​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Facts Tending to Enable the Court to Determine the Amount in Suits for Damages are Relevant [Section 10]
1. Meaning of Section 10
​Section 10 states that:

• In suits where damages are claimed,
• Any fact which helps the Court determine:
  • The amount of damages,
  • Which ought to be awarded,
    is relevant.

2. Purpose of the Section
The section enables the Court:

• To assess compensation properly,
• To determine actual loss suffered,
• To calculate appropriate damages.

3. Principle Behind the Section
Every fact that:

• Increases damages,
  OR
• Reduces damages,
  is relevant if it helps the Court determine compensation.

4. Illustration
Example:B purchases goods from A.
B informs A:

• Goods must be delivered before a certain date,
• So B can fulfill a subcontract with C.

A negligently delays delivery.
As a result:

• B loses profit from subcontract with C.

👉 The information given by B to A regarding special circumstances becomes relevant.
Reason:
It helps the Court determine special damages.

5. Scope of Section 10
Section 10 applies mainly to:

• Law of contract,
• Law of torts.

It permits evidence of facts:

• Affecting amount of damages,
• Showing extent of loss,
• Showing consequences of breach or wrong.

6. Types of Cases Covered
Relevant facts differ according to nature of case, such as:
(a) Breach of ContractExample:

• Commercial contracts,
• Construction contracts,
• Delivery contracts.

(b) TortsExample:

• Negligence,
• Defamation,
• Trespass,
• Personal injury.

(c) Breach of Promise to Marry**(d) Property Damage Cases**

7. Suit for Damages
Damages mean:

• Monetary compensation awarded to injured party.

The amount of damages is itself:

• A fact in issue.

8. Relevant Facts Under Section 10
Facts are relevant if they help determine:

• Extent of loss,
• Actual injury,
• Financial consequences,
• Intention,
• Good faith,
• Malice,
• Negligence,
• Special circumstances.

9. General Rule
Every fact is relevant:

• Which helps Court determine proper compensation.

10. Damages in Contract Law
Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act governs:

• Measure of damages for breach of contract.

Relevant facts may include:

• Expected profits,
• Notice of special circumstances,
• Market price,
• Loss directly arising from breach.

11. Special Damages
Special damages can be claimed when:

• Special circumstances were communicated,
• Defendant knew consequences of breach.

Example:
Loss of profit from subcontract.

12. Damages in Tort Law
Relevant facts may include:

• Nature of injury,
• Mental suffering,
• Loss of reputation,
• Medical expenses,
• Future loss.

13. Good Faith and Malice
Facts showing:

• Honesty of purpose,
• Good faith,
• Absence of malice,
  may affect amount of damages.

14. Character Evidence in Civil Cases
Section 50 BSA allows:

• Character evidence in civil cases,
  if relevant for assessing damages.

15. Important Features of Section 10
✔ Applies to civil suits for damages
✔ Helps determine quantum of compensation
✔ Covers both contract and tort cases
✔ Special circumstances become relevant
✔ Facts increasing or reducing damages are admissible

16. Key Principle
The Court must award:

• Fair,
• Reasonable,
• Just compensation.

Therefore, all facts helping assessment of damages become relevant.

17. Quick Revision Points

• Section 10 relates to suits for damages.
• Facts helping Court determine compensation are relevant.
• Applies to contract and tort cases.
• Special damages require prior notice of special circumstances.
• Good faith and absence of malice may affect damages.
• Amount of damages itself is a fact in issue.

​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Facts Relevant When Right or Custom is in Question [Section 11]
1. Meaning of Section 11
Section 11 deals with:

• Facts relevant when the existence of:
  • A right, or
  • A custom
    is in question.

The section makes relevant:

• Transactions relating to such right/custom, and
• Instances showing exercise or denial of such right/custom.

2. Facts Relevant Under Section 11
The following facts are relevant:
(a) Transactions
Transactions by which the right or custom was:

• Created,
• Claimed,
• Modified,
• Recognised,
• Asserted,
• Denied,
  OR
• Inconsistent with its existence.

(b) Particular Instances
Instances where the right/custom was:

• Claimed,
• Recognised,
• Exercised,
• Disputed,
• Asserted,
• Departed from.

3. Illustration
Question:
Whether A has a right to fishery.
Relevant facts:

• Deed granting fishery rights to A’s ancestors,
• Mortgage of fishery,
• Later grant inconsistent with mortgage,
• Exercise of fishery rights by A’s father,
• Objections by neighbours.

👉 All are relevant facts.

4. Scope of Section 11
Section 11 lays down rules for:

• Proof of customs,
• Proof of rights.

The section recognizes:

• Historical transactions,
• Practical exercise of rights/customs,
  as evidence.

5. Purpose of the Section
The section helps courts determine:

• Whether a right/custom exists,
• Its origin,
• Its recognition,
• Its exercise over time.

