Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 9 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. —Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether a given document is the Will of A. The state of A's property and of his family at the date of the alleged Will may be relevant facts.

(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.

(c) A is accused of a crime. The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant, under section 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue. The fact that, at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly. The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.

(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A.C ., on leaving A's service, says to A— "I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer”. This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C's conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.

(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A's wife. B says, as he delivers it—" A says you are to hide this”. B's statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.

(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on Evidence Act i.e. Section 9 Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994 Supreme Court of India 
• Balkishan A. Devidayal Etc vs State Of Maharashtra Etc on 31 July, 1980 Supreme Court of India 
• Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988 Supreme Court of India 
• Izhar Ahmad Khan vs Union Of India on 16 February, 1962 Supreme Court of India 
• Deep Chand vs The State Of Rajasthan on 30 March, 1961 Supreme Court of India  
• Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur vs Thakur Manmohan Deo And Ors on 28 February, 1966 Supreme Court of India 
• Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2010 Supreme Court of India 
• Radhy Shyam(D)Thr. Lrs & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 15 April, 2011 Supreme Court of India 
• Munna Kumar Upadhyaya vs State Of A.P.Tr.Pub.Prosecutor on 8 May, 2012 Supreme Court of India 
• Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vs K.M. Krishnaiah on 2 March, 1998 Supreme Court of India 
• Tanajirao Martinrao Kadambande vs H.J. Chinoy on 4 February, 1969 Bombay High Court 
• Varadarajaswamivari Temple vs Sri Krishnappa Govinda And Ors. on 4 July, 1958 Madras High Court  
• Subodh Gopal Bose vs Mines Tribunal And Anr. on 31 August, 1966 Patna High Court 
• Ramdhar vs Union Of India on 17 August, 1978 Delhi High Court  
• The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman on 9 January, 2003 Madras High Court  
• The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman, P. Krishnasamy on 9 January, 2003 Madras High Court 
• Mallappa Basvantrao Desai vs Tukko Narasinha Mutalik And Ors. on 14 August, 1936 Bombay High Court 
• Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994 Supreme Court of India  
• Mallappa Basvantrao Desai vs Tukko Narasinha Mutalik on 14 August, 1936 Bombay High Court  
• Cherayathu Paul And Ors. vs Dharmodhayan Company, Trichur on 4 April, 1963 Kerala High Court