Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue
Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. Illustrations (a) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it, or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.
(c) The question is, whether A poisoned B. The state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.
Section 7, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 5 Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Ritesh Sinha vs State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in a split decision with no clear ratio decidendi. Justice Desai held that: (1) Voice sample is physical non-testimonial evidence not covered by Article 20(3); (2) A Magistrate has ancillary or implied power under Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act and Section 53 of Criminal Procedure Code to authorize voice sample collection during investigation; (3) Voice prints are like fingerprints and fall within inclusive definition of 'measurements' in Prisoners Act; (4) Voice sample can be included in 'examination' under Section 53 through doctrine of ejusdem generis. Justice Alam held that: (1) There is no express or evidently applicable provision in law authorizing compulsion to give voice sample; (2) Explanation (a) to Section 53 deals only with material and tangible bodily substances, not voice; (3) Voice sample cannot be included in definition of 'measurements' in Prisoners Act; (4) Court should not invent law through interpretation; (5) Law must come from legislature, not through court process.
On this section: Relevancy of facts. Justice Desai cited this to support admissibility of tape recorded conversations if properly identified.
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused has an indefeasible right to fair trial and equal opportunity to prove his innocence. Electronically recorded conversations are admissible as documentary evidence under the amended Indian Evidence Act and Information Technology Act 2000 when: (1) the conversation is relevant to matters in issue; (2) the voice is properly identified; and (3) the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of tampering, erasure, addition or manipulation. Courts must exercise their powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act to examine witnesses and elicit evidence essential to just decision, taking a participatory role in trials to arrive at truth. When a witness has not been cross-examined on material evidence that subsequently emerges, courts should grant opportunity for re-examination to ensure fair trial.
On this section: Cited for the proposition that contemporaneous tape recording of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible as 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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… evidence given by P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.5-Senthil and P.W.7- Gulam, who are the neighbours to P.W.1's house gave evidence as during the relevant point of time, they saw the accused with bloodstained knife and further, during such time, the accused ran away from the occurrence place with high speed. > 30. Applying Sections 6 and 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, with the factual aspects of this case, the fact deposed by P.W.5 and P.W.7 confirms the evidence given by P.W.1 to P.W.3. If no such occurrence had happened as stated by P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is not necessary for the accused to run away from the occurrence place with high speed. Therefore, …
-
… There was no reason for her to depose against the accused, if infact the incident had not taken place as deposed by her. Therefore, her evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly. Her evidence, in our opinion becomes relevant under Section 7 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as suggestive of the conduct of the accused lending a degree of probability and corroboration to the facts in issue. Her evidence is relevant in proof of the motive and the conduct of the accused. Evidence of similar facts or the crimes committed by the accused may not be relevant …
Questions about Section 7
What have the courts held on Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Ritesh Sinha vs State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary (02 Aug 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Relevancy of facts. Justice Desai cited this to support admissibility of tape recorded conversations if properly identified. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 7 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 7, section 7 IEA, section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ritesh Sinha vs State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary (02 Aug 2019).
What should I read with Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 5 (Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 7, 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.