6. Custom Defined
A custom is:

• A rule existing from ancient times,
• Accepted continuously,
• Having force of law in a locality or group.

7. Salmond’s Definition of Custom
According to Salmond:
Custom embodies principles accepted by society as:

• Truth,
• Justice,
• Public utility.

8. Types of Customs
(a) Legal Custom

• Has force of law itself.

(b) Conventional Custom

• Depends on agreement or acceptance by parties.

9. Characteristics of Custom
A custom:

• Cannot extend to whole country generally,
• Applies to:
  • Particular locality,
  • Family,
  • Community,
  • District.

10. Essentials of a Valid Custom
A valid custom must be:
✔ AncientExisting from time immemorial.
✔ CertainClear and definite.
✔ ContinuousUniformly followed.
✔ InvariableConsistently observed.
✔ ReasonableNot arbitrary or unfair.
✔ EnforceableCapable of legal enforcement.
✔ Established by Clear EvidenceMust be proved properly.

11. Invalid Customs
A custom is invalid if:

• Immoral,
• Against public policy,
• Contrary to statute,
• Opposed to justice, equity and good conscience.

12. Proof of Custom
Custom is:

• A question of fact,
• Not logic or assumption.

It must be proved through evidence.

13. Important Principles Regarding Proof of Custom
(a) Custom is Matter of Fact
Custom cannot be presumed merely from theories.
It must be proved by:

• Oral evidence,
• Historical evidence,
• Public records,
• Village customs,
• Conduct.

(b) Court Must Accept Custom As It Exists
Court examines:

• What custom actually is,
  NOT
• What custom ought to be.

14. Modes of Proving Custom
Custom may be proved by:
(i) Persons Having Special KnowledgeUnder Section 42.
(ii) Statements Under Section 26(d)**(iii) Transactions**Under Section 11(a).
(iv) Particular Instances**Under Section 11(b).

15. Meaning of Right
Section 11 applies to all kinds of rights:

• Ownership rights,
• Easement rights,
• Fishery rights,
• Public rights,
• Private rights,
• Corporeal rights,
• Incorporeal rights.

16. Transactions Under Clause (a)
Relevant transactions include:

• Deeds,
• Grants,
• Mortgages,
• Transfers,
• Agreements.

These show:

• Creation,
• Assertion,
• Denial,
• Modification of rights.

17. Example of Transaction
If A’s father mortgages fishery rights:
👉 Mortgagee gets rights.
Later grant inconsistent with mortgage:
👉 Earlier mortgage becomes relevant to deny later claim.

18. Meaning of Transaction
Transaction means:

• Something concluded between persons,
• Reciprocal dealings,
• Completed legal act.

19. Meaning of Instance
An instance means:

• Example,
• Practical exercise,
• Actual occurrence showing existence of right/custom.

20. Transactions vs Mere Statements
Relevant:✔ Transactions asserting or denying right.
Not Relevant:❌ Mere statements asserting rights.
Example:

• Mere recital in deed is not transaction,
• But may become relevant under other provisions.

21. Relevancy of Judgments Not Inter-Partes
Judgment between strangers may still be relevant:

• To show existence of transaction,
• Conduct of parties,
• Subject matter of dispute,
• Assertion of rights.

But:
❌ Findings of fact are not proof in another case.

22. Important Case – Shrinivas Krishna Rao Kango v Narayan Devji Kango
Held:
Previous judgment regarding maintenance and joint family property was admissible:

• To prove extent of joint family property,
• As collateral evidence.

23. Important Distinction
Relevant:✔ Transaction itself,
✔ Conduct,
✔ Assertion of rights.
Irrelevant:❌ Findings of fact from previous judgment as proof of truth.

24. Important Principles
​✔ Section 11 deals with proof of rights and customs
✔ Transactions and practical instances are relevant
✔ Custom must be ancient, certain and reasonable
✔ Mere statements are not enough
✔ Rights may be public or private
✔ Previous judgments may be relevant for collateral purposes only

25. Quick Revision Points

• Section 11 = relevancy of facts relating to rights/customs.
• Transactions creating or denying rights are relevant.
• Instances of exercise of rights are relevant.
• Custom must be ancient, certain and reasonable.
• Mere assertions are not sufficient.
• Judgments not inter-partes are admissible only for collateral purposes.

​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Facts Showing State of Mind, Body or Bodily Feeling [Section 12]
​
1. Meaning of Section 12
Section 12 deals with:

• Facts showing:
  • State of mind,
  • State of body,
  • Bodily feeling.

These facts are relevant when such condition is:

• In issue, or
• Relevant to the case.

2. State of Mind Includes
The section specifically mentions:

• Intention
• Knowledge
• Good faith
• Negligence
• Rashness
• Ill-will
• Goodwill

3. State of Body or Bodily Feeling Includes
Examples:

• Health condition
• Physical symptoms
• Bodily pain
• Illness
• Poisoning symptoms

4. Principle of Section 12
Mental or bodily condition cannot usually be seen directly.
Therefore:

• It is inferred from surrounding facts,
• Conduct,
• Statements,
• Similar acts,
• Previous occurrences.

