Establishing Time and Place:
Facts which fix the time and place of the occurrence are relevant. This becomes very important when the accused pleads alibi.
Example: A is alleged of murdering B. A is seen to be driving away from the scene of the crime. However, at the time of commission of the crime he was in a business meeting with some clients (alibi). Thus, the time and place become a relevant fact
7. Facts Establishing Identity of a Person:
When the identity of a person is in question, identification by parents, wife or other relatives is relevant. In any special case identification of a person can be made by bodily mark, sign or cut mark. There are other means of identification by medical examinations, namely, examination of skeleton, bones, age, voice, blood group, DNA etc. The identification of any person may also be possible by expert evidence, such as evidence of handwriting, finger print, foot print, photograph etc. experts.
Test Identification Parade:
One of the methods of establishing identity of the accused is ‘test identification parade. The purpose of TI parade is “to check memory of eye-witness and also for prosecution to decide as to who can be cited as eye-witness.” Its object is also to enable the eye-witness of the incident to identify the accused before a Magistrate. There was no specific provision in the I.E.A or Cr.P.C regarding identification parade of the accused till 2005. By the amendment of Cr.P.C in 2005, a new section 54(A) was inserted for identification of person arrested.
According to Section 54A of CrPC, where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by other person or purpose of investigation of such offence, the court, having jurisdiction, may on the request of the officer-in-charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the court may deem fit.
This provision enables the police, to seek permission of the court for identification of the accused and the court may determine the manner of identification. But the police is not bound to hold identification parade.
Procedure:
- The investigating authority should send a requisition to the concerned Magistrate for conducting TIP of the accused person who is in jail or has been granted bail.
- TIP is conducted by Executive Magistrates or Sub Divisional Magistrates.
- The magistrate then informs the jail authorities to make necessary arrangements regarding the date, time and day.
- The Magistrate selects 2 persons who have no relation with the accused or the witness called “Punch Witnesses”
- Magistrate then selects dummy persons having similar appearances to that of the accused. For every accused there should be 5 dummy persons.
- The Magistrate then ensures that the accused and the witnesses sit in separate rooms and also makes sure that the witnesses cannot meet the accused before conducting the test.
- The magistrate must also see to that the no third person or police officer is in the room.
- The magistrate also takes the precaution to ask the accused questions to give him an opportunity.
- If there is a distinguishing mark on any one of the persons, a bandage or some other means should be used to cover it and the same should be done for all.
- As soon as the witness identifies the accused, he must be asked as to why he identified the said accused.
- The entire process should be recorded by the Magistrate in the IP memorandum along with time spent etc.
- Objections, if any, by the accused are to be recorded.
- After completion of the process, the Magistrate has to obtain the signature of the Punch Witnesses on the memorandum along with his own signature, the day, date and time.
- The magistrate hands over the memorandum to the investigating authority to carry on further investigation.
In Suresh Chand Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 case, the Court held that identification of accused by witness in the Court is substantial piece of evidence where accused is not known previously by the witness. Test identification parade must be held at earliest possible opportunity with necessary safeguard and precaution.
In Ram Babu v. state of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 2143 case, the Apex Court observed that identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation. It is meant to test the veracity of the witness and his capacity to identity unknown persons. If adequate precautions are ensured, the evidence with regard to test Identification Parade may be used by the court for the purpose of corroboration. The purpose of test Identification Parade is to test and strengthen trustworthiness of substantive evidence.
In State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj 2000 Cri.L.J. 44 case, the Supreme Court has observed “The absence of test identification parade may not be fatal if the accused is known or sufficiently described in the complaint leaving no doubt in the mind of court regarding his involvement. Identification may also not be necessary in a case where accused are arrested at the spot….” It was also observed by the court “During the investigation of crime, the police agency is required to hold identification parade for the purpose of enabling the witness to identify the person alleged to have committed the offence particularly when such person was not previously known to witnesses or informant.”
In Chander Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1973 SC 1200 case, the Apex Court observed “It is well settled that the identification by witness in the Parade during investigation only serves to corroborate the evidence of witnesses in court. But value of such corroborating evidence depends upon the precautions exercised by the Magistrate while holding the identification parade. As a matter of prudence, the Parade should be held as early as possible after the arrest of accused, so that there will be no chance for the witnesses to see the accused before Test Identification Parade. It is also equally necessary that witnesses must have had a chance of observing the features of accused during the incident. Prudence requires that at the Parade people with similar height and features should be mixed up with the accused in proportion of not less than 1 to 9, Magistrate should also take care that there is no occasion for any police officer to be present at the parade to prompt the witnesses.”
Conclusion:
There are evidences which if considered separately and alone from other evidence would not amount to anything, but if it is taken into consideration in connection with some other facts, proved in the case it explains and illustrates them. Sec. 9 deals with relevancy of facts which are introductory or explanatory in nature, or supports or rebuts a fact in issue or a relevant fact, or which establishing identity of a person or thing.