Syllabus
Test Series
Notification
Brochure
Result
Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 addresses the admissibility of facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Although such facts may not be directly in issue or inherently relevant on their own, they become legally significant when they serve to:
• Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam corresponds to Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
This provision underscores the importance of auxiliary or collateral facts that may not be central to the dispute but are essential in providing clarity, context, or corroboration to the main issues of a case. For example, facts that help establish the identity of a person or object, determine the time or place of an event, or demonstrate the relationship between the parties involved can prove crucial in constructing the broader legal narrative and ensuring a well-informed judicial determination.
This provision ensures that the court has a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances surrounding the core facts, thereby enabling a more accurate assessment of the case.
“Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything, or person whose identity, is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.”
a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A. The state of A's property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.
b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.
c) A is accused of a crime. The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant under section 6, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue. The fact that, at the time when he left home, A had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly. The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.
d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A. C, on leaving A's service, says to A- “I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer”. This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C's conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.
e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A's wife. B says as he delivers it- “A says you are to hide this”. B's statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.
f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
The following are the facts that are necessary to explain or present significant facts in the matter before the court, as stated in Section 7:
As this section deals with facts that, though not independently relevant, become admissible because they help to explain, introduce, or support facts in issue or relevant facts. The nature of this section is supplementary- it allows the admission of facts that aid the court in understanding the context, background, or identity related to a principal fact. These include facts necessary to explain circumstances, fix the time or place of an occurrence, establish the identity of persons or objects, or show the relationship between parties.
For example, identification of the accused in a Test Identification Parade, recognition of handwriting, or voice identification are relevant under Section 7 when identity is in question.
Similarly, facts that establish that an accused was present at or near the scene of the crime help fix the time and place and are admissible under this section. However, such facts are not substantive evidence by themselves; they only serve to corroborate or explain other material evidence.
Indian courts, including in Musheer Khan v. State of M.P. (2010) and Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998), have clarified that evidence under Section 9 (now section 7) is useful to fill in evidentiary gaps and assist the court in evaluating the totality of circumstances, but it cannot by itself prove guilt.
Hence, the Scope of Section 7 is evidentiary and contextual- it plays a vital role in ensuring that facts in issue are understood in their proper setting, thereby aiding the process of judicial inference.
i. Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact
ii. Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact
iii. Facts which establish the identity of anything or person
iv. Facts which fix time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened; and
v. Facts which show the relation of parties
I. Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact Such facts assist in revealing the true nature of a transaction. While they may appear insignificant when considered in isolation, their evidentiary value emerges when assessed in conjunction with other facts, thereby contributing to a more complete and accurate understanding of the case.
Introductory Facts: Evidence is always allowed of facts which are necessary to introduce the fact in issue or relevant fact.
For example, where the question is whether a given document is a “will made by a certain person”, evidence may be given of the state of his property and of family at the date of the alleged will as it may be necessary to introduce the circumstances in which the will became necessary [illustration (a)]. Similarly, in a suit for libel, the state of parties relations at the time of the alleged libel [illustration (b)].
Explanatory Facts: The explanatory evidence is not relevant in itself i.e., if considered separately and alone from other evidence, it would not amount to anything. Where a person is tried for leading certain people to a riot by marching at the head of them. The cries of the mob may be given in evidence being explanatory of the nature of the transaction [illustration (f)]. Similarly, illustration(d) and (e) are examples of explanatory facts.
II. Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact
Evidence is also admissible for facts that support or rebut an inference drawn from a fact in issue or a relevant fact.
For example, if an accused absconds and is later found travelling without a ticket or wearing shabby clothes, such facts may be relevant to support an inference of guilt, as they may indicate an attempt to evade detection. However, if the accused can show that he left suddenly due to urgent business reasons, that fact may rebut the inference of guilt, highlighting the importance of considering both supporting and opposing explanations in evaluating circumstantial evidence [illustration (c)].
