- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Facts in Issue or Relevant Facts [Section 7]
Meaning and Scope of Section 7Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with facts that are necessary to explain or introduce facts in issue or relevant facts. The section makes certain facts relevant when they help the Court understand the circumstances surrounding the main dispute. These facts may explain, support, or rebut a fact in issue or relevant fact.
The section states that facts are relevant if they explain or introduce a fact in issue, support or rebut an inference, establish the identity of a person or thing, fix the time or place of occurrence, or show the relationship of the parties connected with the transaction. However, such facts are relevant only so far as they are necessary for those purposes.
Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Facts in Issue
Facts which explain or introduce a fact in issue are relevant under this section. These facts provide the background necessary for understanding the dispute properly.
For example, where the validity of a will is questioned, the condition of the testator’s property and family at the time of making the will becomes relevant because such facts help explain why the will may have been made in a particular manner.
Similarly, in a suit for defamation, the relationship and position of the parties at the time when the defamatory statement was published are relevant because they help the Court understand the context of the alleged libel.
Facts Supporting or Rebutting an Inference
Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue are also relevant. These facts help the Court determine whether a particular inference should be accepted or rejected.
For instance, if an accused absconds after the commission of a crime, such conduct may suggest guilt. However, if it is shown that the accused left because of sudden and urgent business elsewhere, that fact becomes relevant as it rebuts the inference arising from his conduct. Only those details necessary to prove the urgency of the business are admissible.
Facts Establishing Identity
Facts establishing the identity of a person or thing are relevant whenever identity is in issue. Questions of identity may arise either when it is necessary to identify a person connected with the case or to establish that a particular person committed a specific act.
This principle forms the basis of Test Identification Parades (TIPs), where witnesses identify accused persons during investigation.
Test Identification Parade (TIP)
A Test Identification Parade is a process conducted during investigation to establish the identity of persons, property, or animals connected with an offence. TIP is generally conducted when the accused is previously unknown to the witness.
The object of TIP is to help witnesses confirm whether the person arrested is actually the offender and to assist the investigating agency in ensuring that the investigation is proceeding correctly.
The Supreme Court in Santokh Singh v Izhar Hussain held that TIP is not substantive evidence. It is only corroborative in nature and mainly intended to support identification made later in Court.
Similarly, in Amit Singh Bhikam Singh Thakur v State of Maharashtra, the Court observed that TIP helps test the memory and observation of witnesses based on their first impression.
Purpose of Test Identification Parade
In Mulla v State of U.P., the Supreme Court explained that the object of TIP is twofold. Firstly, it allows witnesses to satisfy themselves that the suspect is the actual offender. Secondly, it assures the investigating agency that the correct person has been arrested.
Thus, TIP primarily serves the purpose of investigation rather than direct proof before the Court.
No Absolute Right to Demand TIP
In Raju Majhi v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that an accused has no statutory right to demand a TIP. It belongs to the investigation stage and failure to hold TIP does not automatically make identification evidence inadmissible.
However, where the accused was previously unknown to witnesses, failure to conduct TIP may weaken the value of identification made for the first time in Court.
TIP and Section 181 BNSS
Where TIP is conducted directly by police officers, it may attract Section 181 of the BNSS and can generally be used only for contradiction purposes.
However, when TIP is conducted by an independent person, Executive Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate, it may be used both for corroboration and contradiction.
In Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v State of Bombay, the Court explained that identification involves communication by the witness and therefore falls within evidentiary rules relating to statements.
Delay in Conducting TIP
Delay in conducting TIP does not necessarily destroy its evidentiary value. In Brij Mohan v State of Rajasthan, TIP was conducted after three months. The Supreme Court held that although earlier identification is preferable, there is no fixed time limit for holding TIP.
The Court observed that certain crimes create a lasting impression on witnesses, enabling them to remember the accused even after considerable time.
TIP and Article 20(3) of the Constitution
Compelling an accused to participate in TIP does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.
In Mukesh Singh v State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court held that participation in TIP does not amount to giving testimonial evidence. Therefore, Article 20(3) is not attracted.
Similarly, in Muna v State of NCT of Delhi, the Court held that if the accused refuses to participate in TIP, he cannot later object to identification made in Court.
Identification Without Proper TIP
Identification of the accused at a police station without conducting a proper TIP is considered doubtful.
In Jafar v State of Kerala, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the witness identified him only after police had shown him at the police station and no proper TIP was conducted.
The Court held that such identification lacked reliability and could not safely form the basis of conviction.
Dock Identification Without TIP
Where the accused is a stranger to the witness, identification for the first time in Court without prior TIP is generally considered weak evidence.
In P. Sasi Kumar v State, the Supreme Court held that failure to conduct TIP was a serious defect in investigation. Since the accused was identified for the first time in Court without prior corroboration through TIP, the identification remained doubtful and conviction could not safely rest upon it.
Identification Through Superimposition Technique
In cases where only skeletal remains are recovered, identity may be established through superimposition techniques. This method compares the skull of the deceased with photographs of the suspected person through photographic, video, or computer methods.
In Ram Lochan v State of West Bengal, the Court accepted superimposed photographs as admissible evidence for identification purposes.
Facts Fixing Time, Place, and Relationship
Section 7 also makes relevant those facts which fix the time or place of occurrence and facts showing the relationship between parties connected with the transaction. Such facts help the Court understand the surrounding circumstances of the dispute.
For example, the cries of a mob during a riot are relevant because they explain the nature and object of the unlawful assembly.
Conclusion
Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam makes explanatory and introductory facts relevant when they help the Court understand facts in issue. The provision allows evidence relating to surrounding circumstances, identity, conduct, time, place, and relationships between parties.
The section is especially important in criminal cases involving identification of accused persons, where Test Identification Parades serve as an important investigative and corroborative tool.
