Facts otherwise irrelevant become relevant if inconsistent or improbable.
Introduction
Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that facts not otherwise relevant may become relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact, or 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. This provision expands the scope of admissibility by recognizing the evidentiary value of contradiction and probability in judicial reasoning.
It plays an essential role in evaluating alibi, alternative explanations, and circumstantial contradictions in criminal trials.
Objective of the Provision
The objective of Section 9 is to allow courts to consider facts that indirectly affect the probability of facts in issue even if such facts are not independently relevant under earlier provisions. The section aims to:
- permit admission of inconsistent facts
- allow reliance on probability-based reasoning
- support defence pleas such as alibi
- strengthen circumstantial evidence analysis
- ensure logical completeness in judicial fact-finding
It ensures that courts are not restricted to rigid categories of relevancy where probability analysis demands broader consideration.
Meaning / Concept
Section 9 operates through two principal evidentiary principles.
Facts inconsistent with facts in issue
Any fact that contradicts a fact in issue or relevant fact becomes admissible because it weakens or negates the opposing claim.
For example:
- presence of accused elsewhere at the time of offence
- documentary evidence contradicting prosecution narrative
- witness testimony inconsistent with alleged occurrence
Facts affecting probability or improbability
Facts that make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue highly probable or improbable become relevant even if they are otherwise not directly connected.
Examples include:
- surrounding circumstances altering likelihood of occurrence
- physical impossibility of alleged conduct
- scientific evidence contradicting prosecution theory
Thus, the provision recognizes probability as a valid basis of evidentiary relevance.
Doctrine of logical relevancy
Section 9 reflects the principle that courts may consider logically connected facts affecting likelihood or improbability of disputed events.
Join Lexibal’s WhatsApp Community for latest updates
Detailed Explanation of the Section
Section 9 declares that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant:
if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact
or
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.
Key features of the provision include:
- admissibility of inconsistent facts
- admissibility of probability-altering circumstances
- recognition of indirect evidentiary relevance
- support for defence evidence contradicting prosecution case
- reliance on logical inference rather than direct linkage alone
The section plays a central role in evaluating circumstantial contradictions and alternative factual explanations.
Procedure or Legal Framework
Courts apply Section 9 through a structured logical assessment.
The court identifies the fact in issue or relevant fact.
It examines whether a proposed fact contradicts that fact.
If contradiction exists, the fact becomes relevant.
Alternatively, the court evaluates whether the fact increases or decreases the probability of the fact in issue.
If probability is significantly affected, the fact becomes admissible.
The court then assesses evidentiary weight based on surrounding circumstances and corroboration.
Thus, admissibility depends on logical inconsistency or probability impact.
Also Read: Section 6 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – BSA 2023
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial interpretation under the earlier evidentiary framework continues to guide application of Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997)
The Supreme Court explained that the plea of alibi is admissible under this principle because it renders the presence of the accused at the scene improbable if established satisfactorily.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
The Court held that circumstances affecting probability must form a complete chain pointing consistently toward guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
The Supreme Court reiterated that facts creating reasonable doubt regarding prosecution allegations become relevant where they affect probability of the accused’s involvement.
These decisions affirm the evidentiary importance of probability-based relevance.
Importance of the Provision
Section 9 is significant in criminal adjudication because it:
- allows admission of contradiction-based evidence
- supports defence pleas such as alibi
- strengthens evaluation of circumstantial evidence
- prevents wrongful reliance on incomplete narratives
- enables courts to assess probability logically
- ensures fairness in evidentiary assessment
It is especially important in cases lacking direct eyewitness testimony.
Connection with Other Sections
Section 9 operates within the broader scheme of relevancy provisions under the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and complements provisions relating to:
- facts forming part of the same transaction
- occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue
- motive, preparation, and conduct
- explanatory facts introducing relevant facts
- conspiracy-related evidence
Corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 corresponds to Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which governed admissibility of inconsistent facts and probability-affecting circumstances.
Illustrative Example
Suppose an accused is charged with committing a robbery in a particular city at 8:00 PM.
Evidence showing that the accused was attending a public event in another city at the same time becomes relevant under Section 9 because it makes his presence at the crime scene highly improbable.
Even though such attendance is not directly related to the robbery, it affects the probability of the fact in issue and is therefore admissible.
Conclusion
Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 broadens the scope of admissible evidence by recognizing that facts inconsistent with facts in issue or affecting their probability may become relevant even if otherwise inadmissible. By incorporating logical contradiction and probability analysis into evidentiary evaluation, the provision strengthens fairness and accuracy in criminal adjudication.
