Section 9 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

Section 9 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Fact Sec 2(1)(d)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 9

Section 9 codifies the relevancy of facts not otherwise relevant, establishing the statutory home for the Plea of Alibi and facts inconsistent with facts in issue.

Operational Statutory Mechanism: The most renowned application of clause (1) is the Plea of Alibi (alibi being Latin for 'elsewhere').
Evidentiary Proof & Burden: If the prosecution alleges the accused committed murder in Delhi at 8:00 PM, evidence proving the accused was physically present in Mumbai at that exact hour is relevant because physical presence in Mumbai is completely inconsistent with committing the crime in Delhi.

While a substantiated alibi backed by electronic records, CCTV, or biometric logs completely destroys the prosecution case, a fabricated or half-hearted alibi is viewed by trial courts as positive corroboration of guilt.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166: Held that a plea of alibi is not an independent exception but a rule of evidence under Section 11 IEA / Section 9 BSA; the burden of establishing an alibi with absolute physical certainty lies heavily upon the accused under Section 106.
Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 351: Reiterated that the plea of alibi must demonstrate that the distance between the two places was so great that it was physically impossible for the accused to be present at the crime scene.
Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204: Ruled that setting up a false plea of alibi acts as an additional incriminating circumstance against the accused.

Legal Commentary:

Section 9 is a double-edged sword for defence advocates. While a substantiated alibi backed by electronic records, CCTV, or biometric logs completely destroys the prosecution case, a fabricated or half-hearted alibi is viewed by trial courts as positive corroboration of guilt.