CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
The Indian Evidence Act is very unique in nature. This is because it was introduced some 141
years ago. The mere fact that it was introduced so many years ago does not make it unique; it is
unique because in such a long time it has not been amended many times. To stay unchanged for
such a long time is a very special achievement indeed because it is not considered obsolete by
any means. Our country follows the Due Process Model, which opposite of the crime control
model where the police and court play an active role in solving the veracity of the allegations
made. In the Due Process Model it is the parties of the suit on whom the burden of proof is
vested. Thus it is very important to have a guideline for the submission of evidence. The Act not
only regulates the procedure for the admission of the evidence it also looks after which evidence
will not be admissible under Indian Evidence Act. The fact that India follows the due process
model means that theoretically the discretionary powers of the judge is very large. To prevent the
judge from being arbitrary in nature while admitting evidence of a case, it is imperative that the
judge is made subject to a standard set of guidelines which is to be followed across the board.
This fact of denying the judge the misuse of his discretionary powers is all the more important in
the present times when corruption is rampant in our country. This Indian Evidence Act is
objectively used to give true justice and so that corrupt elements cannot subvert the justice
system. A very important fact also that needs to be brought to the forefront is that the Indian
Evidence Act deals with two important terms that are, evidence and admissibility. The
admissibility has not been defined but it is based on the factor of relevancy which has been fairly
discussed in the statute.
Relevancy of Facts
Before looking into the relevancy of the facts it is very important to see what constitutes the facts
itself. The term fact has been described under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the layman
terms fact simply means a thing that exists. That is anything that is tangible is termed as a fact in
layman terms. For the purposes in the evidence act it is not confined to the tangible nature even
the feelings, state of mind and personal opinions are construed under the broad umbrella of facts.
Facts can also be divided as Physical and Psychological in nature.

The word relevant means any two realities to which it is connected are so identified with one
another that, as stated by, the regular course of occasions, one, either taken without anyone else
present or in association with different actualities, demonstrates or renders in the cards the past,
present or future presence or on presence of the other.
The Indian Evidence Act does not give the definition of the word Relevant but surprisingly from
section 5 to section 55 the relevancy of the facts are dealt with. Briefing about the content
present in section 5-10, the following is reflected.

A fact which has a certain degree of

''probative force'' is known as ''Relevant fact''. Section 6 of the Indian evidence act makes it clear
that Evidence may be given of 1. Facts in issue and 2. Relevant facts. Evidence can be given of a
fact only if it is either a fact in issue or one declared to be relevant under the following sections.
Thus, evidence of all collateral facts which are incapable of affording any reasonable
presumption as to the principle matters in dispute, are excluded in order to save public time.
When the evidence is tendered, if it is prima facie admissible, it is for the other side to show that
it is not admissible. Section 6 of the act elaborates on the relevancy of facts which form a part of
the same transaction. Section 7 embraces a larger area and provides for the admission and several
classes of facts, which though not possibly forming a part of the transaction are yet connected
with it particular modes and hence relevant, when the transaction itself is under inquiry. Section
8 is wider than section 7 in its application. Under this section motive, preparation and conduct
are declared to be relevant facts. Section 9 deals with that kind of evidence which if considered
separately or distinct from other evidence would be irrelevant, but if it is taken in consideration
in connection with some other facts, proved in the case it explains and throws light upon them.
Section 10 deals with the admissibility of things said or done by a conspirator in reference to a
common design.
In an instance of homicide, in the event that it be demonstrated against the accused that he had
the intention to slaughter the victim, that he had the chance and made arrangements to murder,
that instantly after the victim was killed the accused was seen fleeing from the spot of homicide
with a sword under control, that his garments and the sword were both stained with blood, and
that, presently a while later, he hid the blood stained dress, and the sword, the certainty of his
being the killer is demonstrated as decisively as by the affirmation of the persons of
irreproachable credit who may have really seen him submitting homicide. Yet none of these

actualities is vital component of the risk to be hanged; as the law does not require, as a state of
point of reference, evidence of any of the realities specified above to rebuff the man with death.
None of these realities, in this way, is a reality of issue; yet every one of them are significant
since they bear the cost of great material for the surmising that the truth in issue did happen, in
particular that the accused killed the victim and therefore the above stated realities become
relevant facts to the case.

