Vol. 12 · pages 606–610

585LAW OF EVIDENCE 2. § Facts which are relevant to Facts in Issue. Section 3. I. Relevant fact means fact connected to the fact in issue. 1. The connection must be visible and open i. e. must be obvious. 2. The connection must be immediate and not remote. 3. The connection need not be necessary connection that would exclude all presumptive evidence, but such as is reasonable, and not latent or conjectural. 4. Whether there is a connection is a matter of legal instinct or legal sense to be acquired by practice. A few instances may serve for illustrations. (a) On a Criminal trial of A, the statement of B, who is not a witness that he was the real criminal and that A is innocent would be rejected for remoteness and want of connection apart from the danger of collusion and fabrication. R vs. Gray Ir. Cir. Rep. 76. (b) On a suit by A against B for the recovery of £ 5 lent to him, an entry made by A in his diary that B owed him £ 5 would be rejected for want of connection. Storr vs. Scott. 6 c & P 241. (c) A as Agent of B, a Merchant residing abroad bought goods of C. At the time of purchase A did not inform C who was his principal; but the invoices described the goods as “bought on account of B per A”. C afterwards drew upon A for the amount. B after receiving advice for the purchase and of the acceptance of bills by A had made large remittances to A. But A had become insolvent in the meantime. C sued B the principal. C desired to give evidence of his account books for the purpose of showing that B had been throughout debited by him as principal. Held that evidence was inadmissible. Smyth vs. Anderson. 7 C-b. 21.

586 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES II. It is not every connected fact which is relevant. It is only facts connected in a particular respect which are relevant. The Evidence Act lays down in what way a particular fact must be connected with the fact in issue in order that it may be treated as a relevant fact. 6. 1. § Proof is allowed of Facts forming part of the same transaction comprised in the facts in issue. Take Illus (a), (c) (d). What is meant by transaction ? A transaction is a group of facts so connected that they go by a single name such as a crime, contract, sale etc., Anything connected with the crime or contract if the connection is open and visible i.e. obvious and immediate is part of the same transaction and is relevant. What does transaction include ? A transaction not only includes acts done but also statement made in the course of the transaction. Illus— The cries of a woman when raped. The statement to be part of the same transaction must accompany the act. What is meant by same transaction ? 1. Same does not mean similar. Evidence of series of similar transactions irrelevant. 2. Same transaction does not mean transaction which has taken place at the same time and same place. It has nothing to do with simultaneity of occurrence as to time and place. Illus.— Robbery may take place in January in one place, stolen goods may be entrusted with a receiver in another place in February and may be sold in March in a third place. All this would be parts of the same transaction.

587LAW OF EVIDENCE 3. Same transaction means one connected transaction— parts of the same piece. Case Law. Cockles pp. 66-68. 53 Cal. 372. Principle. Such evidence is allowed because it makes things intelligible. It provides context. 2. § Proof is allowed of a Fact which shows occasion, cause, effect or opportunity for a fact in issue or for a relevant fact. 1. A man is accused of theft. If no money is found in his possession, probability is that he did not commit theft. Every cause has effect If there was no effect no cause. 2. A man is accused of assault.—That there was a quarrel may be proved to show that there was occasion or cause. 3. A man is accused of poisoning his wife.—To show there was no opportunity for him to do so, it can be proved that the nurse was always present. 4. A is accused for murdering B.—To show there was cause for murder can be proved that B knew that A had married to C and that wanted hushmoney from A. 8. 3 § Proof is allowed of facts which show Motive, Preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Motive. Illus. (a) (b). No rational man acts without motive. Preparation. Illus. (c) (d). No act can be done without preparation. Case Law. 1. 61 Cal. 54—Motive-intention-Preparation-attempt-Act. 2. R vs. Palmer—Cockle P Killed Cook. Pecuniary embarrassment, his buying poison, attempting to avoid inquest. 3. R vs. Lillyman Cockle P. (1896) 2Q B 167.

588 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 4. § Proof is allowed of a fact which shows the conduct of a party to any suit which has reference to such suit or which has reference to any fact in issue or to any relevant fact. Similarly proof is allowed of a fact which shows the conduct of an accused if such conduct influences and is influenced by any fact in issue or by any relevant fact. 1. Conduct of persons generally. Illus.— (d) The making of a will. Not long before the making of the will, the deceased made inquiries and drafts relevant. Conduct of the Accused: Illus.— (e) suborning witnesses. Illus.— (h) absconding. Illus.—(h) concealing things. Explanation— 1. Conduct does not include statement unless the statement accompanies the conduct and explains the conduct. 2. If conduct is relevant then a statement which affects the conduct is relevant if it was made to the person or in his presence and hearing. Illus.— (g) Question is whether A owed B Rs. 10, 000. The A asked C to lend his money and D said in A’s presence and hearing “I advise you not to trust A, for he owes Rs. 10,000” and A went away without making any answer is relevant. Case Law. Imp. 34 om. & R. 1087. Imp. 7 All. 385 F.E. Cockles-P. 75. Bright vs. foe B Tatham. 5. § Proof is allowed of facts which are necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Illustration— (d) On an indictment for crime it was alleged that the Accused was absconding. Evidence may be given to show that he had urgent business.

589LAW OF EVIDENCE (f) A is tried for a riot to assault or overowe the Police Officer and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. Evidence may be given of the cries of the mob to explain the nature of the transaction. (b) On suit for libel—imputing disgraceful conduct. Evidence may be given of the position and relation of Parties at the time the libel was published as introductory to facts in issue. Under this evidence may be given of: (1) The identy of a person or thing whose identity is in question. (2) Exact time and place at which a fact in issue or a relevant fact happened. (3) of the relation of the parties, to the fact in issue or relevant fact. 4. § Proof is allowed of facts showing the existence of any state of mind. 1. Under this, facts may be proved which shows intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, ill-will or good will. knowledge, Illus. (a): good faith Illus. (f): Intention, Illus. (e) (j): Ill-will. Illus. (k). 2. Under this, evidence of previous conviction may be given. Illus. (b). 3. Limitations upon the use of the Section. (1) The state of mind of which evidence is given is not general state of mind- general disposition -but a state of mind which has reference to the particular matter in question. (2) The evidence of the previous commission of the offence must be to show his state of mind with regard to the particular matter in question and for no other purpose. 15. § Proof is allowed of facts to show that the act done was a part of a series of similar acts in order to show that the act in question was done intentionally and not accidently.