Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The admissibility, not merely the weight, of the evidence depends upon the evidence of such conduct as would authorize a reasonable inference of a systematic pursuit of the tame criminal object.

45. There is thus no escape from the position that neither Section 14 nor Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act is of any assistance to the prosecution.

46. The Standing Counsel was finally con-strained to invoke the aid of Sections 9 and 11. Reliance was placed upon the rule prescribed by Section 9 that facts which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. This does not advance the argument for the prosecution. No question of identity arises till the offenders who committed the crime under investigation are ascertained by independent evidence Section 11 is equally unavailing. That section provides that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fast highly probable or improbable. As was pointed out by West, J., in R. v. Parbhudas 11 B.H.C.R. 90, the section is no doubt expressed in terms so extensive that any fact which can by a chain of ratiocination be brought into connection with another so as to have a bearing upon a point in issue, may possibly be held to be relevant within its meaning. But the connections of human affairs are so infinitely various and so far reaching that thus to take the section in its widest admissible sense would be to complicate every trial with a mass of collateral enquiries, limited only by the patience and the means of the parties. That such an extensive meaning was not intended is possibly indicated by the fact that the illustrations do not go beyond oases familiar in the English Law of Evidence; Queen-Empress v. Varjiram 16 B. 414 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 755. A restriction is further obviously imported by the use of the expression highly probable or improbable. In the case before us, what is the substance of the matter? A and B are charged with theft committed in 1914 in the house of a prostitute; evidence is brought forward to show that C and D committed a theft in toe house of another prostitute in 1918 in somewhat similar circumstances. I am not prepared to hold that the latter evidence is admissible either under Section 9 or under Section 11 to prove that A and B are the same persons as C and D. I hold, accordingly that Sections 9 and Hare of no greater assistance to the prosecution than Sections 14 and 15.