SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope and Application of Section 7 of the Evidence Act

1950• Section 7: 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”.

• Fakta – fakta yang menjadi hal kejadian, sebab atau kesan, sama ada langsung atau selainnya, bagi fakta relevan atau fakta isu, atau yang menjadi keadaan benda dalam mana fakta itu berlaku atau, yang memberi peluang untuk fakta itu berlaku atau dilakukan.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope and Application of Section 7 of the Evidence Act

1950• 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 or mentioned the fact that he had it to third persons are relevant.

• Soalnya ialah sama ada A telah merompak B. fakta bahawa sejurus sebelum rompakan itu berlaku B telah pergi ke suatu pasaria dengan membawa wang dan bahawa dia telah menunjukan kepada orang lain atau menyebut yang dia ada wang adalah relevan.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope and Application of Section 7 of the Evidence

Act 1950• (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.

• Soalnya ialah sama ada A telah membunuh B. Tanda-tanda atas tanah yang disebabkan oleh sesuatu pergelutan pada atau dekat dengan tempat di mana pembunuhan itu telah dilakukan adalah fakta relevan.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope and Application of Section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950• (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.

• Soalnya ialah sama ada A telah meracun B. Keadaan kesihatan B sebelum ada gejala-gejala kena racun dan tabiat B yang diketahui oleh A yang memberi peluang untuk meracun B adalah fakta relevan.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope and Application of Section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950• Generally, section 7 is an extension of section 6 which is

connected to the doctrine of res gestae. However, according to Augustine Paul, section 7 has no connection to section 6. This view may be based on the reason that the facts in section 7 do not form part of the same transaction. Although the facts under section 7 do not form part of the same transaction, they are closely linked with the facts in issue. These can be considered as relevant facts. This shows that section 7 is wider in nature than section 6. The relevancy of the facts in section 7 can be clarified through the human experience. It means that whatever effect of the particular cause or what has been the constant cause of the particular effect in the past will be the same in the future.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope of section 7• The facts in section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 can be treated as relevant facts on the following

five grounds:• 1. Facts as Being the Occasion of the Relevant Facts or Facts in Issue. This refers to the facts

that show the circumstances which constituted the occasion for the happening of the fact in issue.• For example, see illustration (a) of section 7. It states that when B has money and mentioned to

third persons or showed that money and later, was robbed on the occasion of a certain fair, he was able to show that he had the money with him. Otherwise, there would be no occasion to rob him. Another example is that on the day the murder happened, the suspect went to stay with his victim or the deceased who was alone in his home at the material time.

• For instance, in Jainand v. R [1949] AIR 60, the deceased and his family stayed with the accused at his house for the purpose of getting treatment for his wife. The victim’s wife handed over her ornaments (stuff) to the accused for safe custody. The accused took all the money to allegedly purchase a truck but never purchased any such truck. This led to a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The deceased then left the house of the accused with all his belongings. The deceased continued visiting the accused to demand the return of his money. The accused promised to return it on a particular date. On that particular day, the deceased went to the accused’s house where he killed him. This fact was held to be relevant under section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 for showing facts on the occasion and cause of the murder. Per Bhargava J at 299: “The fact in issue was whether Jainand had committed the murder of Karan Singh. The facts that Jainand had taken money and ornaments from Karan Singh and had on the day of murder gone to Jainand to demand the money and ornaments are relevant facts showing occasion, cause or effect of the fact in issue.”

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope of section 7• The facts in section 7 of the Evidence

Act 1950 can be treated as relevant facts on the following five grounds:

• 2. Facts Showing Cause of the Principal Facts. Cause is defined as something that constitutes the event. In Saw Thean Theik v. R [1953] MLJ 124 where at the time of the accident, the appellant was under the influence of alcohol. The judge considered that the evidence of intoxication was relevant to an issue before the court. The police report showed that the evidence of intoxication was a relevant fact showing the cause of the accident.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope of section 7• The facts in section 7 of the Evidence Act

1950 can be treated as relevant facts on the following five grounds:

• 3. Facts as Being Their Effect. Effect means everything that leaves behind a certain result which not only records the happening of the act but also clarifies the nature of the act. For example, fingerprints, marks, footsteps, etc, at the place where the crime was committed or the injuries of the accused caused by the struggle or while being under the influence of intoxication. For instance, in the case of Yusuffali Esmail v. State of Maharashta [1968] AIR 147 the court held that if the conversation between the accused and the complainant at the time of offering and taking the bribe has been tape recorded and the voice has been identified, then the tape-recorded conversation may be relevant under section 7 as forming the effect of relevant facts.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Scope of section 7• The facts in section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 can be treated as relevant facts

on the following five grounds:• 4. Facts Providing Opportunity for the Happening of the Fact in Issue or Its

