Section 5: Facts Which Are the Occasion, Cause or Effect of Facts in Issue

Overview

Section 5 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, essentially says that any fact which *explains* why something happened, *caused* something to happen, or was a *result* of something happening, is relevant in court. It broadens what evidence a court can consider to understand the full picture of a case. Think of it as connecting the dots – if a fact helps explain the main issue, it can be presented as evidence.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section applies to all types of evidence – oral testimony (what witnesses say), documents (letters, contracts), electronic records (emails, messages), and even presumptions (things the court assumes to be true unless proven otherwise).
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: A fact must have a direct connection to a ‘fact in issue’ (the central point the court needs to decide) or another relevant fact. The connection must be as the occasion, cause, or effect. Simply being related isn’t enough; it needs to *explain* something important.
• Burden of Proof Implications: While Section 5 doesn’t directly shift the burden of proof (which always rests on the prosecution or plaintiff), it helps the party presenting the evidence to *support* their case. Relevant facts introduced under this section can strengthen their argument and make it more likely the court will believe their version of events.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges use Section 5 to determine whether certain pieces of evidence can be presented to the jury or considered in a bench trial. They ask: “Does this fact help explain what happened, why it happened, or what resulted from it?” If the answer is yes, the evidence is likely admissible. The judge acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring only relevant information reaches the court.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1: A man is accused of theft. The fact that he was seen near the victim’s house shortly before the theft occurred is relevant because it’s the *occasion* for suspecting him. It doesn’t prove he stole anything, but it provides a context.
• Example 2: A woman sues a factory for causing her illness due to pollution. Evidence showing the factory routinely released harmful chemicals (the *cause*) and medical records proving the woman’s illness (the *effect*) are both relevant, even if proving a direct link is complex. The court will consider this evidence to determine if the factory’s actions likely caused the illness.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 doesn’t have specific provisos or explanations attached to Section 5. The section’s language is intentionally broad to allow courts flexibility in determining relevancy based on the specific facts of each case. The emphasis is on a logical connection – occasion, cause, or effect.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 largely retains the core principle of Section 5 from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the new Bill aims for greater clarity and simplification of language, making the application of this principle more straightforward. There are no significant substantive changes to the scope of relevancy.

Key Takeaways

• Section 5 deals with facts that explain, cause, or result from a key issue.
• All types of evidence can be relevant under this section.
• Relevancy doesn’t automatically mean admissibility; the judge still decides.
• This section helps build a complete picture of events for the court.