CHAPTER II
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER III
LEGAL ANALYSIS
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
SECTION 5: EVIDENCE MAY BE GIVEN OF FACTS IN ISSUE AND RELEVANT FACTS
Evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings 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.
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 As trial the following facts are in issue: As beating B with the club; As causing
Bs death by such beating; As intention to cause Bs death.
b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at the first hearing
of the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce the
bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, otherwise than in
accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
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.
ILLUSTRATIONS:

a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or

the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the
transaction, is a relevant fact.
b) A is accused of waging war against the [Government of India] by taking part in an armed
insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken
open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction,
though A may not have been present at all of them.
c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters
between the parties relating to the subject out of whom the libel arose, and forming part
of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not
contain the libel itself.
d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods
were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant
fact.
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.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
a) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to
a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it, or mentioned the fact that he
had it, to third persons, are relevant.
b) The question is, whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at
or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.
c) The question is, whether A poisoned B. The state of Bs health before the symptoms
ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the
administration of poison, are relevant facts.

SECTION 8: MOTIVE, PREPARATION AND PREVIOUS OR SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in

reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant
thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding,
is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and
whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
EXPLANATION:
a) The word conduct in this section does not include statements, unless those statements
accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the
relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
b) When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence
and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
a) 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.
b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond. The
fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a
particular purpose is relevant.
c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact that, before the death of B, A procured
poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.(d)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 consulted vakils in reference to making the Will, and that he caused drafts
or other Wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant.
d) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged
crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an
appearance favourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or
prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been
witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.
e) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in As
presence"the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B, and that
immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.

f)

The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000. The facts that A asked C to lend him
money, and that D said to C in As presence and hearingI 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.
g) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The fact that A absconded after receiving
a letter warning him that inquiry was being made for the criminal and the contents of the
letter, are relevant.
h) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he
absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the
crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing
it, are relevant.
i) The question is, whether A was ravished. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she
made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in
which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that, without making a complaint,
she said that she had been ravished is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it
may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative
evidence under section 157.

COMMENTS

GROUND FOR REJECTION OF TESTIMONY OF EYE WITNESS

The conduct of an eye witness in non-disclosing the incident to anybody for a number of
days, is highly unnatural one and is sufficient to reject his testimony; Ganpat Kondiba
Chavan v. State of Maharashtra1.
It is well settled that the conduct of a witness in not disclosing the incident to person(s)
whom he must have met after the incident is indicative of the fact that he had not seen the
accident; Ganpat KondibaChavan v. State of Maharashtra2
1 (1997) 2 Crimes 38 (Bom).
2 (1997) 2 Crimes 38 (Bom).

ROLE OF MOTIVE IN AN OFFENCE

If motive is proved, the case of prosecution becomes more easier to connect accused to the
alleged incident; P.V. Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh3
Normally there is a motive behind every criminal act; Barikanoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh4.

WHEN MOTIVE IS NOT SINE QUA NON

Where the ocular evidence is very clear and convincing and the role of the accused person in
the crime stands clearly established, establishment of motive is not a sine qua non for
proving the prosecution case; Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh.5
It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of the credence
and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the
motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes the motive is shrouded in the mystery and it
is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of eye witnesses is creditworthy and is believed by the court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question
whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant; Raja v. State6.
Motive is a thing primarily known to the accused himself and it may not the possible for the
prosecution in each and every case to find out the real motive behind the
crime; Barikanoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh.7

3 1997) 2 Crimes 307 (AP).

4 (1997) 1 Crimes 500 (All)
5 AIR 2003 SC 539
6 (1972) 2 Crimes 175
7 (1997)1 Crimes 500 (All)

It is well established that where there is an eyewitness account regarding the incident, the
motive loses all its importance; Barikanoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh.8

SECTION 9: FACTS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN OR INTRODUCE RELEVANT FACTS

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 libelous 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.