Occurrence. Opportunity is anything which would not have happened but for that cause. The prosecutor should show that the accused has the chance to commit the crime. This may involve a break in the normal routine of his life. The physical appearance at the event also can strengthen the suspicion that the person did the act. However, the opportunity should be exclusive (restricted/limited) in order to constitute the relevant fact. If there is more than one person who has the same opportunity, then other corroborated evidence should be produced in order to support the contention that one of them is the real culprit. However, the accused can provide the defence of alibi that at the material time, he was elsewhere. It is necessary to produce the witness or other means of proof that his contention is the truth. He can also say that he was a mere bystander. Among the examples under this heading are that the suspect had been seen at the place where the murder happened or that the person had acted strangely at the place before the robbery occurred.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• For instance, in the murder case of Sidik Sumar v. Emperor [1942] AIR

SIND 1126 the accused struck the victim twice with a sharp hatchet (cut) due

to a long dispute between them over a woman. The prosecution relied on the

evidence of footprints. The court held that the evidence of footprints at or

near the scene of the offence was relevant under section 7 to show the facts

constituting the effects of facts in issue. The accused used the defence of

alibi to show that he had no opportunity to kill the victim. He claimed that at

the time the event happened, he was at one place to which he goes daily to

sell milk and only returned in the evening. However, three witnesses heard

noises of abuse before the accused struck the victim, showing the opportunity

which the accused and co-accused had in waiting for their victim.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• 5. Facts Constituting the State Of Things under Which the Fact in Issue Happened. State of

things is defined as the circumstances or background on which the fact in issue happened. Usually, it encompasses the physical condition connected with the main fact which happened. The examples can be seen in the state of health, relationship between the parties involved or habits of the person.

• From all these five grounds, we can see that each is connected with the other. This connection can strengthen the allegation that the person concerned is involved with the crime in question. The principle under section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 can also be seen in Australian cases:-

• In the case of PFD [2001] 124 ACR 418 the applicant and complainant had been married. At the time of the event, the applicant was unemployed and inclined (tend) to drinking alcohol. A quarrel developed between them when the applicant returned home. The applicant pushed her from behind and punched her in the head, as a result of which, she fell to the floor. The applicant then kicked her face and stamped (pressed) on her head. The complainant, who suffered a black eye, bloody nose and bruised ears, was crying. When the complainant entered the room, he pushed her face forward on the bed, pulled her pants down, grabbed her from behind and then penetrated her anus with his penis. The assault continued for 10 to 15 minutes. The applicant then stood up, dressed himself and left the room without saying a word. The evidence of DNA proved that it belonged to the applicant. The court held that where the applicant and the victim are in an ongoing relationship with each other, the evidence of the nature of the relationship will frequently be relevant to the issue in dispute, forming part of the state of things.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Similarly, in Festa v. R [2001] 185 ACR 394, the accused and co-

accused were charged with the offence of armed robbery. At the trial, the accused was found guilty. The accused then appealed to the higher court. The court held that the evidence of witnesses showed that the female person whose behaviour was observed and described was that of the appellant’s. They observed, and were able to describe, a female's approximate age, size and general physical appearance. They said she wore a wig. That was particularly significant in the light of other evidence, which included fingerprints of the appellant on a can of wig and hair sheen, and a bottle of spirit gum, found in a unit occupied by the co-accused, Renton, together with wig stands and a set of instructions on the use of disguises. The presence of the appellant near the bank at the time it was robbed showed the occasion of the relevant facts. The blood sample which was consistent with the appellant being the offender showed the effect of the facts in issue.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• In a similar effect, in the case of

R.C. Clahoti v. Ashok Bhanji, the girl was raped and murdered by the accused. The accused was shown to have been present near the place of occurrence a little before the probable time of commission of the crime. This proved the occasion of relevant facts. Moreover, the accused had two injuries which would have been caused at or about the time of the occurrence. The nature of the injuries was such that they were scratches by the victim resisting the act of the accused.

SECTION 7 OF EA 1950• Comparison between section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 and the

Principle at Common Law• There is no difference between section 7 of the Evidence Act 1950 and

common law, where section 7 confirms the application of common law. This can be seen in the case of R v. Richardson, where Richardson was charged with the murder of the pregnant girl at a cottage. She was found dead with her throat cut. The court held that there was evidence of the footsteps of a person who had been running away from the place of the incident. This shows the effect subsequent to the event. At the time of the incident, the girl was in the cottage and was found dead with her throat cut. The fact that she was alone showed the occasion of relevant fact. There was a witness, a girl, who saw a person who looked like the accused running towards the cottage before the incident occurred. There was also the fact affording the opportunity to commit the crime, where the fellow of the servant of the accused said that the accused was away from work for about an hour. The state of things that the girl was pregnant also constituted a relevant fact to show that the accused had knowledge about the matter and as to the motive of the murder, in order to conceal the evidence, he murdered the deceased.