Meaning and Scope of Section 7Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with facts that are necessary to explain or introduce facts in issue or relevant facts. The section makes certain facts relevant when they help the Court understand the circumstances surrounding the main dispute. These facts may explain, support, or rebut a fact in issue or relevant fact.
The section states that facts are relevant if they explain or introduce a fact in issue, support or rebut an inference, establish the identity of a person or thing, fix the time or place of occurrence, or show the relationship of the parties connected with the transaction. However, such facts are relevant only so far as they are necessary for those purposes.
Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Facts in Issue
Facts which explain or introduce a fact in issue are relevant under this section. These facts provide the background necessary for understanding the dispute properly.
For example, where the validity of a will is questioned, the condition of the testator’s property and family at the time of making the will becomes relevant because such facts help explain why the will may have been made in a particular manner.
Similarly, in a suit for defamation, the relationship and position of the parties at the time when the defamatory statement was published are relevant because they help the Court understand the context of the alleged libel.
Facts Supporting or Rebutting an Inference
Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue are also relevant. These facts help the Court determine whether a particular inference should be accepted or rejected.
For instance, if an accused absconds after the commission of a crime, such conduct may suggest guilt. However, if it is shown that the accused left because of sudden and urgent business elsewhere, that fact becomes relevant as it rebuts the inference arising from his conduct. Only those details necessary to prove the urgency of the business are admissible.
Facts Establishing Identity
Facts establishing the identity of a person or thing are relevant whenever identity is in issue. Questions of identity may arise either when it is necessary to identify a person connected with the case or to establish that a particular person committed a specific act.
This principle forms the basis of Test Identification Parades (TIPs), where witnesses identify accused persons during investigation.
Test Identification Parade (TIP)
A Test Identification Parade is a process conducted during investigation to establish the identity of persons, property, or animals connected with an offence. TIP is generally conducted when the accused is previously unknown to the witness.
The object of TIP is to help witnesses confirm whether the person arrested is actually the offender and to assist the investigating agency in ensuring that the investigation is proceeding correctly.
The Supreme Court in Santokh Singh v Izhar Hussain held that TIP is not substantive evidence. It is only corroborative in nature and mainly intended to support identification made later in Court.
Similarly, in Amit Singh Bhikam Singh Thakur v State of Maharashtra, the Court observed that TIP helps test the memory and observation of witnesses based on their first impression.
Purpose of Test Identification Parade
In Mulla v State of U.P., the Supreme Court explained that the object of TIP is twofold. Firstly, it allows witnesses to satisfy themselves that the suspect is the actual offender. Secondly, it assures the investigating agency that the correct person has been arrested.
Thus, TIP primarily serves the purpose of investigation rather than direct proof before the Court.
No Absolute Right to Demand TIP
In Raju Majhi v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that an accused has no statutory right to demand a TIP. It belongs to the investigation stage and failure to hold TIP does not automatically make identification evidence inadmissible.
However, where the accused was previously unknown to witnesses, failure to conduct TIP may weaken the value of identification made for the first time in Court.
TIP and Section 181 BNSS
Where TIP is conducted directly by police officers, it may attract Section 181 of the BNSS and can generally be used only for contradiction purposes.
However, when TIP is conducted by an independent person, Executive Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate, it may be used both for corroboration and contradiction.
In Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v State of Bombay, the Court explained that identification involves communication by the witness and therefore falls within evidentiary rules relating to statements.
Delay in Conducting TIP
Delay in conducting TIP does not necessarily destroy its evidentiary value. In Brij Mohan v State of Rajasthan, TIP was conducted after three months. The Supreme Court held that although earlier identification is preferable, there is no fixed time limit for holding TIP.
The Court observed that certain crimes create a lasting impression on witnesses, enabling them to remember the accused even after considerable time.
TIP and Article 20(3) of the Constitution
Compelling an accused to participate in TIP does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.
In Mukesh Singh v State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court held that participation in TIP does not amount to giving testimonial evidence. Therefore, Article 20(3) is not attracted.
Similarly, in Muna v State of NCT of Delhi, the Court held that if the accused refuses to participate in TIP, he cannot later object to identification made in Court.
Identification Without Proper TIP
Identification of the accused at a police station without conducting a proper TIP is considered doubtful.
In Jafar v State of Kerala, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the witness identified him only after police had shown him at the police station and no proper TIP was conducted.
The Court held that such identification lacked reliability and could not safely form the basis of conviction.
Dock Identification Without TIP
Where the accused is a stranger to the witness, identification for the first time in Court without prior TIP is generally considered weak evidence.
In P. Sasi Kumar v State, the Supreme Court held that failure to conduct TIP was a serious defect in investigation. Since the accused was identified for the first time in Court without prior corroboration through TIP, the identification remained doubtful and conviction could not safely rest upon it.
Identification Through Superimposition Technique
In cases where only skeletal remains are recovered, identity may be established through superimposition techniques. This method compares the skull of the deceased with photographs of the suspected person through photographic, video, or computer methods.
In Ram Lochan v State of West Bengal, the Court accepted superimposed photographs as admissible evidence for identification purposes.
Facts Fixing Time, Place, and Relationship
Section 7 also makes relevant those facts which fix the time or place of occurrence and facts showing the relationship between parties connected with the transaction. Such facts help the Court understand the surrounding circumstances of the dispute.
For example, the cries of a mob during a riot are relevant because they explain the nature and object of the unlawful assembly.
Conclusion
Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam makes explanatory and introductory facts relevant when they help the Court understand facts in issue. The provision allows evidence relating to surrounding circumstances, identity, conduct, time, place, and relationships between parties.
The section is especially important in criminal cases involving identification of accused persons, where Test Identification Parades serve as an important investigative and corroborative tool.
0 Comments