Section 4: Relevancy of Facts Forming Part of the Same Transaction

Overview

Section 4 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, deals with how connected events are considered in court. Essentially, if a fact is important to the case (a 'fact in issue'), other facts that happened as part of the same series of events are also relevant, even if they didn’t happen at the exact same time or place. This helps the court understand the complete picture.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section applies to all types of evidence – what people say (oral testimony), documents, electronic records, and even things that the court assumes to be true unless proven otherwise (presumptions).
• Conditions for Relevancy: Facts must be part of the ‘same transaction’ as the fact in issue. This means they are closely connected, not just random events. The connection is established by showing a ‘proximity of cause and effect’ – one event directly led to another.
• Burden of Proof: This section doesn’t *create* a burden of proof, but it determines what evidence is admissible. The party presenting the fact in issue generally has the burden of proving it, and this section allows them to present related facts to support their claim. The opposing party can then challenge the connection between the facts.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges use Section 4 to allow evidence that provides context to a key event. They look for a logical connection between the fact in issue and the other facts offered as evidence. The judge decides if the connection is strong enough to make the additional facts relevant and admissible. They will consider if knowing these additional facts helps to understand what happened and whether it makes the story more or less believable.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1: A man is accused of stealing a phone. The fact in issue is whether he stole the phone. Evidence that he was seen running away from the shop immediately after the theft, even though the theft itself wasn’t directly witnessed, is relevant under Section 4 because it’s part of the same transaction – the act of stealing and the immediate flight.
• Example 2: A woman claims she was assaulted. The fact in issue is the assault. Evidence of prior threats made by the accused, even if they happened weeks before, could be relevant if the prosecution can show those threats were directly linked to the assault – for example, the accused said, “I’ll get you for this,” and then assaulted her shortly after. However, vague, unrelated threats would likely be ruled irrelevant.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The Bill doesn’t include specific provisos or explanations attached to Section 4. The key is the ‘proximity of cause and effect’ – the court must be satisfied that there’s a clear and direct link between the facts.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely retains the core principle of Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are no significant shifts in the underlying legal concept. The new Bill aims for clearer language and modernizes terminology but doesn’t fundamentally alter this rule of evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Facts connected to a key event are relevant, even if they happened at different times or places.
• A ‘proximity of cause and effect’ must exist – one event must have directly led to another.
• This section helps courts understand the complete story behind a fact in issue.
• All types of evidence (oral, documentary, electronic) can be considered under this section.