Bare Text of Section 9 IEA
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 any thing 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.
Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts
Section 9 deals with facts that are essential to understanding or clarifying other facts that are either in issue (i.e., being disputed in the case) or relevant to the case. These facts can help:
- To Show the relationship of the parties. This section also applies to facts that reveal the relationship between the parties involved in the case, which could be important for understanding the context or motive.
- To Explain or introduce a relevant fact. Some facts serve the purpose of helping to understand or put into context other facts that are important for resolving the case.
- To Support or challenge an inference: When a fact is used to make an inference (i.e., a logical conclusion or assumption), other facts might be necessary to either support or contradict that inference.
- to Establish identity. Facts can also be used to establish the identity of a person, object, or event that is relevant to the case. This could include proving that a particular person was involved in the incident.
- To Fix the time and place, Section 9 also allows for facts that help to determine the time or place when something important occurred in relation to the case, such as when an act of crime took place.
Relevant Cases
Case Laws Relating to Section 9:
R v. MacDonald, (2001) 5 SCC 315 This case involved the identification of a person whose identity was questioned during the trial. The court held that facts necessary to establish the identity of a person who was involved in a crime or who had a particular role in the incident were admissible under Section 9. This is an example where the court used facts to establish the identity of a suspect, which was crucial for deciding the case.
Emperor v. Surja, 1913 15 CLJ 250 (Cal) In this case, the Calcutta High Court dealt with the concept of “facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.” The court held that evidence that explains the relationship between the parties involved in a dispute, or clarifies the context in which certain actions took place, is admissible under Section 9. This case highlights how circumstantial evidence can be used to explain the relevance of direct facts in issue.
Shankar v. State of Haryana, (1987) 4 SCC 134 This case reiterated that under Section 9, facts that help explain the connection between the parties or establish the sequence of events are crucial. The Supreme Court acknowledged that facts regarding the time, place, and conduct of the parties involved in the crime were vital to understand the overall circumstances and determine the guilt of the accused. Such facts, even though not directly related to the act itself, were necessary for understanding the core facts in issue.
