§ SECTION 9 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

The residuary doors of relevancy: a fact with no route of its own enters if it is inconsistent with a fact in issue — the alibi — or makes a fact highly probable or improbable.

How to read Section 9

Two doors, one high bar, and the most famous defence in criminal law.

What it is about

Facts that fit no other route (§§ 4–8) still enter through two doors: (1) inconsistency, (2) high probability or improbability.

The alibi lives here

“I was elsewhere” has no relevancy route of its own — it enters because it collides with the prosecution’s case.

The word “highly”

Door 2 is not for every make-weight: the fact must move the scales heavily — highly probable, or highly improbable.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 9 · verbatim

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 Chennai on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Ladakh 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.

In short: two residuary doors stand at the end of the first stretch of the catalogue. Door 1 admits facts that collide with the case — the alibi. Door 2 admits facts that swing a fact in issue to highly probable or improbable — alone or in combination, like a chain of elimination.

→ The doors open both ways — for the defence (the alibi) and for the prosecution (the closing circle of elimination).

Glossary

inconsistent

Two facts that cannot both be true — presence in Ladakh collides with presence at the Chennai crime.

alibi

“Elsewhere” — the plea that the accused was at another place; the classic door-1 fact.

highly probable / improbable

Door 2’s standard — the fact must move the scales heavily, not marginally.

process of elimination

Ruling out every other candidate until only one remains — illustration (b).

not otherwise relevant

A fact that fits none of the routes in §§ 4–8 — the section exists precisely for these.

The picture

A homeless fact and the two doors that take it in.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe Illustrations

the ruleTwo special doors

In one lineA fact with no door of its own still enters if it collides with a fact in issue — or moves the scales to highly probable or improbable.

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—the rescue clausefacts with no door of their own get in through two special doors.

(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;door 1 · collisionthe fact cannot coexist with a fact in issue — if one is true, the other cannot be. The alibi is the classic.

(2) if by themselves or in connection with other factsalone or combineda single fact, or a chain of them together…

they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant factthe target…bearing on whether a fact in issue exists or not…

highly probable or improbable.⚠ the HIGH bar…but only if they move the scales heavily — “highly” is the gatekeeper word.

ExampleThe crime is in Chennai at 9 p.m.; A produces his boarding pass and hotel check-in at Leh that same evening. Being in Leh has no relevancy route of its own — but it is inconsistent with presence at the crime: door 1 opens, and the alibi enters.

✗ Not thisThe bar is HIGH — a fact that makes guilt merely a little more or less likely does not pass door 2. And remember: an alibi that fails does not prove guilt — it merely removes the inconsistency.

IllustrationsThe two pictures the Act itself gives

In one lineThe alibi (Chennai vs Ladakh) — and the process of elimination (it was A, B, C or D… and not B, C or D).

(a) the alibidoor 1 + door 2A was at Ladakh on the day of the Chennai crime — inconsistent; and even mere distance making guilt highly improbable (though not impossible) enters by door 2:

(b) the eliminationdoor 2the crime must be A, B, C or D’s work — every fact showing no one else could have done it, and that B, C and D did not, closes in on A:

ExampleThe two illustrations are mirror images: (a) uses the doors to push guilt away (defence evidence); (b) uses them to close in on the accused (prosecution evidence). The doors open both ways.

Connected provisions

§§ 4–8

The named routes

§ 9 exists for facts those routes miss — read it as the catalogue’s safety-net.

§ 8

Conspiracy

Elimination chains (illustration (b)) often work alongside conspiracy evidence.

Ch. VII

Burden of proof

He who sets up an alibi must prove it — the burden rules of Chapter VII carry that weight.

lineage

IEA 1872, § 11

This provision carries forward section 11 of the repealed Evidence Act.