Relevant Fact

What is a Relevant Fact?

A **relevant fact** is a fact that has a logical connection with the facts in issue in a case — its existence makes the fact in issue either more probable or less probable. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only relevant facts can be proved in court. If a fact has no bearing on the matter the court must decide, it is irrelevant and cannot be presented as evidence, no matter how interesting or dramatic it may be.

In everyday terms, if the question before the court is whether A murdered B, then the fact that A was seen carrying a weapon near B's house on the day of the murder is a relevant fact — it makes A's involvement more probable. But the fact that A failed an exam ten years ago is irrelevant because it has no connection with the murder.

Legal Framework in India

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

**Section 3** defines the term:

*"One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts."*

This means relevancy under Indian law is not determined by general logic alone — it is governed by the **specific provisions of the Evidence Act** (Sections 5 to 55). A fact is relevant only if it falls within one of the categories of relevancy defined in these sections. This is a distinctive feature of Indian evidence law — it is a **closed system** of relevancy.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023

The new evidence law, which replaces the Indian Evidence Act, carries forward the concept of relevant facts with corresponding provisions. The structure and principles remain substantially similar.

Key Sections on Relevancy

The Evidence Act specifies the categories of facts that are relevant:

- **Section 5:** Evidence may be given only of facts in issue and relevant facts.

- **Section 6 (Res Gestae):** Facts forming part of the same transaction as the fact in issue are relevant.

- **Section 7:** Facts that are the occasion, cause, or effect of the fact in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which it happened, are relevant.

- **Section 8:** Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct are relevant.

- **Section 9:** Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts are relevant.

- **Section 11:** Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact, or if they by themselves or in connection with other facts make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

- **Section 14:** Facts showing the existence of any state of mind (intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness) are relevant when such state of mind is in issue.

- **Section 15:** Facts showing that the same act was done on previous occasions, demonstrating a course of business or system, are relevant.

Fact in Issue vs Relevant Fact

A **fact in issue** (defined in Section 3) is a fact that is directly in dispute between the parties — for example, whether the accused committed the crime. A **relevant fact** is a fact that is not directly in dispute but is connected with the fact in issue and helps prove or disprove it. The distinction is critical because evidence may be given of both facts in issue and relevant facts, but not of irrelevant facts.

Relevancy vs Admissibility

Relevancy and admissibility are related but distinct concepts:

| Feature | Relevancy | Admissibility |

|---|---|---|

| Definition | Logical connection with the fact in issue | Legal permissibility of evidence |

| Governed by | Sections 5-55 Evidence Act | Various provisions (Evidence Act, other statutes, procedural rules) |

| Nature | Deals with whether the evidence relates to the matter | Deals with whether the evidence can be presented in court |

| Relationship | A fact must be relevant to be admissible | A relevant fact may still be inadmissible (e.g., privileged communication) |

A fact may be relevant but inadmissible — for example, communications between a lawyer and client (Section 126, privileged communications) are relevant but cannot be disclosed. Conversely, a fact cannot be admissible if it is irrelevant.

When Does Relevancy Matter?

Objections to Evidence

During trial, parties frequently object to the opposing party's evidence on the ground that the facts sought to be proved are irrelevant. The court must determine whether the evidence falls within any of the categories of relevancy under Sections 5-55 before allowing it.

Character Evidence

Sections 52-55 of the Evidence Act place strict limits on the relevancy of character evidence. In civil cases, character is generally irrelevant unless it is itself a fact in issue. In criminal cases, the character of the accused is relevant only when they put their character in issue, or when the prosecution seeks to prove bad character after the defence has introduced evidence of good character.

Similar Fact Evidence

The Evidence Act is cautious about similar fact evidence. While Section 15 allows evidence of a course of business or practice, and Section 14 allows evidence of state of mind, courts scrutinise such evidence carefully to ensure it is not used merely to show propensity.

Expert Opinion

Under Sections 45-51, expert opinion is relevant when the court requires knowledge of science, art, foreign law, handwriting, or other specialised subjects. The expert's opinion becomes a relevant fact that the court considers alongside other evidence.

Practical Significance

- **Closed system:** Indian evidence law does not permit general "relevancy" — every piece of evidence must be tied to a specific section of the Evidence Act. Lawyers must identify the applicable section when offering evidence.

- **Judicial control:** The rules of relevancy give the judge the power to exclude evidence that is tangential, prejudicial, or time-wasting, ensuring that trials remain focused on the issues.

- **Burden on the party:** The party seeking to introduce evidence bears the burden of demonstrating its relevancy under the specific provisions of the Act.

- **No fishing expeditions:** Courts do not permit parties to introduce large volumes of marginally connected evidence in the hope of finding something useful. The evidence must be tied to the fact in issue.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a relevant fact and a fact in issue?

A fact in issue is the central question that the court must decide — for example, whether the accused committed the offence or whether the defendant breached the contract. A relevant fact is a secondary fact that is connected with the fact in issue and helps the court determine the truth. Evidence may be given of both, but the fact in issue is what the parties are directly disputing, while the relevant fact is introduced to support or challenge the case on the main issue.

Can relevant evidence be excluded by the court?

Yes. Even if a fact is relevant under the Evidence Act, it may be excluded if it falls under one of the exclusionary rules — for example, privileged communications (Sections 122-129), confessions obtained by inducement, threat, or promise (Section 24), or evidence obtained in violation of fundamental rights. The court also has inherent power to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value, though this is applied more cautiously in India than in common law countries.

How does the concept of relevancy apply in digital evidence cases?

Digital evidence — emails, social media posts, electronic records, CCTV footage — must meet the same relevancy requirements as any other evidence. It must be connected with the fact in issue under one of the sections of the Evidence Act. Additionally, electronic records must satisfy the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act (now Section 63 BSA) for admissibility, including the production of a certificate authenticating the electronic record. The Supreme Court in **Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473** held that electronic evidence without a proper certificate under Section 65B is inadmissible.