8 (1997) 1 Crimes 500 (All).

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:

IDENTIFICATION ACCUSED

a) If the test identification parade regarding accused was not conducted properly and
suffered from unexplained delay, he is entitled to benefit of doubt; Rajesh Govind
Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra.9
b)

The possibility of wrong identification due to loss of memory cannot be

discounted; Pravakar Beherav. State of Orissa10

c) When conviction was based on evidence of eye witness and not on identification parade it
cannot be set aside on ground that identification was not reliable; Mullagiri
Vajiram v. State of Andhra Pradesh11
d) In dacoity case where all witnesses identified suspects as culprits without margin of error
creating doubt in mind of court, such identification is liable to be set aside; Tahir
Mohamad, Kamad Girendra Singh and Badri Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh12
Where both the trial court and the Appellate Court had assessed the evidence in the
9 AIR 2000 SC 160: 2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).
10 (1997) 2 Crimes 108 (Ori)
11 AIR 1993 SC 1243
12 AIR 1993 SC 931.

proper perspective and attached much importance to the evidence in regard to the
identification of the appellant in finding him guilty, the Supreme Court would not reassess that evidence in absence of an exceptional ground necessitating such reassessment; Ramdeo Rai Yadav v. State of Bihar13
e) If there is unexplained and unreasonable delay in putting up the accused persons for a test
identification the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of the test; Raj Nath v .
State of Uttar Pradesh14
f)

The test identification parade conducted three and a half months after the dacoity took
place, it would be wrong to convict the accused on single testimony; Wakil
Singh v. State of Bihar15

SECTION 10: THINGS SAID OR DONE BY CONSPIRATOR IN REFERENCE TO COMMON DESIGN

Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such
persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first
entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so
conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose
of showing that any such person was a party to it.

ILLUSTRATION:
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the
[Government of India]. The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the
13 (1990) Cr LJ 1183 (SC).
14 1988 Cr LJ 422: AIR 1988 SC 345
15 1981 BLJ 462.

conspiracy, C collected money in Calcutta for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the
conspiracy in Bombay, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F
transmitted from Delhi to G at Kabul the money which C had collected at Calcutta, and the
contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy, are each relevant, both to
prove the existence of the conspiracy, and to prove As complicity in it, although he may have
been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers
to him, and although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.
Comments Existence of conspiracy If prima facie evidence of existence of a conspiracy is given
and accepted, the evidence of acts and statements made by anyone of the conspirators in
furtherance of the common object is admissible against all; Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal v.
State of Tamil Nadu.16 Object Section 10 has been deliberately enacted in order to make acts and
statements of a co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of conspirators, because of the
nature of crime; Badri Rai v. State of Bihar.17 Significance of common intention The words
common intention signifies a common intention existing at the time when the thing was said,
done or written by the one of them. It had nothing to do with carrying the conspiracy into effect;
Mirza Akbar v. Emperor18
COMMENTS:

EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY

If prima facie evidence of existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of
acts and statements made by anyone of the conspirators in furtherance of the common object
is admissible against all; Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu.19

16 AIR 2005 SC 716

17 AIR 1958 SC 953
18

AIR 1940 PC 176

19 AIR 2005 SC 716

Object

Section 10 has been deliberately enacted in order to make acts and statements of a coconspirator admissible against the whole body of conspirators, because of the nature of
crime; Badri Rai v. State of Bihar20

Significance of common intention

The words common intention signifies a common intention existing at the time when the
thing was said, done or written by the one of them. It had nothing to do with carrying the
conspiracy into effect; Mirza Akbar v. Emperor21

20 AIR 1958 SC 953

21 AIR 1940 PC 176

CHAPTER IV
ROLE OF JUDICIARY
1. STATE OF M.P. VS DHIRENDRA KUMAR22
In this case a person called Munnibai was killed. From the evidence it appeared that the
respondent had an evil eye on her. Respondent was also the tenant in the house of father in
law of the deceased. The deceased reported the matter to her mother-n-law who in turn told
the same to her husband. In the consequence the respondent was asked to vacate the
tenancy. The Court recognized that this thing may be taken as evidence.
Critical Analysis: As per the principle laid down under section 8 the Act motive is nodoubt an important aspect of evidence but it is very difficult to prove it as mental state of
affairs of the accused cannot be seen from outside. Motive is useful evidence only when it
is apparent that the crime took place for a particular motive. The question of motive is vital
when a case is based on no direct evidence and the Court is to infer it from the given
circumstances. In these kinds of cases inadequacy of motive can be pleaded as defense if
motive is made doubtful then it goes in favour of the accused. But the prosecution is not
bound to prove that motive was there when cogent evidence has been supplied. In such
cases absence of inadequacy of motive becomes of very small importance.23

2. Bhamara Vs State of M.P24:

In this case a person X was cultivating his land. Another person Y was passing by the land.
He called X to chat with him. During the interaction some hot words were exchanged and
altercation ensued. X battered in the head to Y. Two bystanders namely A & B rushed to

22 AIR 1997 SC 318.

23 Batuklal, The Law of Evidence, Sixteenth Edition, Reprinted 2007, Central Law
Agency, Allahabad.
24 Bhamara Vs State of MP, AIR 1953 Bhopal 1

that place. Seeing other people coming to that spot X tried to escape but was caught by C.
The conduct of escaping of the accused was held a very relevant subsequent conduct.
HELD by a lot of courts time and again Though conduct forms importance evidence under
the scope of section 8 but again we must remember that other than direct conduct, if seen by
witness, will not be of definite bearing over the case. A conduct which is not directly linked
to the facts in issue but some or the other way connected to it is as good as circumstantial
evidence which will be difficult for the Court to prove. Therefore it is imperative that the
Court scrutinize the conducts mainly previous and subsequent very carefully and thoroughly.
If two similar incidents have taken place in similar period of time and a person is connected
with one and not the other which has come for decision before the Court, in these
circumstances, Court should prepare itself to avoid any kind of judicial errors that may take
place.
3. Badri Rai and Anr. V. State of Bihar25
Two alleged accused Ramji and Badri were prosecuted for conspiracy for bribing a police
officer. An inspector of police was on his way to the police station. Both Ramji and Badri
approached him and requested that they would duly reward him if he could hush up the
case relating to stolen ornaments, etc. recovered from Ramji's house and which was under
investigation. The inspector told them to come to the police station. The inspector reported
the matter to his senior officer. Badri also came to the police station and offered him a
packet of currency notes. He told the inspector that Ramji had sent the money as a
consideration for hushing up the case against him. The inspector seized the money and
drew up the F.I.R.
The only question before the Supreme Court was whether the offer of money and the
accompanying statement made by Badri were relevant against Ramji? The Court held that
when both accused approached the inspector and requested him to hush up the case that
clearly showed that they had conspired to bribe a police officer. That being so, anything
said or done by any of them in reference to their conspiracy to bribe was relevant against
the other also. The statement and the offer of bribe had clear reference to their common
25 AIR 1958 SC 953

intention and were therefore, relevant against both. Thus, a statement made along with the
offence is part of the same transaction and is hence relevant as well as admissible.
4. In R. Vs Richardson, the fact that the deceased girl was alone in her cottage at the time
she was murdered was held to be relevant as it constituted the occasion of the murder and
footprints at the location of shoes which had been mended with iron knobs or nails were
held to be one of the effects.
5. In Rattan v. Reginam, the fact that a man who had murdered his wife had been having
an affair was held to be relevant as being the state of things or background in which the
crime occurred. However, a fact in issue cannot be proved by similar facts which are not
a part of the same transaction merely by the virtue of

section 7.

