Sec 11 of IEA-hearsay applicable

 Inconsistent facts, plea of alibi- The Latin word alibi means elsewhere.
1. It is used when the accused takes the plea that when the occurrence took place he
was elsewhere and that it is extremely improbable that he could have committed
the crime.
2. The plea of alibi is based on physical impossibility of being at the scene of crime
and so the distance is a very important factor. Munshi Prasad v State of Bihar
and illustration 1
 Facts showing probabilities
1. Equate them to facts coming under Item 2 of Section 9. Illustration 2
2. One fact is logically relevant to a fact in issue or relevant fact when it makes the
existence or non existence of such fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or
improbable.
3. However facts which would come under hearsay or res inter alios acta( which
means a transaction between two parties ought not to operate to the disadvantage
of a third--- statements made behind the back of the person against whom they are
sought to be used as evidence; similar unconnected transactions and opinions of
third parties)are logically relevant but legally irrelevant. But they can be received
as relevant evidence if they make the existence of the fact in issue highly probable
or improbable.

Relevancy of facts(Res Gestae, sec 6)-Hearsay and res inter alios acta admissible

 A group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single legal name, as a

crime, a contract, a wrong, or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue.
 “things said and done in the course of a transaction.”
 The relationship of cause and effect should exist between the fact in issue and the fact of
which evidence is sought to be given. No remote causes and distant effects.
 The test for applying of rule of res gestae is that statement (or fact) should be
spontaneous and should form part of the same transaction ruling out any possibility of
concoction.
 Sukhar Singh v State of U.P.
 Ratan Singh v State of H.P.
 Yusufalli v state of maharashtra
 Hearsay admissible Illustration 1
 Res inter alios acta-Illustration 4 and 5 of sec 9
 Illustrations 3 and 4

Section 7

 Res gestae is involved

  Illustrations 1, 2 and 3

Section 9

 Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact- Illustration 6

 Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact-
Iluustration 1 support or rebut-forgery
 Which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant- Recovering
pistol from A, identification by voice in Mohan Singh v State of Bihar
 Fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened
 Show the relation of the parties by whom any such fact was transacted-Illustration 2

Section 8

 Difference between motive and intention –intention is his decision to do or not to do a

particular act while motive is his reason for forming that decision.
 Motive- Illustration 1 and 2
 Preparation- Illustration 3 and 4
 Conduct-behaviour- Illustration 5,6,7,8 and 9

Rattan Singh v State of HP:

 Facts: assailant intruding into courtyard at night-deceased shouted that the accused (who
was known to her-he had infatuation for the deceased-harassing her when she showed no
interest) was standing with a gun and immediately thereafter she was fired at
 Under 32(1)-statement need not be made under expectation of death (departure from
English law), expression “circumstances of the transaction which resulted into the death”
is wider than “circumstances which caused his death” –no need of a direct nexus between
circumstances and death-even distant circumstances can become admissible if it has
nexus with the transaction which resulted into death.
 The fact spoken by the deceased has subsequently turned out to be a circumstance which
intimately related to the transaction which resulted in her death.
 The act of the assailant intruding into the courtyard during the dead of the night, victim’s
identification of the assailant, her pronouncement that he was standing with a gun and his
firing at her are all circumstances intertwined with each other by proximity of time and
space-forming part of the same transaction-hence also admissible under sec 6-illus. 1

Sukhar Singh v State of UP:

 Res gestae- condition precedent for admissibility of hearsay under sec 6- statement must
have been made contemporaneously with the acts which constitute the offence or
immediately thereafter and without any interval which would allow fabrication.
  Facts: hearing the alarm raised by the injured, PW rushed to the spot and at that point of
time the injured fell down and the assailant made good his escape-injured told him that
his nephew had fired upon him- he died during the pendency of trial- said statement of
PW was admissible under sec 6 (firing of the shot by the accused, rushing down of PW to
the scene of occurrence and the statement of the injured to him-part of same transaction)
but not sufficient to sustain the conviction in absence of any corroborative evidence
(accused and PW were inimical to each other-by the time PW reached to the scene of
occurrence, more than 20 people gathered and none of them was examined by the
prosecution to corroborate him)

Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v State of Maharashtra:

 Appellant’s wife-owner of 2 house properties in BMC-summonses and then bailable

warrant for her failure to repair and secure them- Munir, a notice clerk entrusted with the
duty of serving the warrant-charge against the appellant that he offered the Munir bribe
for not executing the warrant- Naik in charge of investigation-over the telephone Manir
arranged a meeting with the appellant-Naik under the assumed name of CJ Mehta went
with Munir-there appellant offered a bribe but Munir did not accept it-another
appointment-a trap was laid-microphone connected to a tape-recorder-caught red-handed
while offering another bribe to Munir-conversation between the appellant and Munir was
recorded
 No violation of art 20(3)

Balram Prasad Agrawal v state of bihar (sec 6,7,8):

 Daughter married-ill treatment by husband and in-laws-not bringing sufficient dowry and
not giving birth to children-husband to remarry-she attempted suicide earler-birth of 2
sons-ill treatment continued which forced her to commit suicide by drowning in a well in
the courtyard of her in-laws house-at the time if incident-only deceased and the accused
in the house-sound of quarrelling and shouting ‘bachao-bachao’, crying-neighbours-
father informed by the neighbours after 12 days-FIR filed-he gave the names of the
informants and also deposed about the suffering undergone by his daughter in the pastno
498A-7 years had passed(11 years)-neighbours turned hostile
 continuance of cruel treatment-inference of continuity within a reasonable proximate time
both forwards and backwards-same transaction-relevant facts
 Sec 8explanation 2 info given to the father may be hearsay but his conduct in rushing to
the police is relevant conduct and the info given to him will also be relevant as a
statement influencing his conduct.

Amina v Hassn Koya (sec 8)-subsequent conduct

R v Lillyman (sec 8 explantion 1):

  Accused charged with an attempt to rape-prosecutrix called as witness and deposed to
the acts complained of having been done without her consent-prosecution tendered
evidence of a complaint made by her to her mistress in the absence of prisoner shortly
after the commission of the acts-mistress also deposed of all that the prosecutrix had
said w.r.t prisoner’s conduct towards her-prisoner challenged the admissibility of the
complaint-not admissible as evidence of the facts complained of-those facts must be
estd upon oath by the prosecutrix or other credible witness-but complaint can only be
used as evidence that it was a complaint charged against the prisoner and can be used
only for the purpose of enabling the jury to judge for themselves whether the conduct
of the woman was consistent with her testimony on oath given in the witness box
negativing her consent and affirming that the acts complained of were against her
will.

R v Blastland (sec 14):

 Charge of buggery and murder against the appellant, Blastland-he said that he had
attempted to bugger the boy but left him when he had complained of pain-ran off to
his home when saw Mark-his case-it was Mark who had committed the offences with
which the appellant was charged-Mark said in front of witness that a young boy had
been murdered before his body had been discovered-whether knowledge of the third
party admissible-statements made to a witness by a third party not excluded by
hearsay if it is required to prove the state of mind of the maker of the statement or of
the person to whom it is made-applied only where the state of mind evidenced by the
statement is directly in issue in the trial or of direct and immediate relevance to an
issue in trial-no probative value-mere speculation how he come to that knowledge

Bibhabati Devi v Ramendra Narain (Sec 9)

Makin v attorney general nsw Evidence of similar fact admissible if relevant and probative to
the degree that it substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect. Lord Herschell held that the evidence,
in this case, was admissible, however, as a general rule evidence of a past similar event should not be
admissible unless there are exceptional circumstances

Boardman v DPP: headmaster of a boarding school for boys charged with buggery on S and
inciting H to commit buggery on him-accepted that there were circumstances contrary to the
general rule-evidence of criminal acts on the part of an accused other than those with which he
was charged became admissible because of their striking similarity and probative force-it is
on the judge to decide whether prejudice outweighed by the probative force

Director of PP v P:

Contention of Boardman v DPP-striking similarity-in this case offences were commonplace with
no striking features-held that although striking similarity was one of the criteria by which the
cross admissibility could be determined, it was not the only case. Whether the evidence had
sufficient probative value to overcome the inevitable prejudice it would create against the
defendant was to be determined on the facts of the case-in the case large no of points of
similarity even though not striking was sufficient that their probative value was high. Sirf
probative value