Section 9 of indian evidence act
Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant factsItalic text Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
Illustrations: (a) The question is, whether a given document is the Will of A. The state of A's property and of his family at the date of the alleged Will may be relevant facts.
(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.
(c) A is accused of a crime. The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant, under section 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue. The fact that, at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly. The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.
(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A.C ., on leaving A's service, says to A— "I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer”. This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C's conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.
(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A's wife. B says, as he delivers it—" A says you are to hide this”. B's statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.
(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
Section 9 dealing with large number of facts which are either introductory or explanatory in nature, are relevant. These are as follows: 1. Facts which are necessary to explain a fact in issue or relevant fact. 2. Facts which are necessary to introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact. 3. Facts which support an inference or relent a fact in issue or relevant fact. 4. Facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant. 5. Facts which fix the time or place of the fact in issue. 6. Facts which show the relation of parties by which any fact was transacted.
1. Explanatory facts: There are many pieces of evidence which have no meaning at all if considered separately, but become relevant when consider in connection with some other facts. Such facts explain the fact in issue or relevant fact. Illustrations (e) & (f). Example: A was tried for abducting a girl. Once during police investigation, the accused at that time was loitering near police station. The girl suddenly found the accused and started to cry out to her brother who told the police. The police arrested the accused. The statement of the girl is explanatory.
2. Introductory facts: Facts which are introductory of a relevant fact, are of great importance in understanding real nature of transaction and being relevant. Thus, evidence is allowed of facts which are necessary to introduce fact in issue or relevant fact. In a suit of libel evidence of person’s relation at the time of alleged libel may be necessary to introduce the circumstances that led to libel. Illustrations (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) explain the introductory facts.
3. Facts supporting inference: There are facts which are neither relevant as facts in issue nor as relevant facts but they support the inference suggested by the facts in issue or relevant fact or contradict the facts in issue or relevant fact. Example: A, after murder was seen running away from the village. Running away supports the inference that the murder might have been caused by him. It is relevant. Facts rebut inference: There are facts, which can rebut or contradict the inferences suggested by the facts in issue or relevant fact [Illustration (e)], being relevant. 4. Facts establishing identity of thing or person: When the identity of thing is in question, every fact which will be helpful to identify the thing is relevant. Example: In a robbery with murder case the house lady was called to identify the article of the deceased and other belongings. Identification of the deceased can be made with the help of this clothes and shoes. Identification of jewellery of victim by neighbour who attended a birth day is admissible. Identification of person:
Identification of person has been dealt with under section 9 of the Evidence Act. When the identity of a person is in question, identification by parents, wife or other relatives is relevant. In any special case identification of a person can be made by bodily mark, sign or cut mark. There are other means of identification by medical examinations, namely, examination of skeleton, bones, age, voice, blood group etc. By experts the identification of any person may also be possible, such as handwriting, finger print, foot print, photograph etc.
Value of identification:
The Supreme Court in number of cases has explained the value of evidence of identification. It is helpful both for the investigation agency and for the accused. Even, when the witness is a stranger to the accused he may be able to identify the alleged culprit in case TI Parade is held at earliest possible time. “It is in adopting this course alone that justice and fair play can be assured both to the accused as well as to the prosecution.” Where one of the witnesses failed to identify the accused at the TI Parade, identification by him of the accused in the court was useless.
Where the accused is not known to the prosecution witnesses and is identified in the test identification parade as well as in court by a solitary witness, the evidence of identification by him has to be scrutinized with great care and caution than in the case of known accused and should not be accepted unless free from all reasonable doubts. When TI Parade was conducted after long period after the arrest of the accused no reliance could be placed on identification made on test identification parade.
“The identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They can be used as corroborative of the statement in court.” Test identification parade is not a substantial’s evidence and has only corroborative value. There is no bar for conducting TI Parade in respect of accused who are on bail. The evidence should be capable of creating belief in the mind of the judge as to the involvement of the person brought before the court. Appreciation of such evidence would depend upon the strength and trustworthiness of witness. The identification should be held in such circumstances which should not be influenced by presence of police. All necessary precautions should be taken to avoid any kind of influences.
But, holding TI Parade is not compulsory. Failure to hold TI Parade is not fatal to prosecution case where accused persons were previously known to witness and their names also appeared in the FIR. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances each case.
Identification in court:
It is established rule that the identification of the accused is relevant under section 9. The identification of the accused in the court is the substantive evidence of the person identifying and the person identifying in TI Parade must corroborate the same. “TI Parade is not a cast iron strait jacket. Legal proposition is admitting no exceptions.” Requirements of test identification parade enumerates from the rule of prudence to generally look for as the identity of the accused who is stranger to the witness. Identification of the accused by a child who told the police under section 161, Cr. P.C. could not be accepted. Identification of an accused by the witness for the first time in court is weak evidence Identification for the first time in court after about nine months would not be safe to relay. Identification of the accused by the victim who was only six years and was subjected to rectum-intercourse in the court is substantive evidence.
As a matter of rule there is no statutory provision for identification of the accused by showing photographs to the witnesses. In practice the police is entitled to show photographs to witness in order to confirm proper identification of accused. If, in course of investigation by the police the witnesses identify the accused it may be allowed provided the photograph of the suspect is not shown first by the investigation officer.