6. Mohan lal vs emperor26:

The accused was charged with cheating for importing goods in Karachi port without
paying the proper custom duty. Evidence was adduced of previous visit of the accused to
the port of okha, where it was said he tried to make some arrangements with the customs
whereby he could import other goods without payment of proper duty. The evidence was
held to be admissible as they were the preparation being made out by the accused in order
to do the wrongful act.
HELD: Evidence tending to show that the accused had prepared for the crime is always
admissible. But preparation does not depict the whole scenario of the crime but only the
arrangements made in respect. Further there is no mandate that preparation is always
carried out but it is more or less likely to be carried out.
The general principal is that no person can be made liable for the acts of another except in
cases of abetment in criminal proceeding and contract of agency in civil proceeding. But in
conspiracy the persons who take part in conspiracy are deemed to be the mutual agent or
confederates for the purpose of the executive of the joint purpose.
The court held that section 10 of the evidence act has been deliberately in order to make
such acts or statements of the co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of
26 AIR 1937 Sind 293

conspirators, because of the nature of the crime. A conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, and
executed in darkness. Naturally, therefore it is not feasible for the prosecution to connect
each isolated act or statement of one accused with the acts or statement of the others,
unless there is common bound linking all of them together.
NOTE: There are some essential elements which must be proved prima facie before
the court to admit the statements made under S.10 of Evidence Act.
Those are: Existence of the conspiracy: The operation of S10 is strictly conditional upon
being reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together.
7. In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh 27, it has been held that once there is
sufficient material to reasonably believe that there was concert and connection between
persons charged with a common design, it is immaterial whether they were strangers to
each other, or ignorant of actual role of each of them or they did not perform any one or
more of such acts by joint efforts. It is not necessary that all should have joined in the
scheme from the first; those who come in at later stage are equally guilty, provided the
agreement is proved.

27 [(2003) 10 SCC 586]

CHAPTER V
COMPARATIVE STUDY
LAW OF EVIDENCE IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Legal scholars of the Anglo-American tradition, but not only that tradition, have long regarded
evidence as being of central importance to the law.
In every jurisdiction based on the English common law tradition, evidence must conform to a
number of rules and restrictions to be admissible. Evidence must be relevant that is, it must be
directed at proving or disproving a legal element.
However, the relevance of evidence is ordinarily a necessary condition but not a sufficient
condition for the admissibility of evidence. For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if it
is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or the relevance or irrelevance of evidence cannot be
determined by syllogistic reasoning if/then logic alone. There is also general agreement that
assessment of relevance or irrelevance involves or requires judgements about probabilities or
uncertainties. Beyond that, there is little agreement. Many legal scholars and judges agree that
ordinary reasoning, or common sense reasoning, plays an important role. There is less agreement
about whether or not judgements of relevance or irrelevance are defensible only if the reasoning
that supports such judgements is made fully explicit.
According to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), evidence is relevant if it has the
"tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
Federal Rule 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded "if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice", if it leads to confusion of the issues, if it is
misleading or if it is a waste of time. California Evidence Code section 352 also allows for
exclusion to avoid "substantial danger of undue prejudice." For example, evidence that the victim
of a car accident was apparently a "liar, cheater, womanizer, and a man of low morals" was

unduly prejudicial and irrelevant to whether he had a valid product liability claim against the
manufacturer of the tires on his van (which had rolled over resulting in severe brain damage).28
The United States has a very complicated system of evidentiary rules; for example, John
Wigmore's celebrated treatise on it filled ten volumes. [2] James Bradley Thayer reported in 1898
that even English lawyers were surprised by the complexity of American evidence law, such as
its reliance on exceptions to preserve evidentiary objections for appeal.[3]
Some legal experts, notably Stanford legal historian Lawrence Friedman, have argued that the
complexity of American evidence law arises from two factors: (1) the right of American
defendants to have findings of fact made by a jury in practically all criminal cases as well as
many civil cases; and (2) the widespread consensus that tight limitations on the admissibility of
evidence are necessary to prevent a jury of untrained laypersons from being swayed by irrelevant
distractions.29

LAW OF EVIDENCE IN UNITED KINGDOM

Evidence is the information which provides grounds for belief that a particular fact or set of facts
is true. It is not always true that all the evidence attained is correct and all the inferences drawn
from them are true. Perfect knowledge is unattainable in an imperfect world. The law therefore
has to be satisfied by degrees of probability of accurate truth finding.
Relevance is the fundamental condition of admissibility of evidence. Evidence that is irrelevant
is inadmissible. Relevant evidence is prima facie admissible, on the basis that its admission will
tend to promote the aims of the law of evidence. However, it could be made inadmissible by
virtue of an exclusionary rule. And those that still exist, such as the rule against evidence of
character and other misconduct, tend to be less strict.
English law does not have an authoritative statutory or common law definition of the core
concept of relevance. The absence of the limits that might be imposed by such a definition
28 Winfred D. v. Michelin North America, Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 1011 (2008) (reversing jury verdict for
defendant).

