SCHOOL OF LAW

A Project Submitted on:

SECTION 11-16: RELEVANCY OF FACTS

In compliance to partial fulfilment of the marking scheme, for Semester VI of

2019-2020, in the subject of Law of Evidence

Submitted To:

Prof. Ekta Saini

Submitted by:

Rajeev Tekwani(A059)

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. PAGE
TOPIC
NO. NO.

1. ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4

3. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 5

4. CHAPTER 2: LEGAL ANALYSIS 7

5. CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSION 19

6. ANNEXURE 20

2
ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

CJI Chief Justice of India

CPC Code of Civil Procedure

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

HC High Court

ICA Indian Contract Act

ICJ International Court of Justice

i.e. That is

IEA Indian Evidence Act

Rs. Rupees

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

UOI Union of India

3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
RELEVANCE OF TOPIC

The law of evidence is that part of law of procedure which, with a view to ascertain
individual rights and liabilities in individual cases, decides (a) what facts may and may not be
proved in such cases; (b) what sort of evidence must be given as to a fact which maybe
proved; and (c) by whom and in what manner the evidence must be given by which any fact
is to be proved. This concludes the importance of relevancy of facts.

OBJECTIVES

1. To seek the meaning of a fact.

2. To seek the meaning of a fact in issue.
3. To seek the meaning of a relevancy of facts.
4. To know the various principles underlying Sec. 11-16 of IEA.
5. To examine the role of Judiciary.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is a fact?
2. What is a fact in issue?
3. What is relevancy of facts?
4. What is the underlying principle behind Sec. 11-16 of the IEA, 1872?
5. What are the various judicial pronouncements with respect to Sec.11-16 of IEA?

LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH

Research study carries with itself a few limitations, like, as some of the research is restricted
to secondary research so, the quality of research is affected as the origins of the information
maybe questionable. Secondary research never meets the specific needs of researcher because
all those information, data, statistics have already been generated. Hence, it is suggested that
further researchers critically evaluate and validate the reliability and credibility of the
information gathered.

4
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
WHAT ARE FACTS?

‘Fact’ means an existing thing, event or action. The event or fact which is likely to occur in
future and which neither occurred in the past nor is occurring at present, do not amount to
‘fact’ within meaning of the IEA, 1872.

As per Sec. 3 of the IEA, 1872 ‘fact’ means and includes:

(1) Any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;

(2) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Illustrations:

a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.
c) That a man said certain words is a fact.

WHAT IS FACT IN ISSUE?

As per IEA, 1872 the expression “fact in issue” means and includes:

Any fact from which-

i. By itself or
ii. In connection with other facts the existence, non existence, nature or extent of-
a. Any right or
b. Any liability or
c. Any disability

Whether asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.

Illustrations:

A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial the following facts may be in issue:

5
 1. That A caused B’s death;
2. That A intended to cause B’s death;
3. That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B;
4. That A at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, by reason of unsoundness
of mind, incapable of knowing its nature.

Facts in issue mean the matters which are in dispute or which form the subject of
investigation.

RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Relevancy is concerned with facts connected with each other in ways provided by Chapter II
of the IEA. Relevancy of Fact is important in order for a fact to be rendered admissible in a
court of law. Relevant fact may also render evidence which is obtained illegally to be
admissible where the court will overlook on the manner on how the evidence is obtained and
admit the evidence.

There are two types of relevancy in facts:

a) Logical relevance: If one fact is connected to the other logically, it is called logical
relevancy and it may be based on several factors. For instance if a severed dead body
is found on a railway track, it can be inferred that the death occurred because of the
train running over the person. On a closer observation, it is found that there is no
haemorrhage near the body, the first inference is then replaced by another inference
that the person was killed elsewhere and the dead body was thrown on the railway
track to create the misleading impression that he was run over by the train. Here the
inferences are drawn on the basis of logic based on cause and effect. If two or more
persons have committed the offence at the same time and place, it can be inferred that
they were acting with common intention.

b) Legal relevance: While logical relevance is certainly an important factor in

determining the probative value of facts, it so happens that the facts may be connected
to each other by varying degrees of logical proximity and immediate causes and
effects, and remote, indirect and even conjectural causes and effects. Hence, the

6
courts should let in only those facts which have a high degree of probative value that
would help the courts to decide one way or the other with relatively greater certainty.

