Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts
Section 11: When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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 not otherwise relevant are relevant––
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
Illustrations
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else, and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
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 11
-
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
Whether the trial Court as well as the High Court committed grave errors in facts as well as in law while appreciating the evidence available on record and convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged…
-
Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand
Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the Appellants, or whether the circumstances leave room for…
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Does the Evidence Act, 1872 prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent witness; Does the Evidence Act treat evidence of a child on the same footing as any other witness;…
-
Kamal Prasad & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case of the prosecution rested primarily on the testimonies of three witnesses, conviction o f the appellants for offence punishable u/ss.148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 1 49, IPC and ss.4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act,…
- Manoj Kumar Etc. Etc. v. State of Haryana and Others Etc. Etc.
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Vutukuru Lakshmaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh