Question Description
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for situations in which facts otherwise not relevant may become relevant. It is dealt in Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as, “Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant –– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.” If a fact, which is otherwise irrelevant, disproves or tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or a relevant fact, the irrelevant fact becomes a relevant one. The section is capable of having a wide scope. However, reading the section in an unreasonably broad sense would defeat the purpose of the Evidence Act.Plea of Alibi: There are certain facts which cannot be said to have co-existed with another fact. If one fact is proved to be true for a person, another fact that cannot co-exist with the fact so proved automatically stands disproved. This is the principle behind a concept of alibi according to which if the accused is proved to have been present at a different place at the same time when the offence was committed, it is concluded that the person was not physically present during the commission of the offence. A plea of alibi must be established with absolute certainty. In a case where it was proved that the person was not physically present at the place where the act was alleged to have been committed but was present only a few miles away from such place, the plea of alibi was not allowed. Where the accused claimed that he was present at a different place when the offence was committed but failed to provide proof of the distance between the two places, the plea of alibi was not allowed.The words “highly probable or improbable” used in clause (2) of the section refers to the degree of connection between the fact in issue or relevant fact and a collateral fact. For a fact otherwise not relevant to be relevant under this section, it has to clearly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The degree of probability must be sufficiently high enough and not merely reasonable. In Mahender Singh Dahiya v. State (CBI) case, the husband was accused of killing his wife. The letters written by the wife to the husband were not considered to be relevant under the section since they failed to establish a high degree of probability."Q. In Sarojekumar Chakrabarti v. Emperor, the fact in issue was pertaining to possession of a revolver. An identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier. Can the fact that an identical revolver was publicly showed by the accused three weeks earlier become relevant though it is nowhere related to the commission of crime by the accused?a)It is irrelevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act because it was shown three weeks earlier.b)It is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act as it indicates that he does have access to revolvers.c)It is irrelevant because it is nowhere related to commission of crime by the accused.d)It is relevant because the accused showed it.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.