7
CHAPTER 2: LEGAL ANALYSIS
SECTION 11

Fact otherwise not relevant are relevant:

(1) If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;

(2) If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-
existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

Illustration:

The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on
that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was
committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render
it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.

Scope:

Sec. 11 of the IEA is very wide in its application and it does not impose any restriction on
facts that can be admitted even these facts are highly inconsistent or improbable with fact in
issue or relevant fact. The facts which ordinarily tend to render the existence of fact in issue
or relevant fact probable or improbable are relevant. But, under this section there are
collateral facts which by way of contraction, inconsistent with the fact in issue or relevant
fact are also relevant. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Sec. 11 of the IEA that facts
which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. The section is described as
“residuary section” dealing with relevancy of facts which are logically admissible.

Example:

A has written a defamatory statement against B. This is a fact. A is illiterate, this is another
fact. Both the facts are inconsistent but both facts are relevant and admissible.

Nature of facts:

The Sec. 11 consists of two clauses, viz.

8
1. Facts inconsistent with fact in issue or relevant fact: One fact is inconsistent with the
other when it cannot co-exist with the other. Under this clause facts are relevant only because
they cannot co-exist with fact in issue or relevant fact. Above example shows that A is
illiterate. A cannot write a defamatory letter to B. These two facts cannot co-exist. “The usual
theory of essential inconsistency is that a certain fact cannot co-exist with the doing of the act
in question, and, therefore, that if that fact is true of a person of whom the fact is alleged, it is
impossible that he should have done the act.”

Under the clause there are at least six classes of cases which show inconsistency, viz.;

a) Alibi: Alibi is a Latin word, which means elsewhere. It is used when the accused
takes the plea that when the occurrence took place he was elsewhere. In such a
situation the prosecution has to discharge the burden satisfactorily. Once the
prosecution is successful in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused
who takes the place of alibi to prove it with absolute certainly. An alibi is not an
exception envisaged in the IPC or any other law. It is a rule of evidence recognized by
Sec. 11 of the Evidence Act that facts inconsistent with fact in issue are relevant.
However it cannot be the sole link or sole circumstance to bare conviction. When one
fact is necessary to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, but strikingly absent in
the chain of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution case certainly will fail. Because,
an alibi the relevancy of which is totally inconsistence with hypothesis that the
accused had committed an offence.

b) Non access of husband to show illegitimacy of the child: Since legitimacy of the
child implies cohabitation between husband and wife. For disproving the legitimacy
the husband has to prove that he had no cohabitation with his wife during the probable
time of begetting as he was in abroad.

c) Survival of the alleged deceased: A is accused of murdering В on 10th August 1996

at Delhi. But A tried to prove and led evidence to show that В was alive on 25 th
December 2004. Both the facts are relevant under Sec. 11 only because these are not
consisting with each other.

9
 d) Commission of an offence by a third person: A is charged with the murder of B. A
leads evidence that В was murdered by C. This is admissible being inconsistent with
fact in issue.

e) Self-infliction of harm: A is charged with the murder of B. A proves that В had

committed suicide. The evidence is admissible.

f) Non-execution of document: A files a suit for recovery of possession against В

alleging that he has purchased the land. В leads evidence that the deed of sale was not
executed as yet. The fact is relevant.

2. Facts highly probable and improbable: Under the second clause the fact which by itself
or in combination with other facts makes the existence and nonexistence of the fact in issue
or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. The words “highly probable” indicate that the
court has to go by the prohibits of the circumstances as regards the existence or non-existence
of fact in issue or relevant fact. It also indicates that the connection between the facts in issue
and the collateral facts sought to be proved must be immediate as to render the co-existence
of the two highly probable. The collateral facts can be admitted in evidence if they make the
existence of the fact in issue highly probable or improbable.

It is well settled that it is not a mere reasonable probability but carries great weight in
bringing the court to conclusion whether facts exist or non-exist. When a person is charged
with forging a particular document, evidence is afforded to prove that a number of documents
apparently forged or held in readiness for the purpose of forgery were found in possession of
the accused. It can be said as per Reg. v Prabhudas that in a charge of forgery, the evidence
offered to prove that a number of documents apparently forged or held in readiness for the
purpose of forgery found in possession of the accused is not admissible. This section renders
inadmissible the evidence of one crime to prove the existence of another unconnected crime,
even though it is cogent.

SECTION 12

In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the
amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant.

10
Sec. 12 of the Evidence Act provides for determination of damages when suits for the
damages are claimed by the party. Under this section the court can determine the amount of
damages in an action based on contract or tort. In a suit for damages, the amount of damages
must be a fact in issue. Thus the section lays down that evidence tending to determine, i.e., to
increase or diminish damages is admissible. Sec. 55 of this Act lays down the conditions
under which evidence of character may be given in civil cases to affect the amount of
damages. Similarly Sec. 73 of the ICA also lays down the rule governing damages in actions
in contract.

SECTION 13

Facts relevant when right or custom is in question.

Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are
relevant:

(a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified,
recognized, asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence;

(b) Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised or
in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.

Illustration:

The question is, whether A has a right to a fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A’s
ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s
father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular instances in which A’s father exercised the
right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s neighbours, are relevant facts.

Scope:

Sec. 13 deals with the facts as to proof of existence of any right or custom. When any
question as to the existence of any right or custom is in issue the following facts under clause
(a) and clause (b) are relevant:

11
Clause (a): Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was,— (i) created (ii)
claimed (iii) modified (iv) recognized (v) asserted or (vi) denied or (vii) which was
inconsistent with its existence.

Clause (b): Particular instance in which the right or custom was: (i) claimed or (ii)
recognized, or (iii) exercised or in which its existence was (iv) disputed (v) asserted, or
departed from, is relevant.

Right:

The rights contemplated by this section are taken to mean “the standard of permitted action
within a certain sphere” which can be established by proof of “cumulative instances and
transactions.”

The word “right” used in Section 13 has been the subject matter of controversy among HCs.
The Calcutta HC held that the word ‘right’ means public and incorporeal rights but does not
include corporeal right. On the other hard the Allahabad, Bombay and Madras HCs have
given wider interpretation.

Custom:

A custom means those principles which have received recognition and acceptance as
principles of justice and public utility. It is a transcendent law.

Under Sec. 13 a custom can be used as evidence provided it has the force of law. For example
in Hindu marriage seven steps before sacred fire is essential to give validity. It is both custom
and law. Thus it must be valid.

Proof of Custom:

Under Sec. 13 the proof of existence and non-existence of custom may be done either: (1) by
transaction or (2) by instances.

1. Transaction:

In this section the term ‘transaction’ is understood as something already done or completed.
“Whatever may be done by one person which affects another’s rights and out of which a

12
cause of action may arise, is transaction.” “A transaction in ordinary sense of the word is
some business or dealing which is carried on or transacted between two or more persons. It
must be genuine and bona fide.

Thus, according to Sec. 13(a) a transaction by which the right or custom in question was
created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted, or denied or which is inconsistent with its
existence is relevant to prove the existence of a custom or a right. Under this section a
judgment which has become final can be said to be a transition evidencing a right or instance.
The sale deed, deed of gift, cases of res judicata etc. are instances of transaction.

2. Instance:

Sec. 13(2) provides for particular instance which simply means an example, something which
has already been occurred. In other words, the particular instance refers to instances in which,
—(i) the right or custom was claimed, recognized, exercised or (ii) its existence was disputed,
asserted or departed. It must be the instances prior to the present suit in question. It may be or
may not be inter-parties.

Example:

A plea of res judicata being an instance in the present suit is admissible. Documents produced
in support of inter-parties suits viz., sale deeds, mortgage deeds, are admissible under this
section.

SECTION 14

State of mind, body or bodily feeling – Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

Facts showing —

(a) The existence of any state of mind, such as intention [Illustration. (e), (i), (j)], knowledge
[Illustration. (a), (b), (c), (d)], good faith [Illustration. (f), (g), (h)], negligence [Illustration.
(n)], rashness [Illustration. (к), (I), (m)], ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person; or

(b) The existence of any state of body or bodily feeling,— are relevant, — when the existence
of any such state of mind, or body, or bodily feeling, is in issue or is relevant.

13
Illustration:

Fact in Issue:

(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that he
was in possession of a particular stolen article.

(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another a counterfeit coin which, at the time
when he delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit.

What Facts Become Relevant?

(a) The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is
relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in
possession to be stolen.

(b) The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of
counterfeit coin is relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to
another as genuine, a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit, is also relevant.

Res Inter Alios Асtаtе:

This maxim implies that inferences are not to be drawn from one transaction to another which
is not specifically connected with it, merely because the two resemble each other as a matter
of fact. They must be linked together by the chain of cause and effect in some reasonable
manner before an inference may be drawn.

A fact in issue cannot be proved by showing that facts similar to it, but not part of the same
transaction, have occurred at other times. Thus, when the question is whether a person has
committed a crime, the fact that he had committed a similar crime some time ago is
irrelevant.

Explanations:

Previous conviction of accused:

14
When the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant, the previous
conviction of such person is also a relevant fact.

Relevancy of previous convictions:

A previous conviction may be relevant under Sec. 8 as showing motive. It may be relevant
under Sec. 14 when the existence of any state of mind or bodily feelings is relevant. It may
also be relevant under Sec. 43.

A previous conviction is not admissible in evidence against the accused, except where he is
liable to enhanced punishment under Sec. 75 of the IPC on account of a previous conviction,
or unless evidence of good character be given, in which case, the fact that the accused has
been previously convicted of an offence is admissible evidence of bad character.

SECTION 15

Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional:

When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a
particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar
occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

Illustrations:

(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.

The facts that A lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of
which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different
insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B.

It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an
entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive.

The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional.

15
The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in
each case in favour of A, are relevant.

General Principle:

Sec. 15 lays down the rules of admissibility of evidence in cases, where the question is
whether a particular act was accidental or done with particular intention or knowledge. The
section raises two questions viz.,

(i) Whether the act with which a person is charged, is accidental or intentional, and (ii)
whether the act was done with a particular knowledge or intention. It is important to note that
in cases showing the existence of any state of mind which proves and disapproves of
intention for doing an act being necessary are regulated by the Sec.14 of the Act. Sec. 14 is a
general section dealing with all cases in which state of mind is involved. Sec. 15, on the other
hand, provides specifically for allowing evidence of similar occurrences. It is not an
exception but an application of general rule laid down in Sec. 14. It picks out only those cases
where the question is whether a particular act is accidental or intentional. In order to prove
intention the section is to apply to the act of similar nature, because Sec. 15 is particular
application of the general rule laid down in the Sec. 14. An act is said to be similar to another
when it is similar to a fact in issue only.

For example, if a person is prosecuted for theft, a similar act had to be committed by him on
other occasion. Since the general principle laid down in Sec. 14 is to exclude the evidence of
similar facts, this principle devised by the Sec. 15 will apply only when there is a striking
similarity between the fact on which the case is based and the fact of which evidence is
offered. The two facts possess a common characteristic.

Sec. 15 has also laid down another principle that “all the acts should form parts of a series of
similar occasion,” Under the section the similar occurrences must be many. One single
instance cannot constitute a series of similar occurrence and it is not admissible. Where the
question was whether the accused had forged signature upon a bill of exchange, the fact that
he had forged signatures upon other bills were hold to be inadmissible. A solitary act is not
relevant.

Instances applicable to Section 15:

16
 a) Arson: In a case the accused was tried for arson with intent to defraud an insurance
company. The evidence that the accused had made claim on two other insurance
companies in respect of fires which had occurred in two other houses and which he
had occupied previously and in succession was admitted to show that the fire which
was the subject of trial was result of design and not accident.
b) Abortion: The accused was charged with using an instrument for procuring abortion.
Evidence that the accused did the same thing to cause abortion, was held admissible.
c) Breach of Trust: On charge of misappropriation of money under section 408, 1.P.C.
where the defence has inability to credit an account of pressure of work, another
subsequent instance of omission to enter a payment was held inadmissible.
d) Fraud: On charge of fraudulent evasion of purchase tax containing six accounts,
evidence of similar transaction in which the accused took part, although it was not the
subject of charge was admissible.
e) Murder: Where a woman was charged with murder of her child by poison, and where
the defence was that the death was the result of accident, evidence to prove that two
other children of hers and lodger in her house had died previously to the present
charge from the same poison, was held admissible.

SECTION 16

Course of Business – Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of
business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.

Illustration:

(a) The question is whether a particular letter was dispatched.

The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be
carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in the place, are relevant.

Letters Sent By Post:

The posting of a letter may be proved by the person who posted it or by showing facts from
which the posting may be presumed. For instance, evidence of posting may be given by

17
proving that the letter was delivered to a clerk whose duty it was, in the ordinary course of
business, to post it, or that it was put into a post-box which is cleared everyday by the
postman.