5. Explanation 1
Facts are relevant only if they show:

• State of mind regarding the particular matter in question,
• Not general tendency or disposition.

📌 Specific intention is relevant,
📌 General criminal tendency is irrelevant.

6. Explanation 2
When previous commission of offence becomes relevant under this section:
👉 Previous conviction also becomes relevant.

7. Scope of Section 12
Section 12 allows evidence:

• To prove mental condition,
• To prove bodily condition,
• To establish intention or knowledge,
• To prove good faith or negligence.

8. State of Mind
Mental condition may include:

• Intention,
• Knowledge,
• Malice,
• Good faith,
• Negligence.

Proof:

• Direct evidence by person himself,
  OR
• Circumstantial evidence from surrounding facts.

9. State of Body
Includes:

• Illness,
• Symptoms,
• Physical condition,
• Bodily pain.

Example:Statements made during illness about symptoms become relevant.

10. Illustrations Relating to Knowledge
Illustration (a) – Possession of Stolen Goods
A is found with stolen property.
Relevant fact:

• He also possessed many other stolen articles.

👉 Relevant to show:

• Knowledge that goods were stolen.

Illustration (b) – Counterfeit Currency
A delivers counterfeit currency.
Relevant facts:

• A possessed many other counterfeit currencies.
• A was previously convicted for similar offence.

👉 Relevant to show guilty knowledge.

Illustration (c) – Ferocious Dog
A sues B because B’s dog attacked him.
Relevant facts:

• Dog had bitten others earlier.
• Complaints were made to B.

👉 Relevant to show:

• B knew dog was dangerous.

Illustration (d) – Fictitious Payee
A accepts bills in fictitious names.
Relevant fact:

• Similar earlier bills accepted in same manner.

👉 Relevant to prove:

• Knowledge of fictitious payee.

11. Illustrations Relating to Intention
Illustration (e) – Defamation
A publishes defamatory statement against B.
Relevant facts:

• Previous publications showing ill-will.

👉 Relevant to prove intention to harm reputation.
Also relevant:

• No previous quarrel,
• A merely repeated what he heard.

👉 Relevant to show absence of malicious intention.

Illustration (i) – Previous Shooting
A is accused of shooting at B with intention to kill.
Relevant fact:

• A had previously shot at B.

👉 Relevant to show intention.

Illustration (j) – Threatening Letters
Previous threatening letters sent by A to B.
👉 Relevant to show intention behind current letters.

12. Illustrations Relating to Good Faith
Illustration (f) – Representation of Solvency
A tells B that C is solvent.
Relevant fact:

• Neighbours also believed C to be solvent.

👉 Relevant to prove good faith.

Illustration (g) – Contractor Case
A pays contractor C for work.
👉 Relevant to show:

• A honestly entrusted work to C.

Illustration (h) – Misappropriation of Found Property
A finds property and appropriates it.
Question:

• Did A honestly believe owner could not be found?

Relevant facts:

• Public notice of lost property existed.
• A believed notice was fraudulent.

👉 Relevant regarding good faith.

13. Illustrations Relating to Ill-Will or Goodwill
Illustration (k) – Cruelty Between Husband and WifeExpressions of feelings shortly before or after cruelty.
👉 Relevant to prove:

• Ill-will or goodwill between spouses.

14. Illustrations Relating to Bodily Feeling
Illustration (l) – PoisoningStatements by deceased during illness about symptoms.
👉 Relevant to prove poisoning.

Illustration (m) – Health ConditionStatements about health near time of insurance policy.
👉 Relevant to prove health condition.

15. Illustration Relating to Negligence
Illustration (n) – Defective CarA sues B for negligent supply of defective car.
Relevant fact:

• B had earlier complaints regarding same car.

👉 Relevant to prove negligence.
But:Habitual negligence regarding all cars is irrelevant.

16. Specific Facts vs General Tendency
Relevant:✔ Specific acts connected to particular matter.
Irrelevant:❌ General criminal tendency,
❌ Habitual bad character.

Example
Relevant:A previously shot at B.
Irrelevant:A habitually shoots at people.

17. Evidence of Previous Conviction
Previous conviction becomes relevant:

• To show guilty knowledge,
• Intention,
• State of mind.

📌 Not to show bad character generally.

18. Similar Fact Evidence (Res Inter Alios Acta)
General Rule:

• Similar unrelated acts are irrelevant.

Exception under Section 12:Similar acts become relevant when:

• State of mind,
• Knowledge,
• Intention,
• Good faith,
  needs to be proved.

