Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. Illustrations (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
(b) A is accused of waging war against the [Government of India] by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and gaols are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.
(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.
(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
Section 6, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 4 Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Javed Alam vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the application of Section 34 IPC (common intention), the prosecution must establish by direct or circumstantial evidence that there was a plan or meeting of mind of all accused persons to commit the offense before the commission of the crime, whether pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment. However, this meeting of mind must necessarily occur before the commission of the crime. Where the evidence shows that the act happened spontaneously without any prior agreement among all the accused, Section 34 cannot be applied, and the co-accused who did not personally commit the act cannot be held jointly liable for murder.
On this section: Admissibility of statements as part of res-gestae (facts which are the transaction itself); the Court extensively analyzed whether statements by eye-witnesses naming the driver and co-accused made to hospital personnel constitute admissible res-gestae evidence
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 6
What have the courts held on Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Javed Alam vs State of Chhattisgarh (08 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Admissibility of statements as part of res-gestae (facts which are the transaction itself); the Court extensively analyzed whether statements by eye-witnesses naming the driver and co-accused made to hospital personnel constitute admissible res-gestae evidence.
How do I find court cases under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 6, section 6 IEA, section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Javed Alam vs State of Chhattisgarh (08 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 4 (Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 6, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.