Proof of posting letters raises a presumption that it reached its destination in due course. The
post-mark on the envelope is prima facie evidence of the date, time and place of posting.
Further, when the acknowledgment of a registered letter comes back (to the sender) with a
signature purporting to be that of the addressee, there is a presumption of the fact of service.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Section 11

Ram Chander vs. State Of Haryana, 1981 SCR (3) 12

The case explains the role of a Judge trying a criminal case. The case explains that Evidence
Act, Sec 165 read with Sec. 172(2) of the CrPC, under which whether a Judge in a criminal
case may put any question to the witness and if so what are its limitations under Sec. 11,
Evidence Act.

The appellant Ram Chander and Mange were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jind, for the murder of Dunni. Both were convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and
sentenced to imprisonment for life. On appeal the HC acquitted Mange but confirmed the
conviction and sentence of Ram Chander. In appeal by special leave it was contended that the
conviction and sentence were vitiated as the principle of fair trial was abandoned by the
Sessions Judge who rebuked the witnesses and threatened them with prosecution for perjury
and based his conviction on such extorted evidence.

The Evidence Act contains detailed provisions dealing with statements of persons who cannot
be called as witnesses and former statements of persons who are called as witnesses. These
provisions would appear to become redundant if the evidence of a witness is to be tested and
accepted or rejected with reference to the former statement of another witness on the ground
that such former statement renders the evidence highly probable or improbable. Even
assuming that under certain circumstances it is permissible to use the first information report
under the first part of Sec. 11 there is in the present case no question of invoking the first part
of Sec. 11, which is inapplicable since the first information report is now not sought to be

18
used as being inconsistent with the prosecution case. Nor can first information report be used
by resort to the second part of Sec. 11.

Section 12

A court ruling held that Sec. 12 of the Evidence Act provides for determination of damages
when suits for the damages are claimed by the party. Under this section the court can
determine the amount of damages in an action based on contract or tort. In a suit for damages,
the amount of damages must be a fact in issue. Thus the section lays down that evidence
tending to determine, i.e., to increase or diminish damages is admissible. Sec. 55 of this Act
lays down the conditions under which evidence of character may be given in civil cases to
affect the amount of damages. Similarly Sec. 73 of the ICA also lays down the rule governing
damages in actions in contract. In a suit for damages for a breach of contract of marriage, the
evidence as to status of the defendant may be given for determination of the amount of
damages. Sec. 73 is based on principles laid down in Hadley v Baxendale.

19
CONCLUSION:
Relevancy is concerned with facts connected with each other in ways provided by Chapter II
of the IEA. Relevancy of Fact is important in order for a fact to be rendered admissible in a
court of law. Relevant fact may also render evidence which is obtained illegally to be
admissible where the court will overlook on the manner on how the evidence is obtained and
admit the evidence.

In this project, we dealt with relevancy of facts of the IEA. To summarize, two types of
relevancy can exist in facts: 1) logically relevant and 2) legally relevant.

The dictionary meaning of the term ‘relevancy’ is given as ‘the relation of something to the
matter at hand’, ‘pertinence’, ‘connection’, ‘materiality’ etc. While logical relevance is
certainly an important factor in determining the probative value of facts, it so happens that the
facts may be connected to each other by varying degrees of logical proximity and immediate
causes and effects, and remote, indirect and even conjectural causes and effects. Hence, the
courts should let in only those facts which have a high degree of probative value that would
help the courts to decide one way or the other with relatively greater certainty.

Consequently, the IEA adopted the device of declaring as relevant in Sec. 6 to 55 only those
logically connected facts which are considered to have a high probative value. Thus, facts
which may be connected to each other so remotely that they cannot be considered to have
high probative value are kept outside the purview of the provisions of Sec. 6 to 55. Facts
legally relevant under the Evidence Act means, simply, facts declared to be relevant under
Sec. 6 to 55 and this is part of the legislative and not judicial determination.

Hence, all logically relevant facts are not legally relevant and all legally relevant facts may
not be logically relevant.