19. Important Principles
✔ Section 12 deals with mental and bodily condition
✔ Specific intention is relevant, not general disposition
✔ Similar acts may prove intention or knowledge
✔ Previous conviction may become relevant
✔ Circumstantial evidence is important under this section

20. Quick Revision Points

• Section 12 = facts showing mental or bodily condition.
• State of mind includes intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence etc.
• General criminal tendency is irrelevant.
• Specific facts connected to matter are relevant.
• Similar acts may prove intention or guilty knowledge.
• Previous convictions may become relevant under Explanation 2.

​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Facts Bearing on Whether an Act was Accidental or Intentional [Section 13]
1. Meaning of Section 13
​Section 13 deals with:

• Facts relevant to determine whether an act was:
  • Accidental,
  • Intentional,
  • Done with particular knowledge, or
  • Done with particular intention.

It states that:
When an act forms part of a series of similar occurrences involving the same person, such facts are relevant to determine whether the act was accidental or intentional.

2. Principle of Section 13The section is based on the idea that:

• A single act may be accidental,
• But repeated similar acts indicate intention or design.

📌 Repetition reduces possibility of accident.

3. Essentials of Section 13To apply Section 13, following conditions must be satisfied:
(i) There must be a question:

• Whether the act was:
  • Intentional,
  • Accidental,
  • Done knowingly,
  • Done with specific intention.

(ii) The act must form part of a series of similar occurrences

• Similar acts should repeatedly occur.

(iii) The same person must be connected with all occurrences

• The accused/person concerned must be involved each time.

4. Scope of Section 13

• Section 13 is an application of the general principle under Section 12.
• It is NOT necessary that all acts form part of one transaction.
• It is sufficient if:
  • They form part of a series of similar acts.

📌 Similar acts become relevant to:

• Prove intention,
• Prove knowledge,
• Rebut defence of accident or mistake.

5. Illustration (a) – Insurance FraudFacts:A burns down his insured house.
Question:

• Was the fire accidental?

Relevant facts:

• A had several insured houses,
• Each house caught fire successively,
• A received insurance money every time.

👉 Relevant to show:

• Fires were intentional,
• Not accidental.

6. Illustration (b) – False EntriesFacts:A receives money for B and records less amount in account book.
Question:

• Was false entry accidental?

Relevant facts:

• Other entries made by A are also false,
• Each false entry benefits A.

👉 Relevant to prove:

• False entries were intentional.

7. Illustration (c) – Counterfeit CurrencyFacts:A delivers counterfeit currency to B.
Question:

• Was delivery accidental?

Relevant facts:

• A also delivered counterfeit currency to C, D, and E.

👉 Relevant to prove:

• Delivery was intentional,
• Not accidental.

8. Similar OccurrencesThe section mainly deals with:

• Similar fact evidence,
• Repeated conduct.

📌 One incident may be coincidence,
📌 Repeated incidents suggest deliberate conduct.

9. Purpose of Section 13Evidence under this section is used to:
✔ Show intention
✔ Show guilty knowledge
✔ Show fraudulent design
✔ Rebut defence of:

• Accident,
• Mistake,
• Absence of knowledge,
• Absence of intention.

10. Important Points✔ Similar acts are admissible under this section
✔ Acts need not form same transaction
✔ Repetition indicates intention
✔ Section helps determine mental element (mens rea)
✔ Connected with knowledge and intention

11. Quick Revision Points

• Section 13 = Similar occurrences prove intention.
• Repeated acts reduce possibility of accident.
• Same person must be connected with all acts.
• Similar fact evidence becomes relevant.
• Helps establish mens rea and guilty intention.

​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – When Facts Not Otherwise Relevant Become Relevant [Section 9]
1. Meaning of Section 9
​Section 9 deals with facts which are:

• Normally irrelevant,
  BUT
• Become relevant because they:
  • Contradict a fact in issue, or
  • Make existence/non-existence of a fact highly probable or improbable.

2. Facts Become Relevant in Two Situations
Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant:
(1) Inconsistency
When they are:

• Inconsistent with any fact in issue, or
• Inconsistent with relevant facts.

(2) Probability
When they:

• Make existence of fact highly probable,
  OR
• Make non-existence highly probable.

3. Illustration (a)
Question:
Whether A committed a crime at Chennai.
Relevant facts:

• A was at Ladakh on same day.
• A was very far from crime scene.

👉 These facts make A’s involvement highly improbable.

4. Illustration (b)
Question:
Whether A committed a crime.
Circumstances:

• Crime must have been committed by A, B, C or D.

Relevant facts:

• Facts excluding B, C and D,
• Facts showing only A could have committed crime.

👉 Such facts become relevant.

5. Scope of Section 9
Section 9 covers:

• Facts ordinarily irrelevant,
• But made relevant due to:
  • Inconsistency,
  • Probability.

Facts not relevant under:

• Sections 4–8,
• Sections 10–50,
  may still become relevant under Section 9.

