Comprehensive Notes on Relevancy of Statements, Judgments, and Records
Statements of persons who are dead, missing, incapable, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense are relevant under certain conditions.[web:11]
- (a) Dying Declaration: Cause or circumstances of death; relevant even if the person did not expect to die, and applicable to all proceedings.[web:11]
- (b) Statement in Ordinary Course of Business: Business entries, records, signed acknowledgments, receipts, and invoices made in the regular course of work.[web:11]
- (c) Statement Against Interest: Declarations harming the maker’s financial, proprietary, or criminal position, treated as inherently trustworthy.[web:11]
- (d) Statement About Public Right or Custom: Statements regarding public rights, village customs, or matters of general public interest.[web:11]
- (e) Statement About Family Relationship: Statements based on special knowledge about marriage, adoption, or kinship.[web:11]
- (f) Family Records of Deceased: Pedigree, tombstone inscriptions, and family tree records relating to deceased family members.[web:11]
- (g) Statements in Documents under Section 11(a): Statements contained in wills, deeds, and other documents relating to relevant transactions.[web:11]
- (h) Statements Expressing Collective Feelings: Statements by several persons expressing a collective opinion or feeling relevant to the matter in question.[web:11]
Important Case Law
- Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958): A trustworthy dying declaration can by itself sustain conviction.[web:6][web:15]
- Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984): Stated the Panchsheel principles on circumstantial evidence.[web:7][web:19]
Prior testimony of a witness in a judicial proceeding is relevant in a later proceeding (or later stage of the same proceeding) if the witness is unavailable.[web:1]
Conditions:
- The earlier proceeding involved the same parties.[web:1]
- The proceeding concerned the same issues.[web:1]
- The adverse party had an opportunity to cross‑examine the witness.[web:1]
- Relevance: Entries made regularly in the ordinary course of business are relevant.[web:1]
- Not conclusive: Such entries alone cannot establish liability as they may be self‑serving.[web:4]
Entries in public or electronic records made by a public servant in the performance of official duty, such as birth and death registers, are relevant.[web:5]
Statements in authoritative maps, charts, and plans, such as Survey of India maps, railway route maps, navigation charts, and weather charts, are relevant.[web:5]
Statements of public facts in Acts, government notifications, or official gazettes (such as formation of districts or appointments) are relevant.[web:5]
Courts may rely on printed or electronic law books published under government authority as evidence of the law stated in them.[web:5]
When a statement forms part of a longer conversation, document, electronic record, or book, the court may require surrounding parts to understand its meaning and effect.[web:5]
- Applies to longer communications like WhatsApp chats, emails, or letter series.[web:5]
- The court determines the appropriate amount of context.[web:5]
A prior final judgment, order, or decree that bars a second suit or trial on the same matter is a relevant fact.[web:1]
- The issue has already been decided.[web:1]
- The accused has been acquitted or convicted for the same offence.[web:1]
- The decision has attained finality and prevents relitigation.[web:1]
Judgments of competent probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency courts are relevant and conclusive regarding the legal status or rights they determine.[web:1]
Statements about public rights, public duties, land, roads, pathways, easements, customs, or village practices are relevant but only weak evidence and not conclusive proof.[web:1]
Judgments not falling under Sections 34–36 are generally irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment itself is a fact in issue or made relevant by other provisions such as Sections 8, 13, or 43.[web:5]
A party may prove that a judgment relevant under Sections 34, 35, or 36 was delivered by an incompetent court or was obtained through fraud or collusion.[web:5]