Important Blogs

European Union Institutional body

Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act

Section 9 deals with the relevancy of facts although they are not connected with fact in issue but necessarily explain or introduce a fact in issue.

In simple terms, we can also say that if any doubt which explains or introduces a fact in issue or relevant fact such doubt will be admissible in court, Generally collateral facts are not admissible.

However, under section 9, they are admissible if the collateral fact is directly connected with fact in issue.

If more simplify, Facts which are necessarily explained or introduce such as a place, name, date, identities of parties, circumstances and relation of parties

Under Section 9 of the Act following facts are necessary to explain or introduce

Introductory Facts: Without Introductory facts it is practically impossible to jump directly on the main fact to have an idea about the main facts, the judge should be provided with some introductory matter to understand the real nature of the transaction, Facts which are the introduction of a relevant fact are often of great help in supplying the missing links.

Example the question is whether a given document is the will of “A” the state of ‘A’s property and his family at the date of alege will may be a relevant fact .

Explanatory Facts: There is some evidence which is considered separately from other evidence

For example

In case of Emperor vs Abdul ghani Bahadur AIR 1926 Bom 71, in this case the accused has stolen demand draft from a Bank. He managed to cash one of the drafts. Meanwhile the bank received a telegram stating that two drafts have been stolen and indicating their numbers. When the accused submitted the second draft, the bank clerk informed the police and the accused was arrested. It was held that the telegram was relevant to explain the conduct of the clerk and therefore admissible under section 9.

Facts which support or rebut an inference: Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact are provable under section 9 of this Act

For example, There is a fact that Accused was in Mumbai that day, it supports relevant facts and is admissible under Section 9.

There is another facts that Accused was not in Mumbai on that day, it rebuts relevant facts and it is also admissible under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act 1872.

Facts establishing the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant :

Facts which show the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant is provable under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act.

For example , Identified a muder weapon, identified the stolen property like those all are admissible under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act.

Facts which fix the time or place of facts in issue or relevant fact : Any facts which necessarily fix time and place of occurrence are relevant admissible under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act.

For Example, In a case of murder doubt goes to Mr. “A” but there is the fact that Mr “A” was out of the city since the last 7 days” then evidence fixes the time and place such fact will be admissible under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act 1872.

Identification of person through Test Identification Parade:

One of the methods of establishing the identity of accused is “Test Identification Parade” in short we say TIP. TIP is a parade conducted in order to test if a witness is able to identify the accused. The identification parade is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capacity of identification from several persons made to stand in a queue as unknown persons whom the witness had seen at the time of occurrence.

Importance of identity evidence.

In case of Mulla v State of UP , (2010) 3 SCC 508, it was held that The identification parades are not primarily meant for the court. They are meant for investigation purposes. The object of conducting a test identification parade is twofold.

First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they
suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Therefore, the following principles regarding identification parade emerge:

  1. An identification parade ideally must be conducted as soon as possible to avoid any mistake on the part of witnesses;
  2. this condition can be revoked if proper explanation justifying the delay is provided; and
  3. the authorities must make sure that the delay does not result in exposure of the accused which may lead to mistakes on the part of the witnesses".
Identity of anything

In case of Ram Lochan v State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1074 : (1963) 2 Cr LJ 170, it was held that A superimposed photograph of the deceased over the skeleton of a human body was held admissible by the Supreme Court to prove the fact that the skeleton was that of the deceased.

Identity of Motor Vehicle

In case of Varun Chaudhary v State of Rajasthan, AIR 2011 SC 72 it was held that
In order to prove that the recovered motor cycle was used in the offence, the
prosecution has to show that the tyre marks found at the place of offence were that of the recovered motor cycle. For that purpose the tyre marks have to be lifted from the place and compared with the marks of the recovered motor cycle. The fact that the home-guard and police constable had seen one digit of the registration number of the motor cycle was held to be not sufficient to establish the identity even if the same digit was there in the recovered vehicle also

Case Law

Sidharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352 : (2010) 6 SCC 1

In this case, Hon’ble court held that It is only an aid to investigation. The practice is not borne out of procedure but out of prudence .

Ram Babu v State of UP, AIR 2010 SC 2143 : (2010) 5 SCC 63

It was held that the purpose is to test and strengthen the substantive evidence of the witness in court. Such evidence is used for corroboration

Latesh v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 659 : (2018) 3 SCC 66 : LNIND 2018 SC 36

In this cae it was held that The TI Parade, even if it is held may not be considered in all cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be sustained.

Mahabir v State of Delhi, AIR 2008 SC 2343 : 2008 Cr LJ 3036

In this case, it was held that The main object of holding TI parade during investigation is to test the memory of the witness based upon the first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all the witnesses or any of them could be called as an eye-witness to the Crime

State of Karnataka v Rajan, 1994 Cr LJ 1042 (Kant). Vilas Vasatrao Patil v State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cr LJ 1854 (Bom)

The relevant factors to be taken into consideration in connection with identification are whether there was opportunity for the witnesses to see the accused at the time of the incident, whether they could remember by face the accused persons and whether they could identify them by such memory in the court.

Sone Lal v State of UP , AIR 1978 SC 1142 : 1978 Cr LJ 1122 ;
Where a parade of this kind was held within two days of arrest under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate and with all the necessary precautions, the evidence so obtained, the Supreme Court held, should not have been rejected on the accused telling the court that he was shown to the witnesses beforehand. All this is for the accused to prove.

Somappa V Madar v State of Mysore, AIR 1979 SC 1831 : 1979 Cr LJ 1358
The Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the accused was not shown to the witnesses and that the parade was otherwise fair. Evidence of identity so obtained can in circumstances be the sole basis of conviction.

Dhananjay Shankar Shetty v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2787
The trial court as well as the High Court has found various legal infirmities in the holding of test identification parade as such no reliance has been placed thereon. Moreover, as the appellant was a named accused person, his so-called identification in the test identification parade could not be of any avail to the prosecution as it was meaningless. "