III. Facts which establish the identity of anything or person
Facts which establish the identity of anything, or person, refer to those that help clarify or confirm who a person is or what a particular object is, when that identity is relevant to the case. These facts become critical when the identification of a person or object is a key issue in disputes or legal proceedings.
Establishing the identity of an entity or individual: When the Court needs to determine the identity of any entity or individual, any fact that confirms such identity is considered relevant.
Identification of a person becomes legally relevant under Section 7 of the Act when the identity of the accused, victim, or witness is in dispute or requires establishment. This section permits the admission of facts which help to establish the identity of any person whose identity is a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Such evidence is particularly crucial in cases where the accused is not previously known to the witness.
Identification can be detected in certain cases by a physical mark, sign, or any wound on the body. Expert identification is achievable owing to the discovery, of handwriting, finger and footprints, and other clues. The purpose of the identity test is to assist the investigative agency.
The 'Test Identification Parade' is one of the ways of determining the identity of the accused. The purpose of the tests is to allow an eyewitness to the occurrence to identify the accused before the Magistrate. The identification of the test is absolutely required. The goal of test identification is to evaluate an eyewitness' recollection and for the prosecution to determine who can he called an eyewitness.
In India, TIP is governed by Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 which deals with ‘facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.’ The identification of an accused by a witness is considered a relevant fact that aids in the judicial process.
Before the 2005 CrPC amendment, no specific provision existed for the TIP of an accused under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now BSA, 2023) or CrPC, 1973 (now BNSS, 2023). The amendment introduced Section 54A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (now Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), empowering courts to conduct TIPs for arrested persons when necessary. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that TIP is not substantive evidence but corroborative. It is primarily used to test the veracity of a witness’s memory and ability to recognize the accused. However, failure to conduct a TIP does not render an identification in court invalid but may weaken its evidentiary value.
Evidentiary Value of TIP: Though TIP does not hold substantive evidentiary value, it acts as corroborative evidence. Courts rely on the following principles while assessing its importance:
o It helps in ensuring that the accused is correctly identified by the witness, reducing the risk of convicting an innocent person.
o If a witness correctly identifies the accused in a TIP, it adds credibility to their testimony during trial.
o The identification process evaluates the ability of the witness to recall and recognize the accused, making their court testimony more credible.
o It provides Investigative agencies with a means to establish connections between the accused and the crime, especially in cases where there is a lack of direct evidence.
o The parade is usually conducted by a magistrate or an independent officer in the presence of witnesses
o The suspect is placed among other individuals (dummies) of similar physical appearance to ensure the process remains unbiased.
o Witnesses are kept separate to prevent collusion or exchange of information that could influence identification.
o Witnesses are informed that the accused may or may not be present in the lineup and are not obligated to identify anyone if unsure.
o Witnesses are asked to identify the accused from among the participants in the lineup. The witness should not be prompted or influenced.
o The magistrate or officer records the details of the identification, including the statements of the witness and any observations made during the process.
o The process is documented, and statements are taken from the witnesses and the magistrate to maintain authenticity.
o The police do not interfere with the identification process but ensure it is conducted according to legal provisions.
o The prosecution made active efforts to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP), but the accused refused to participate. While the law does not permit the accused to be compelled to take part in such a parade, their refusal carries evidentiary consequences and is taken at their own risk, as it may weaken their defense or support an adverse inference during trial.
o If the accused contends that they were shown to the witnesses by the police prior to the Test Identification Parade, and that this was the reason for their refusal to participate, such a claim may be taken into account by the court. The court will assess whether this allegation undermines the fairness and credibility of the identification process.
o If the accused refuses to participate in the test identification parade without a valid reason, they do so at their own risk. In such cases, they cannot later challenge the validity of dock identification on the grounds of the absence of a test parade, provided the dock identification is otherwise found to be reliable and credible by the court.
o If no photograph of the accused was published in newspapers, and the only photograph available taken when the accused surrendered showed a muffled or obscured face, then the accused’s refusal to participate in the Test Identification Parade on the basis that his photograph had appeared in the media is unjustified. In such circumstances, the court may draw an adverse inference against the accused for non-cooperation.
