Section 09 of Indian Evidence Act _ Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.

9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.—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 relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing 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.

Illustrations

(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 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.

The fact that, at the time when he left home, he 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.

► Object of Identification Parade.—Object of TI Parade is (i) to enable witnesses to satisfy themselves that the person whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them committing the offence; and (ii) to satisfy investigating authorities that suspect is the real person whom witnesses had seen in connection with said occurrence, Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 667. ► Process and Nature of Identification Tests/Parade.—The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act; it is, at best, supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court regarding identification of the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by itself, has no independent value. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused, in Court, as the perpetrator of the crime. The identity can be fixed by circumstantial evidence also, Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 4 SCC 213 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 382. Court cannot accept identification by style of writing, Harasing Charan Mohanty v. Sh. Surendra Mohanty, (1974) 3 SCC 680. ► Validity of Identification Tests/Parade.—Even if identification of accused is by one witness only and other witness who was also present at the crime scene does not participate, investigation is not vitiated, Mohd. Kalam v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 11 SCC 352. Photograph of accused even if assumed to be published, did not affect validity of parade, even if there was long gap between publication and holding of TI parade, Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of A.P., (2012) 6 SCC 174 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 42.