“FACTS NOT OTHERWISE RELEVANT

BECOME RELEVNT”
A project submitted to
Army Institute of Law, Mohali

By
(AYUSHI JARYAL Roll No. – 1827)

Under the guidance of Mrs Shifali Dixit

LAW OF EVIDENCE
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award
of
Degree BA.LLB
Punjabi University, Patiala (Punjab)
Jul-Dec 2021
 DECLARATION

It is certified that the project work presented in this report entitled ‘FACTS
NOT OTHERWISE RELEVANT BECOME RELEVANT’ embodies the
results of original research work carried out by me. All the ideas and references
have been duly acknowledged.

DATE: 14TH NOV 2021

NAME:AYUSHI JARYAL
PLACE: ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW MOHALI
ROLL NO:1827

INTRODUCTON
When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant
Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872  deals with facts which ordinarily have nothing
to do with that of a case are not in themself , but they have become to the relevant only by
virtue of fact that they are either inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact or they
make the existence of a fact in issue or relevant fact either highly probable or improbable.

Section 11: When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.–– Facts not otherwise
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.  
Illustrations
 (a) 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.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.  
The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D.
Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else, and that it
was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.1

NATURE OF FACTS
The Section 11 include of two clauses, viz.,
1. Facts in step with fact in issue or relevant fact, and
2. Facts highly probable or improbable.2

1. Facts inconsistent with fact in issue or relevancy of fact:

One fact is inconsistent with the opposite when it cannot co-exist with the opposite.
Under this clause facts are relevant only because they can’t 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 specific fact cannot co-exist with the doing of the act in question, and, therefore, that if

1
Indian Evidence Act, 1872  
2
https://legalpoint-india.blogspot.com/
 that fact is true of an individual of whom the actual fact is alleged, it’s impossible that he
should have done the act.”
Under the clause there are a minimum of six classes of cases which show inconsistency,
viz;

(a)Alibi:
Alibi may be a Latin word, which suggests elsewhere. It’s used when the accused takes the
plea that when the occurrence come about he was elsewhere. In such a situation the
prosecution has to discharge the burden satisfactorily. Once the prosecution has got to
successful in discharging the burden it’s obligatory on the accused who takes the place of
alibi to prove it with absolute certainly. An alibi isn’t an exception envisaged within the IPC
or the other law. It’s a rule of evidence recognized by Section 11 of the Evidence Act that
facts inconsistent with fact in issue are relevant3. However it can’t be the only real link or
sole circumstance to reveal conviction. When one fact is critical to the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused, but strikingly absent within the chain of direct evidence, the prosecution case
certainly will fail. Because, an alibi the relevancy of which is completely inconsistence with
hypothesis that the accused had committed an offence.
When the defendant took the plea of alibi the burden of proof lies on him under section 103
of this Act. If an individual person is charged with murder he is to prove that he was
somewhere. The plea of alibi has got to be taken at the earliest opportunity and it’s to be
proved to the satisfaction of the court. When an accused was discharged from hospital
situated 180 km. far away from the place of occurrence.
11/2 hrs’ Earlier from time of occurrence the plea of alibi was created. Strict proof is required
for creating the plea of alibi. The plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty as said
in Rajesh Kumar v Dharamin4. Plea of alibi was rejected when no material showing that
accused was present in jail for purpose of identification at point of our time when occurrence
passed.
The plea of alibi taken by the party on the idea of certificate issued by a hospital not filed at
the stage of filing objections but during course of agreements in execution proceedings being
an afterthought was found not tenable and rejected’ while weighing the prosecution case and
defense case, if the prosecution case fails the accused would be entitled to profit of the
reasonable doubt which might emerge within the mind of the Court.

(b) Non access of husband to indicate illegitimacy of the child:

Since legitimacy of the children implies a cohabitation between husband and wife. For
disproving the legitimacy the husband has got to prove that he had no cohabitation together
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 indicate that В was alive on 25th December 2004. Both the facts are relevant
under section 11 only because these aren’t consisting with one another.

3
Illustration a, Section 11, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4
(d) Commission of an offence by a 3rd person:
A is charged with the murder of B. A gives evidence that В was murdered by C. This is often
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 file a suit for recovery of possession against В alleging that he has purchased the land. В
leads evidence that the deed of sale wasn’t executed yet. The very fact has relevant.5

2. Facts highly probable and improbable:

Under the second clause the fact which by itself or together with other facts make the
existence and non-existence of the actual fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or
improbable. The words “highly probable” indicate that the court need to glide 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 also the
collateral facts sought to be proved must be immediate on render the co-existence of the two
highly probable. The collateral facts will be admitted in evidence if they create the existence
of the actual fact in issue highly probable or improbable.
It is well settled that it’s not a mere reasonable probability but carries great weight in bringing
the court to conclusion whether facts exist or non-exist. So as to form a collateral fact
admissible, the collateral facts must be established by conclusive evidence and when
established these must afford an inexpensive presumption on matter in dispute. When
someone is charged with forging a selected document, evidence is afforded to prove that
variety of documents apparently forged or held in readiness for the aim of forgery were found
in possession of the accused. It is said as per Reg. v Prabhudas6 that during a charge of
forgery, the evidence offered to prove that variety number of documents apparently forged or
held in readiness for the aim of forgery found in possession of the accused isn’t admissible.
This section renders inadmissible the evidence of one crime to prove the existence of another
unconnected crime, although it’s cogent.

SCOPE:-
Section 11 of the Evidence Act is very wide in its application and it doesn’t impose any
restriction on facts that may be admitted even these facts are highly inconsistent or
improbable with fact in issue or relevancy of fact. The facts which ordinarily tend to render
the existence of fact in issue or relevant fact probable or improbable has relevancy. 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
Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the actual fact in issue
5
https://lawlex.org/
6
(1874) 11 В. H. C. 90)
are relevant. The section is described as “residuary section” copy with relevancy of facts
which are logically admissible.

Illustration – A is accused of B’s murder on a specific date at Kanpur. Thereon day A was at
Pune, has relevancy to prove the plea of Alibi. Now A will prove that it might be impossible
for him to commit murder at Kanpur as he was in Pune.

Essentials:-

Precisely to essential part involves the disclosure of an alibi- adequacy and timeliness. In
general, another factors have to be compelled to adhere as well;
1. There should be an alleged offence punishable by law.
2. However, it should be noted that then plea of alibi isn’t maintainable in all the cases,
number of them are as.
• This plea isn’t maintainable in civil wrong. For example in a defamation suit, contributory
carelessness cases.
• A plea of alibi isn’t applicable in matrimonial. For example, suit for maintenance suit for
divorce.
• In some jurisdictions, a plea of alibi works as an exception to the right of silence. For
example of Canadian common law.
• The person creating the plea of alibi must be an accused in that offence.
• Alibi could be a plea of defence (in respect of innocence of defendant) by that the accused
suggests to the court that he was elsewhere at the time of the commission of the alleged
offence.
• The plea should prove on the far side any reasonable6 doubt that it was impossible for the
defendant to be physically present at the scene of the offence.
• The plea should be backed by evidence supporting the claim of the defendant.