IEA – Relevancy of Facts Sec. 7

IEA – Relevancy of Facts Sec. 7

Section -7 Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue. ––

• Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise of relevant facts or facts in issue,
• or which constitute the state of things under which they happened,
• or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.

Illustrations

1. The question is, whether A robbed B.

The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it, or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.

(an instance of facts relevant as giving occasion of opportunity)

2. The question is, whether A murdered B.

Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.

(facts constituting an effect, relevant)

3. The question is, whether A poisoned B.

The state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.

(facts constituting the state of things under which an alleged fact happened. Relevant)

The section provides for the admission of several classes of facts which are connected with the transaction under inquiry in particular modes, viz.-

1. As being the occasion or cause of a fact
2. As being its effect
3. As giving opportunities for its occurrence and
4. As considering the state of things under which it happened.

Question arises whether tape recording, photographs, video recording are relevant?

Question arises that whether tape recording, photographs, video recording can be occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue?

Yusufali v. State, (1967) Bom LR 76 (SC).

 “The court held that a tap – recorded conversation can only be relied upon as corrobative evidence of conversation testified by any of the parties to the conversation. In the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape is not a proper evidence and can’t be relied upon.  In such case there was no evidence of any such conversation between the tenant and the husband of the land lady. So in such case, Tap -recorded conversation couldn’t be proper evidence.”

Sunil Panchal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2016 CrLJ

The court held that there is no chance of the accused appellants’ innocence because the chain of events against them is so thorough. Sunil Panchal’s voice was directly recorded on one cassette, while his voice through a phone call was recorded in another cassette, both of which were admissible under section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court found the appellants guilty of killing Abhishek @ Akash.

Case Law- R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 157

In this case The court held that Tape recordings are admissible if the voice of the person is identified by the maker of the recordings and Accuracy of what was recorded should be established, the possibility of tampering with record is ruled out and the subject matter which was recorded must be shown as relevant

Ram Singh v. Ram AIR 1986 SC 3

The SC held that for Tape recordings are admissible, but the recorded statement must be sealed and kept in safe of official custody and voice of the speaker must be audible.