6. Principle of Inconsistency
A fact becomes relevant if:

• It cannot coexist with fact in issue.

7. Examples of Inconsistency
✔ AlibiAccused was elsewhere.
✔ Non-access of husbandTo prove illegitimacy.
✔ Survival of alleged deceasedTo disprove murder.
✔ Commission of offence by third person
✔ Self-inflicted injury
To disprove assault.

8. Principle of ProbabilityFacts become relevant if they:

• Increase probability,
  OR
• Decrease probability
  of a fact in issue.

9. Example of Probability
If only one among several persons could have committed crime:

• Facts identifying likely offender are relevant.
• Facts excluding others are relevant.

10. Similar Conduct and Probability
Example:
If accused belongs to group of habitual cheaters:
👉 It may become relevant to show probability of cheating.

11. Plea of Alibi
Meaning:“Alibi” is Latin term meaning:
👉 “Elsewhere”.

12. Nature of Plea of Alibi
Alibi is:

• Not an exception under BNS,
• Only a rule of evidence under Section 9.

13. Purpose of AlibiThe accused claims:

• He was elsewhere at time of occurrence,
• Therefore participation was impossible or highly improbable.

14. Burden of Proof in Alibi
Initial burden:On prosecution:

• To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

After prosecution proves case:Burden shifts to accused:

• To prove alibi with certainty.

15. Standard for Proving AlibiAccused must prove:

• Complete impossibility of presence at crime scene,
  OR
• Such probability that Court entertains reasonable doubt.

16. Principle Under Section 106 BSA
The burden lies on:

• Person having special knowledge of fact.

Since accused alone knows where he was:
👉 Burden lies on accused.

17. Important Case – Binay Kumar Singh v State of Bihar
Held:

• Plea of alibi is rule of evidence under Section 9.
• Not a statutory exception.

18. Important Case – Jitender Kumar v State of Haryana
Held:

• Burden to establish alibi is heavy.
• Must be proved with certainty.

19. Important Case – Vijay Pal v State (NCT of Delhi)
Held:

• Sketchy evidence insufficient.
• Alibi must completely exclude presence at scene.

20. Important Case – Pappu Tiwary v State of Jharkhand
Facts:

• Accused claimed fractured leg prevented participation.

Held:

• Mere oral evidence insufficient.
• Burden not discharged.

21. Important Case – Kamal Prasad v State of Madhya Pradesh
Supreme Court summarized principles:
(i) Alibi is Rule of EvidenceNot exception under criminal law.
(ii) Burden on AccusedMust produce cogent evidence.
(iii) Strict ScrutinyEvidence must conclusively exclude presence.

22. Important Principle
Court balances:

• Prosecution evidence,
  WITH
• Defence evidence of alibi.

If reasonable doubt arises:
👉 Benefit goes to accused.

23. Nature of Evidence Required
Strong evidence required:

• Documents,
• Witnesses,
• Travel proof,
• Medical records,
• CCTV,
  etc.

Mere oral assertions may not suffice.

24. Key Features of Section 9
✔ Covers otherwise irrelevant facts
✔ Based on inconsistency and probability
✔ Important in criminal trials
✔ Includes plea of alibi
✔ Helps Court discover truth indirectly

25. Important Principles
✔ Facts inconsistent with fact in issue are relevant
✔ Facts making existence/non-existence probable are relevant
✔ Alibi means presence elsewhere
✔ Burden to prove alibi is heavy
✔ Alibi must exclude possibility of presence

26. Quick Revision Points

• Section 9 = otherwise irrelevant facts become relevant.
• Two principles:
  • Inconsistency,
  • Probability.
• Alibi is important application.
• Alibi is rule of evidence, not exception.
• Burden to prove alibi lies on accused.
• Proof must be strict and convincing.

​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Facts which are Occasion, Cause or Effect of Facts in Issue or Relevant Facts [Section 5]

​IntroductionSection 5 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts. The section recognizes that certain facts, though not directly in issue, may still have a close connection with the principal fact and therefore become relevant.
The section provides that facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect—whether immediate or remote—of relevant facts or facts in issue are relevant. It also includes facts which constitute the state of things under which the act happened or facts which afforded an opportunity for its occurrence.

Meaning and Scope of Section 5
Section 5 makes relevant those facts which help the Court understand:

• the surrounding circumstances of the occurrence,
• the cause behind an event,
• the effects produced by the event,
• the conditions under which it occurred,
• and the opportunity available for commission of the act.

Even though such facts may not form part of the same transaction under Section 4, they are still admissible because they are closely connected with the fact in issue.
The principle behind this section is that a fact can be properly understood only when its surrounding circumstances, causes, and consequences are examined together.

Facts Constituting Occasion, Cause or Effect
OccasionOccasion refers to the circumstances or situation that provided an opportunity for the occurrence of the act.
Illustration (a) explains this concept. The question is whether A robbed B. The facts that B went to a fair carrying money and disclosed possession of the money to others shortly before the robbery are relevant because they created the occasion or opportunity for the robbery.