29 Friedman, 301.

permits flexibility in the application of the concept. Though, in common law - flexibility is
purchased at the cost of some obscurity and inconsistency. The word relevant means that any two
facts to which it is applied are so related to each other that according to the common course of
events, one either taken by itself or in connection with other facts proves or renders probable the
past, present or future existence or non-existence. It is a relationship between facts. Stephens
definition: Relevance is concerned with the relationship between facts. It is important to note that
the given item of evidence is relevant to something - the something being proper object of proof
in the case. The question therefore remains the precise analysis of the factual issue to which the
evidence is claimed to be connected.
Courts prescribe certain matters to be relevant or irrelevant, but these concern substantive law.
What the law deems relevant or irrelevant does not necessarily correspond to logical and
everyday common sense relevance. E.g. for murder - most people would offer an explanation to
the effect that an intentional act such as murder is generally done for a reason and that motiveless
killings are rare. Therefore, if D had a reason to kill P it increases the probability of Ds Guilt; it
does this by placing him in a limited class of persons more likely than others to have committed
the crime.
R v. Ball: HL - guilty passion was used to prove incest after the coming into force of the Incest
Act 1908. They had openly lived together and they had conceived a child. However, if they had
different beds, then the question becomes whether they were likely to continue to indulge despite
the criminalisation of such conduct. The evidence is therefore more prejudicial than probative in
the latter case. The fact must prove or render probable existence of the fact in issue - in Stephens
test - a very high standard. It does not itself have to be strong enough to bear the whole case, but
increases the probability through the weight of the evidence. It is not necessary that by proving
A, it is probable that B must have occurred, it is simply by proving A, B is more probable having
considered all the other relevant evidence. But Stephens reference to other facts argue that
probability is always to be assessed having regard to the other evidence in the case.

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Indian evidence act is a noble piece of legislation which has completed its centenary and still
continuing to be the same. The legislation has made every effort to incorporate as many aspects
of evidence as it is necessary and in that way we find that it is a very comprehensive piece of
legislation. The relevance of motive, preparation, previous and subsequent conduct has been
explained in a very proper way and safeguards have been made inbuilt and that can be found
from the illustrations given after the section. From a bare reading it becomes apparent that the
section is divided in to certain parts and from our understanding we can deduce that the parts are
not separate but interlinked. Therefore the court while deciding a matter in which section 8 of the
act plays a pivotal role, must proceed with utmost care. When a case is based on circumstantial
evidence then it is very likely that evidences are not direct or in other words circumstances
available before the court is unclear. In this case what the court should do is that it should
scrutinize the evidences beyond reasonable doubt. If it is not done then prejudice is likely to be
created against the accused and the court may arrive on the wrong decision and this, in our
opinion will not be a fair play. If there remains any reasonable doubt in the evidences then the
benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. We should remember the principle that no
innocent should be punished wrongfully.

After going through section 10 of Evidence Act and many case related to this section thoroughly
I came to the conclusion that, there is no discretionary power given to the courts as to the
admissibility of the statements made under section 10 of the Act, but there are some essential
ingredients which has to be fulfilled in this regard. The time of the thing said, done or written is
also an essential thing to look after before the admissibility of the statement that on the time
when the statement is made at that time the conspiracy was on or not, a statement cannot be
admissible under section 10 if the statement is made before the time when the conspiracy was
first

entertained

and

after

the

conspiracy

is

end.

Hence it is clear that there is no discretionary power given to the court for the admission of the

statements made under section 10 of Evidence Act but there are some prima facie and
circumstantial evidences which must prove before any admission of the statement under this
section of the Act.