20
Annexure
PROSECUTION STORY

In this case, an 18-year old son is accused of stabbing his father to death after the son was
furious from being slapped by his father twice. This incident took place on 20 th October, 2015
at around 12:10 AM. The prosecution presented their story by saying that the son and father
had a heated argument at around 11PM, after which the son left the house, bought a "switch-
knife" and went to a nearby tavern to meet his friends. Though the friends had knowledge of
the knife, they were not aware of his intentions. After which he went back to his house and
stabbed his father on his chest in a fit of rage. Following which, he later came back at around
2AM, to remove the murder weapon from the crime scene, only to see himself arrested by the
police.

ACCUSED STORY

Whereas, the accused argued that he bought the knife, showed it to his friends and then left
for a 'bike-ride' to the other side of the city to cool-off his anger, and when he came back
home at around 2AM, he found his father dead, where the police arrested him immediately.
They also argued that, he had dropped the knife while on the ride and had bought it only to
show it off to his friends, also that the knife found stuck on his father's chest did not belong to
him.

WITNESS STATEMENT/ (EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF ANSWERS)

Name: Mrs. Nirmala Gupta

Age: 46 Years

Occupation: High School Teacher

Address: B-11, New Mhada, Near Lokhandwala Circle, Lokhandwala, Andheri West,
Mumbai.

Being present here, I give my statement that I am staying at the above mentioned address for
the past 10 years. My native place is Agra. I teach Maths to Grade 9 th and 10th students in

21
Jankidevi Public School. I got married in 1995 and my husband died 4 years back in a car
accident. His name was Mr. Jay Gupta and he was an employee at the ICICI Bank.

As I am a high school teacher, I get up early at about 6:30 AM every morning. Hence I sleep
early daily by around 11:30 PM, but this night was an exception. There was a marriage
ceremony going on in the nearby hotel, therefore the road right in front of my apartment was
used for celebrations. (Baraat in a Hindu Marriage). This led to a lot of disturbance due to the
noises and loud music, hence I wasn't able to sleep. I was just tossing and turning over my
bed.

Rajesh and his father, Mr. Ajay Mehra have been living in the flat right opposite to mine
since long. I haven't known them personally, but I recognize them well. I haven't seen
Rajesh's mother ever and I assume she is dead. One thing that I have seen quiet often from
my apartment is Rajesh getting hit by his father quiet often after the two used to indulge in
arguments. I don't know what the arguments were about as I was unable to hear the two.

I don't remember seeing the two on 19th at all, but on 20th at around 12:10 AM, while I was
trying to get sleep, I turned towards the window and saw the son stab his father on the chest
thrice right in front of my eyes. I can swear that I saw Rajesh there with his father even
though there was very little light and a little smoke from the fire crackers. I was shocked to
see the horrific incident, therefore I screamed in horror as the body hit the ground with the
knife still sticking to his chest. I'm sure my screams would have been constrained just to my
home and no one would have heard me due to the loud music and celebrations. I saw Rajesh
leave the house immediately from the door, but never saw him leave the main gate of the
apartment. He must have used the backdoor of the building to escape.

Immediately, I called up the police and reported about the incident. They were at the crime
scene within 10 minutes, after which I was called over to recognize the body. The inspection
went on for quite some time, after which Rajesh came over at around 2 AM to find himself
arrested by the police. I was unsure as to why would he come back again to get arrested, but I
guess he didn't want to leave the murder weapon behind. He was probably unaware of the
police's arrival as he wouldn't have expected anyone to see the murder this late at night.

My statement written in Marathi and explained to me in Hindi is correct.

22
CROSS EXAMINATION NARRATION

I usually sleep around 11:15 or 11:30 PM, but that night as I have already mentioned earlier,
my sleep was disturbed due to the loud music and noises due to a marriage ceremony taking
place on the street right below my house. This is when I saw Rajesh murder his father, by
stabbing him thrice on the chest, after which he immediately ran away as the body dropped
on the ground at around 12:10 AM. But, I cannot clearly identify the murder weapon, due to
the distance, but I'm sure it is some sort of a knife. Thereafter I called the Police and reported
about the incident. They reached the crime scene within 10 minutes and were inspecting the
place, while Rajesh returned back at around 2 AM.

Moreover, I have these marks on my nose due to the spectacles I wear as my distant vision is
not clear, and I have not worn them now, because they have gone repair after they got
damaged yesterday. Even at that night I do not remember wearing my spectacles, while going
to bed as I was tossing and turning trying to get some sleep, but I'm sure I saw the incident
clearly.