Cause
Cause refers to the reason or motive that led to the occurrence of the fact in issue.
For example, if a person commits murder to recover money owed to him, the existence of the debt may become relevant as the cause of the crime.

In Jai Nand v Rex, J was tried for murdering K. Evidence showed that K had deposited ornaments with J, had entrusted money to him for purchase of a truck, and had demanded repayment shortly before the murder. These facts were held relevant because they constituted the cause or motive for the murder.

Effect
Effects are the consequences or results produced by the fact in issue.
Illustration (b) states that where the question is whether A murdered B, marks of struggle found on the ground near the place of occurrence are relevant because they are effects of the incident.
Such facts help the Court reconstruct the events connected with the crime.

Facts Constituting the State of Things
Facts showing the surrounding conditions under which an act happened are also relevant under this section.
Illustration (c) provides that where A is accused of poisoning B, the state of B’s health before the alleged poisoning and B’s habits known to A become relevant because they show the state of things under which the offence allegedly occurred.
These facts assist the Court in determining whether the alleged act was possible or probable.

Facts Affording Opportunity
Opportunity refers to the possibility or occasion available for commission of the act.
No offence can ordinarily be committed without opportunity. Therefore, facts showing that a person had the chance to commit the act become relevant.
Conversely, if a person proves absence of opportunity, it may strongly support his innocence.
However, opportunity alone is insufficient to establish guilt. There remains a substantial gap between mere opportunity and actual commission of the offence, which must be bridged by reliable evidence.

Illustrations under Section 5
Illustration (a) – Robbery
Where the question is whether A robbed B, the facts that B carried money to a fair and informed others about it become relevant because they provided an occasion and opportunity for the robbery.

Illustration (b) – Murder
Marks of struggle near the place of murder become relevant because they are effects of the incident and help establish that violence occurred there.

Illustration (c) – Poisoning
The condition of B’s health before poisoning and B’s habits known to A become relevant because they show the circumstances and opportunity for administering poison.

Case Law – Jai Nand v Rex
In Jai Nand v Rex, the accused J was charged with murdering K. The prosecution proved:

• K’s wife had deposited ornaments with J;
• J had taken money from K for purchase of a truck;
• K demanded repayment shortly before the incident;
• and K stayed overnight with J before his body was discovered.

The Court held that:

• J’s indebtedness to K and K’s demand for money were relevant as the cause of the murder;
• K’s stay at J’s house provided the occasion and opportunity for the crime.

Thus, these surrounding circumstances became relevant under Section 5.

Difference between Section 4 and Section 5
Section 4 deals with facts forming part of the same transaction (res gestae), whereas Section 5 has a broader scope.
Facts under Section 5 may not strictly form part of the same transaction, yet they become relevant because they are closely connected with the fact in issue as its:

• occasion,
• cause,
• effect,
• surrounding condition,
• or opportunity.

Thus, Section 5 enlarges the range of admissible evidence beyond the immediate transaction.

Conclusion
Section 5 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam recognizes that facts surrounding an event often help reveal the truth about the event itself. Facts constituting the cause, occasion, effect, surrounding conditions, or opportunity for the occurrence of a fact in issue become relevant because they assist the Court in understanding the complete picture.
The section therefore plays an important role in both civil and criminal trials by allowing admission of connected circumstances that help establish probability, intention, and causation.

​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Motive, Preparation and Previous or Subsequent Conduct [Section 6]

IntroductionSection 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with motive, preparation, and the previous or subsequent conduct of parties. The section makes certain facts relevant when they explain the reason behind an act, the arrangements made for committing it, or the behavior of persons connected with the case. These facts help the Court understand the circumstances surrounding a fact in issue and assist in arriving at a proper conclusion.

The section provides that facts showing motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact are themselves relevant. It also recognizes the relevance of conduct of parties, agents, or persons affected by an offence if such conduct is influenced by or connected with facts in issue or relevant facts.

MotiveMeaning of Motive
Motive refers to the reason or inducement that prompts a person to commit a particular act. In criminal law, motive explains why a person may have committed an offence. Although motive is not always an essential ingredient of an offence, it becomes extremely important in cases based upon circumstantial evidence because it acts as a connecting link in the chain of circumstances.

Importance of Motive in Criminal Cases
Where direct evidence clearly establishes the commission of an offence, proof of motive may not carry much significance. However, where the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great importance as it strengthens the prosecution story and helps establish the guilt of the accused.

In Prem Kumar v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court observed that when there is sufficient direct evidence regarding commission of the offence, motive does not loom large in the mind of the Court. However, in circumstantial evidence cases, motive becomes a very relevant factor.

