Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts
IEA 9 (Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts) corresponds most closely to BSA 7, Facts necessary to explain or introduce fact in issue or relevant facts, on a text comparison scoring 96 per cent. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed with effect from 01 Jul 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Repealed · Indian Evidence Act
Section 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 your 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.
In force · Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Section 7 Facts necessary to explain or introduce fact in issue or 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 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.
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 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.
Other provisions with similar text
The next closest matches, in order. Where a provision was split or merged, the answer is often more than one of these.
How this table was made, and what it is not
There is no official machine-readable correspondence between the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Ministry published comparison charts for human readers; nothing exists that a computer can check. So this is not an official mapping and we do not present it as one.
What it measures is how alike the text of two provisions is. For each provision of the old enactment we compare its words against every provision of the new one and report the closest, with the score. That works here because the new codes are largely a renumbering rather than a rewrite: where a provision carried over near-verbatim the match is self-evidencing, and you can see it for yourself, because both texts are set out side by side on every entry.
Where the law genuinely changed, the score falls and the entry says no close match found rather than offering a guess. Those entries matter: they are where the reform actually did something.
Check before you cite. A high score means the words are alike, not that a court has held the provisions equivalent. For that, read both texts and the Gazette.
Full Evidence Act to BSA table
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.