9. 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 libelous 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 a 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 better offer.” The 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 pat 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.
COMMENTS
Identification accused
(i) If the test identification parade regarding accused was not conducted properly and suffered from unexplained delay, he is entitled to benefit of doubt; Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 160: 2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).
(ii) The possibility of wrong identification due to loss of memory cannot be discounted; Pravakar Behera v. State of Orissa , (1997) 2 Crimes 108 (Ori)
(iii) When conviction was based on evidence of eye witness and not on identification parade it cannot be set aside on ground that identification was not reliable; Mullagiri Vajiram v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1243.
(iv) In dacoity case where all witnesses identified suspects as culprits without margin of error creating
doubt in mind of court, such identification is liable to be set aside; Tahir Mohamad, Kamad Girendra Singh and Badri Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 931.
(v) Where both the trial court and the Appellate Court had assessed the evidence in the proper perspective and attached much importance to the evidence in regard to the identification of the appellant in finding him guilty, the Supreme Court would not re-assess that evidence in absence of an exceptional ground necessitating such re-assessment; Ramdeo Rai Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1990) Cr LJ 1183 (SC).
(vi) If there is unexplained and unreasonable delay in putting up the accused persons for a test identification the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of the test; Raj Nath v . State of Uttar Pradesh, 1988 Cr LJ 422: AIR 1988 SC 345.
(vii) The test identification parade conducted three and a half months after the dacoity took place, it would be wrong to convict the accused on single testimony; Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar, 1981 BLJ 462.