Illustrations of Motive
Illustration (a) explains motive clearly. A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A had earlier murdered C, that B knew about it, and that B attempted to extort money from A by threatening disclosure are relevant because they establish a motive for A to murder B.
Illustration (b) also relates to motive. If B denies execution of a bond, the fact that B urgently needed money at the relevant time becomes relevant because it provides a reason or motive for borrowing money.

PreparationMeaning of Preparation
Preparation refers to arranging the means or measures necessary for committing an offence. It includes acts done before the commission of the offence with the object of facilitating its execution.
Generally, mere preparation is not punishable under criminal law. However, certain kinds of preparation are specifically punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, such as preparation to wage war against the Government, preparation to commit depredation on friendly territories, and preparation for dacoity.

Illustrations of Preparation
Illustration (c) states that where A is tried for murdering B by poison, the fact that A procured poison similar to the one administered to B becomes relevant because it shows preparation for the offence.
Illustration (d) relates to preparation in relation to wills. If A consulted advocates, made inquiries, and prepared draft wills before execution of the alleged will, those acts become relevant because they indicate preparation for making the will.

ConductMeaning of Conduct
Conduct means the behavior of a person influenced by or connected with facts in issue or relevant facts. Conduct may be previous or subsequent. It includes actions such as absconding, concealing evidence, creating false evidence, or attempting to influence witnesses.
The conduct must have a direct connection with the fact in issue or relevant fact. Mere unrelated behavior is not admissible.

Previous and Subsequent Conduct
Both prior and subsequent conduct are relevant if they are connected with the occurrence in question.
Illustration (e) explains that if an accused destroys evidence, conceals objects used in the crime, prevents witnesses from appearing, or procures false evidence, such conduct becomes relevant because it indicates consciousness of guilt.
Illustration (i) states that absconding after commission of an offence or possession of property obtained through the offence is relevant conduct.

Conduct as Circumstantial Evidence
Conduct often becomes an important circumstance in criminal trials based on circumstantial evidence.
In A.N. Venkatesh v State of Karnataka, the accused led the police to the place where the dead body was hidden and attempted to flee after noticing the police. The Supreme Court held that such conduct was relevant and admissible under Section 6.
Similarly, in Raja v State of Karnataka, the conduct of the prosecutrix in a gang rape case was examined carefully. The Court found her behavior after the incident unnatural and inconsistent, which affected the reliability of the prosecution case.

Statements Accompanying Conduct – Explanation 1
Explanation 1 clarifies that conduct does not ordinarily include statements. However, statements become relevant when they accompany and explain acts other than statements.
For example, if an injured person runs down the street shouting the name of the assailant and describing the attack, the statement becomes relevant because it accompanies and explains the conduct of the injured person.

Distinction Between Complaint and Mere Statement
There is a distinction between a complaint and a mere statement. A complaint is made seeking protection, assistance, or redress and is generally relevant. A mere statement expressing knowledge without seeking any action may not be relevant under this section unless it qualifies under some other provision.
Illustration (j) explains that where a rape victim makes a complaint shortly after the incident, the complaint and the circumstances in which it was made become relevant. However, merely stating that she had been raped without making a complaint is not relevant as conduct.
Illustration (k) applies the same principle to robbery cases.

Case Law on Statements Explaining Conduct
In Himachal Pradesh Administration v Om Prakash, the accused pointed out the person from whom he had purchased the weapon used in the offence. The Court held that this conduct was admissible under Section 6 even though the disclosure statement itself was inadmissible under Section 23.

Statements Affecting Conduct – Explanation 2
Explanation 2 states that when the conduct of a person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, also becomes relevant.
Illustrations (f), (g), and (h) explain this principle. If a person runs away after hearing that the police are searching for the offender, both the statement and his conduct become relevant because the statement influenced his conduct.
Similarly, where a person remains silent after hearing an accusation made in his presence, such silence may become relevant because it reflects his conduct in response to the accusation.

FIR (First Information Report) Lodged by Accused as Conduct
In Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that where an FIR is lodged by the accused himself, the fact that he gave the information is admissible as evidence of conduct under Section 6.

Conclusion
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam plays an important role in determining the relevance of motive, preparation, and conduct in judicial proceedings. Motive helps explain why an offence was committed, preparation indicates readiness to commit it, and conduct before or after the occurrence often helps establish guilt or innocence.
The section also recognizes the evidentiary value of statements accompanying conduct and statements affecting conduct. These principles are particularly significant in cases based upon circumstantial evidence where human behavior and surrounding circumstances become crucial for determining the truth.

​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.

​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Things Said or Done by Conspirators in Reference to Common Design [Section 8]

Meaning and Scope of Section 8
Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deals with the relevancy of acts, statements, and writings made by conspirators in relation to a common design. The section provides that when there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, then anything said, done, or written by any one of them in reference to the common intention becomes relevant against all the conspirators.
Such evidence is admissible not only for proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for showing that a particular person was a party to it. This provision corresponds to Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which defines criminal conspiracy.

