Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts
Section 9: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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 any thing 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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 9
-
Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is justified.
- Mukesh Singh v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Gireesan Nair & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kerala
- Amrik Singh v. The State of Punjab
- Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr v. State of Haryana
- Raja v. State by the Inspector of Police
- Birbal Choudhary@ Mukhiya Jee v. State of Bihar
- Dhal Singh Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Iqbal and Another v. State of Utiar Pradesh
- Motilal Yadav v. State of Bihar
- Raju @ Devendra Choubey v. State of Chhatisgarh
- R. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
- Oma @ Omprakash and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Kunjumon @ Unni v. State of Kerala
- Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
- Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar
- Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- B.A. Umesh v. Regr.Gen.High Court of Karnataka
- Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India
- C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Maqbool @ Zubir @ Shahnawaz and Anr. v. State of Ap.
- Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Ram Babu v. State of U.P.
- Mulla & Anr. v. State of U.P.
- Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and Another v. State of Maharashtra
- Ramesh v. State of Karnataka
- Hem Singh @ Hemu v. State of Haryana
- Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- Santosh Devidas Behade and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- Mahabir v. The State of Delhi
- Md. Kalam @ Abdul Kalam v. State of Rajasthan
- Heera and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
- Ravi@ Ravichandran v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
- Amitsingh Bhikamsing Thakur v. State of Maharashtra
- Umesh Kamat v. State of Bihar
- Munshi Singh Gautam (D) and Ors. v. State of M.P.
- Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar
- Simon and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Munna v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Malkhan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. v. State of Bihar
- Daya Singh v. State of Haryana
- The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and Ors.
- Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
- Ronny@Ronald James Alwaris Etc. v. State of Maharashtra
- Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar
- State of Maharashtra Etc. Etc. v. Sukhdeo Singh and Anr. Etc .. Etc.