Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 5
Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts
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.
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
Why this exists
Courts rarely have direct proof of what happened; they must reconstruct events from surrounding circumstances. This section, carried forward from Section 7 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (itself shaped by James Fitzjames Stephen's drafting), recognizes that context—cause, effect, background conditions, and opportunity—helps judges and juries understand whether a disputed fact actually occurred. It formalizes common-sense reasoning: if you want to know if something happened, look at what came before it, what followed it, and what made it possible.
How courts read it
Under the old Evidence Act's Section 7 (the identical predecessor), Indian courts consistently allowed evidence of preceding conduct, opportunity, and surrounding circumstances in criminal trials—such as a victim's movements before a robbery, or a suspect's access to poison—to build a circumstantial case. Courts have cautioned that such facts are corroborative and must be assessed together with other evidence, not used to fill gaps in the prosecution's core case alone.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This section lets any background fact be treated as direct proof of guilt.
Fact: These facts are relevant as supporting context or circumstantial evidence, not standalone proof; courts weigh them alongside other evidence. - Myth: Only facts immediately before or after the event count.
Fact: The section explicitly includes effects that are 'immediate or otherwise,' meaning even indirect or later consequences can be relevant.