Nature of Criminal Conspiracy
​Criminal conspiracy means an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. The essence of conspiracy lies in the agreement or common plan itself. Since conspiracies are generally formed secretly and carried out in secrecy, direct evidence is rarely available.
Therefore, conspiracy is usually proved through surrounding circumstances, conduct, communications, and actions of the conspirators. Section 8 becomes important because it allows the acts and statements of one conspirator to be used against the others.

Principle Behind the Section
This section is based on the principle of mutual agency among conspirators. Once a conspiracy is established, every conspirator is treated as an agent of the others in matters relating to the common design. Consequently, anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is considered relevant against all.
Section 8 is also regarded as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence because statements made by one person are admissible against other conspirators.

Illustration Under the Section
The illustration attached to the section explains the rule clearly. Suppose there are reasonable grounds to believe that A joined a conspiracy to wage war against the State. In such a case, the following facts become relevant:

• B procured arms in Europe for the conspiracy.
• C collected money in Kolkata for the same object.
• D persuaded people in Mumbai to join the conspiracy.
• E published writings in Agra supporting the object of the conspiracy.
• F transmitted money from Delhi to Singapore.
• H wrote a letter describing the conspiracy.

All these acts and writings are relevant not only to prove the existence of the conspiracy but also to prove A’s involvement in it, even if A did not personally know all the conspirators or some acts occurred before he joined or after he left the conspiracy.

Essentials for Applicability of Section 8
For evidence to become admissible under this section, certain conditions must be fulfilled.
1. Prima Facie Evidence of ConspiracyThere must first be reasonable grounds for believing that two or more persons were members of a conspiracy.
2. Statement or Act Must Relate to Common IntentionThe act, statement, or writing relied upon must be connected with the common design or intention of the conspirators.
3. Act or Statement Must Be Made During the ConspiracyThe statement, act, or writing must have been made after the conspiracy was formed.
4. Evidence Usable Only Against Co-ConspiratorsSuch evidence can be used only against the co-conspirators and not in their favour.

Judicial Interpretation
Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan v State of Maharashtra
In this case, the Supreme Court summarized the main ingredients of Section 8. The Court held that there must first be prima facie evidence of conspiracy. Once such evidence exists, anything said, done, or written by one conspirator in relation to the common intention becomes relevant against the others.
The Court further stated that such evidence is admissible both for proving the conspiracy and for proving participation of the accused persons in it.

Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration)
​In this case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 8 comes into operation only after the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons conspired together.
The Court emphasized that once such evidence is available, the acts and statements of one conspirator become relevant against all others because the section is founded on the principle of mutual agency among conspirators.

State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
This case arose from the Parliament Attack incident of 13 December 2001. The Supreme Court considered whether statements made by an accused after arrest could be admitted under Section 8.
The Court held that statements made after the conspiracy had ended were not admissible under this section. Only those acts and statements made during the continuance of the conspiracy are relevant. Once the conspiracy ends, the principle of mutual agency also ends.

Illustrative Problem
Suppose A, B, and C are prosecuted for conspiracy to murder D. During the trial, letters exchanged between them while planning the murder are produced in evidence. These letters are relevant because they were written during the conspiracy and relate to the common intention.
However, if B later makes a statement before a Magistrate after his arrest describing the conspiracy, that statement is not relevant under Section 8 because it was made after the conspiracy had ended.

Conclusion
​Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is an important provision relating to criminal conspiracy. Since conspiracies are usually secret in nature, direct evidence is difficult to obtain. Therefore, the law allows the acts, writings, and statements of one conspirator to be used against the others.
The section helps courts establish the existence of a conspiracy and determine the involvement of accused persons through circumstantial evidence. However, such evidence is admissible only when there is prima facie proof of conspiracy and only for acts or statements made during the continuance of the conspiracy.

​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Difference between Judicial Confession and Extra-Judicial Confession
1. Meaning

• Judicial Confession:
  • Made before a Magistrate or Court under BNSS during investigation or trial.
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Made outside court, i.e., to any private person or authority other than Magistrate/Court.

2. Evidentiary Value

• Judicial Confession:
  • Strong substantive evidence
  • Recorded formally under legal provisions
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Weak evidence
  • Requires careful scrutiny

3. Conviction

• Judicial Confession:
  • Conviction is safe even without corroboration if voluntary and true
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Conviction legally possible without corroboration,
  • But not safe in practice without corroboration

4. Method of Proof

• Judicial Confession:
  • No need to call Magistrate/Court as witness
  • Already recorded officially
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Must be proved by calling the person before whom confession was made

5. Admissibility / Reliance

• Judicial Confession:
  • Can be relied upon independently if voluntary and true
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Cannot be solely relied upon unless corroborated

Quick Recall Line👉 Judicial confession = strong and reliable; Extra-judicial confession = weak and needs support.