And as I have already mentioned earlier, there was a Hindu Marriage going on in the street,
which explains the excessive amount of fireworks on the street, which obviously must have
resulted in a lot of smoke. But regardless of this smoke, I could see Rajesh there, along with
his father in their apartment.

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF

1. What is your name?

2. How old are you?
3. Mrs. Gupta, where do you live?
4. How long have you been living there?
5. What is your occupation?
6. Are you married?
7. Tell us about your marriage.
8. What is your daily routine?
9. What time do you usually sleep?
10. So why didn't you sleep by 11:30 on 20th October?
11. How well do you know Rajesh and his father Mr. Mehra?

23
 12. How was Rajesh's relation with his father?
13. Can you please describe what you saw that night?
14. What did you do thereafter?
15. What were you asked by the Investigating Officer?
16. What happened thereafter?

CROSS-EXAMINATION

1. Why didn't you sleep early that night?

2. What did you see that night?
3. Can you identify the murder weapon?
4. Did Rajesh return back home at 2 AM?
5. What is that mark on your nose?
6. Oh! So you do wear spectacles, why haven't you worn them now?
7. Are they your reading glasses?
8. I haven't heard of anyone wearing spectacles while going to sleep. Do you?
9. Were you wearing them that night while tossing and turning on your bed, trying to
get sleep?
10. So a Hindu Wedding, in my limited knowledge does involve the use of firecrackers.
Isn't it?
11. I recollect you saying that there was one going on between the two houses, Isn't it?
12. And firecrackers do involve a lot of smoke I believe, Isn't is Mrs. Gupta?
13. And you were still able to see the whole incident with such precision and clarity?
Wow! Mrs. Gupta, I'm amazed at how amazing your eyesight is.

JUDGEMENT

In the Sessions Court of Bombay

Sessions case no. 345 of 2015

Prosecution: State of Maharashtra

v/s
Respondent: Rajesh Mehra

24
R/O: A-9, New Mhada, Near Lokhandwala Circle, Lokhandwala, Andheri West, Mumbai.

Date of Judgement: 28/4/2016

Judgement

Facts of the case are that on 20 th October, 2015, Mr. Ajay Mehra was found murdered at his
residence in Lokhandwala. His son Rajesh Mehra was accused of murdering him at 12:10
AM, after which he was accused of running away from the crime scene. He later came back
to retrieve the murder weapon at around 2 AM as he didn't expect anyone to have seen the
murder that late at night. Rajesh left the house at 11 PM, on 19 th after having an argument
with his father, after which he bought a switch-knife and showed it to his friends at the
tavern. Later he was accused of using the same to murder his father.

But according to the respondents, he did buy the knife but not to murder his father but just to
show off the fancy weapon to his friends, which in fact he dropped while he was riding to the
other side of the city after he left the tavern. And later when he came back to the house at
around 2 AM, he found his father dead and the police arresting him.

Whereas the primary prosecution witness also swears seeing Rajesh murder his father by
stabbing him thrice in the chest, after which he ran from the house. After which she called up
the police to report about the incident. But later, during Cross- Examination, it was very well
established that she hadn't worn her spectacles while on bed, hence she wasn't able to see the
incident clearly, presuming the murderer to be Rajesh. But now she couldn't be very sure of
what she saw that night.

Sec. 11 of IEA, when facts otherwise not relevant become relevant comes into play here. The
primary witness, Mrs. Gupta had weak eyesight, but this fact wasn't established until the
cross examination stage, when the cross examiner noticed marks on her nose which only be
caused by wearing spectacles, which proves that she couldn't see the murder clearly
considering the dim light along with the smoke from fire crackers further disturbing the
vision.

After taking the abovementioned factors into consideration, the court is pleased that the
prosecution has clearly failed to establish the guilt of Mr. Rajesh Mehra and there exists a
reasonable doubt in convicting the accused, hence he is acquitted from the case under Sec.

25
232 of CrPC. This reasonable doubt has been created mainly because the witness hadn't worn
her spectacles when she saw the incident along with the smoke from the firecrackers which
disturbed her vision even more. Also the fact of the murder weapon not being identified by
the witness even after seeing the dead body very closely is questionable. Apart from this, the
fact that Rajesh came back within 2 hours of the murder, just to find himself arrested makes it
quiet evident that Rajesh is not the actual murderer. Moreover considering the doubt
persistent in the Witness's mind, it becomes highly improbable to hold the accused guilty of
this offence of murder.

26