Ram Kishan v. State of Bombay (1955), the Supreme Court held during investigation, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the offence or the individuals involved in the crime.
Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. (1971), The Supreme Court held that while a test identification parade (TIP) is not mandatory, it is necessary when witness familiarity with the accused is doubtful. The appellants, convicted under Section 302 (currently Section 103, BNS) read with Section 34 IPC, (now section 3(5) of BNS) had requested a TIP, arguing that some eyewitnesses did not know them.
In George v. State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court held that the admissibility of the identification of the accused in the Court is not affected for want of evidence of earlier identification in the TIP.
Jayan v. State of Kerala (2021), the court stated that if there was sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness then the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court cannot be discarded merely because the Test Identification Parade was not conducted. The Court observed that since the identity of the appellant was in doubt and there was no sufficient corroboration to the witness testimony, thus the appellant could not be convicted based on very doubtful evidence as to the appellant's identity.
IV. Facts which fix time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened
These facts do not directly prove or disprove the offence or fact in issue but assist the court in establishing the surrounding circumstances necessary for a proper appreciation of the evidence. For instance, if a murder is alleged to have taken place at a specific location and time, evidence showing the accused was present at that place and time, such as CCTV footage, call detail records (CDRs), eyewitness presence, or travel logs, becomes relevant. Likewise, if a witness testifies that the accused was seen near the crime scene shortly before or after the incident, that fact fixes both time and place and helps build the chain of circumstances.
V. Facts which show the relation of parties
Facts which show the relationship between the parties to a proceeding are deemed relevant, provided they are necessary to explain or support a fact in issue or a relevant fact. These relationships may include familial, professional, contractual, or social ties, and they help the court understand the context and background of the transaction, dispute, or alleged offence.
For example, in a case of dowry death or domestic violence, the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the accused (such as husband-wife or in-laws) becomes crucial to understanding the motive or the pattern of conduct.
• Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2025): The Supreme Court said that once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness. Therefore, if a witness who identified a person or an article in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not examined during trial, the report- potentially useful for corroboration or contradiction- loses its evidentiary value for identification purposes.
• P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police (2024): The Court set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court that convicted the appellant for the ‘brutal murder’ of a 14-year-old girl explaining that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was only a part of the Police investigation and not a substantive piece of evidence. The court stated that- “The substantive piece of evidence, or what can be called evidence is only dock identification that is identification made by witness in Court during trial.”
• Zafar v. State of Kerala (2024): The Supreme Court held that testimony of the prosecution witness identifying the accused persons at the police station cannot be considered a proper Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) to convict the accused. The court further held that acquitted the accused by stating that the identification of the accused by the witness at the police station cannot be considered a proper identification parade.
• Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): Identification, meaning of Facts which establish the identity of any person or thing whose identity is relevant are, by virtue of section 9 of the Evidence Act (Now under Section 7 of BSA), always relevant. The term 'identification' means proving that a person, subject or article before the Court is the very same that he or it is alleged, charged or reputed to be. Identification is almost always a matter of opinion or belief.
• Umesh Chandra & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2021): The Supreme Court observed that a test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act (Now Section 7 BSA) is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence. Its purpose is only to ensure that the investigating agency prima facie was proceeding in the right direction where the accused may be unknown or there was a fleeting glance of the accused. Mere identification in TIP cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification. Secondly, the Court held that there cannot be repeated TIPs till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused.
• Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. (2019): The SC noted that the Magistrate is given the power to order for collection of voice samples for the purpose of investigation of a crime until explicit provisions are engrafted in the CrPC (now BNSS) by the Parliament. Such direction was issued by invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India”.
• Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar v The State of Maharashtra (2018): The court held that the test identification parade was not necessary as the accused were known to PW-2 and the deceased. The necessity of holding a Test Identification Parade arises only when the accused are not previously known to each other. The Test Identification Parade is not a substantial piece of evidence but is useful for corroboration with the other evidence.
