📌 Foundational Rules of Evidence
| Section | Core Principle | Short Explanation |
| **Section 3** | **Evidence is Restricted** | Only *Fact in Issue* or *Relevant Facts* may be given. Does not override civil procedure laws. |
| **Section 4** | **Facts forming Same Transaction (Res Gestae)** | Facts/events so closely connected they form part of the same transaction are relevant. **Landmark Case:** *Kehar Singh Vs State*. |
🧩 Contextual & Circumstantial Evidence
Relevant facts are those which are the:
- Occasion
- Cause, or
- Effect of fact in issue.
Crucial where only Circumstantial evidences are available.
Case: *UP vs Deoman Upadhyay*
The *why* and *how* of the act are relevant:
- Motive
- Preparation
- Previous/Subsequent Conduct
Vital link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Case: *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra*
These act as the **Context Builders**:
- Explain / Introduce
- Identify / Fix Time/Place
- Support / Rebut
- Show relationship between parties
Case: *Bhagwan Singh vs State of Harayana (1976)*
🤝 Special Evidence Rules
Once a conspiracy is reasonably believed to exist, anything said, done or written by any conspirator in reference to the common intention becomes **relevant against all conspirators**.
Every conspirator acts as an agent for the group until the conspiracy ends.
Landmark: *State Vs Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case 1999)*
Facts become relevant if they:
- **Contradict** a fact in issue.
- Make its existence or non-existence **highly probable** (increase or reduce probability).
Crucial for defense evidence to show the prosecution's story is weak.
Any fact that helps the court decide damages in a civil suit is relevant:
- Loss Suffered
- Medical Bills / Repair Bills
- Salary Slips
When the existence of any **right or custom** is in question, any fact that establishes, denies, or explains it is relevant.
**Long Usage = Strong Proof**
Case: *Kallu vs Faqir Chand*
🧠 State of Mind and Patterns of Behavior
Internal conditions that influence action are relevant:
- State of Mind (Intention, Knowledge, Good Faith, Negligence)
- State of Body (Health, Physical Condition)
Case: *Queen Empress vs Abdullah (1885)*
**Pattern-Based Evidence** is relevant to show:
Intention / Knowledge
A series of similar occurrences involving the same person negates the defense of 'mere accident' or coincidence.
When an act's performance is questioned, the existence of a **regular course of business** (routine practice) is relevant.
Court Assumes: Regular Business = Predictable Pattern.
Helpful when direct evidence is missing.
Summary
Foundation (Sec 3 & 4): Evidence must relate to a Fact in Issue or a Relevant Fact. Section 4 introduces the concept of Res Gestae (facts forming part of the same transaction), which expands relevancy beyond the strict 'fact in issue'.
Context & Nexus (Sec 5, 6, 7): These sections are crucial for building the story:
Sec 5: Focuses on the Occasion, Cause, and Effect—the surrounding circumstances.
Sec 6: Focuses on the inner driver: Motive, Preparation, and Conduct.
Sec 7: Focuses on the explanatory details: Explaining, Introducing, Identifying, Fixing Time/Place.
Special Cases (Sec 8, 9, 10, 11):
Sec 8 (Conspiracy): The acts/statements of one conspirator are relevant against all.
Sec 9 (Residuary): Allows facts that make the existence/non-existence of a fact in issue highly probable or contradictory.
Sec 10 (Damages): Relevancy in civil suits to quantify loss.
Sec 11 (Rights/Customs): Establishes the existence of a right or custom.
Mental/Behavioral States (Sec 12, 13, 14):
Sec 12 (State of Mind/Body): Intention, Knowledge, Health are relevant.
Sec 13 (Accident vs. Intentional): Allows pattern-based evidence (a series of similar occurrences) to negate the defense of "mere accident" or coincidence.
Sec 14 (Course of Business): Uses established routines to prove an act was likely done.