Section 9 IEA vs Section 7 BSA — Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts

In India, Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaced Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) on 1 July 2024. It makes relevant the same facts that explain, introduce, support or rebut, identify, fix time or place, or show relations. Only the drafting changes, with Illustration (c) now cross-referring to Section 6.

At a glance

Section 7 is a rule of relevancy, not an offence, so no First Schedule classification applies. The BSA commenced on 1 July 2024 (S.O. 849(E), 23 February 2024).

What changed

• Minor edit — heading: "Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts" becomes "Facts necessary to explain or introduce fact in issue or relevant facts".
• Minor edit — support-or-rebut clause: "an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact" becomes "an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact".
• Minor edit — identity clause: "the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant" becomes "the identity of anything, or person whose identity, is relevant". The commas are those of the Gazette text. On a reading, the clause still covers the identity of a thing or of a person.
• Minor edit — Illustration (c): the cross-reference "relevant under section 8" becomes "relevant under section 6" (the BSA number for motive and conduct), and "at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business" becomes "at the time when he left home, A had sudden and urgent business".
• Identical in substance — Illustrations (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f): the will, libel, contract-of-service, stolen-property and riot examples are unchanged apart from punctuation.
• Identical — the limiting words: such facts "are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose".

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 9 IEA (repealed from 1 July 2024):

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.

Extract, Section 7 BSA:

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.

How it works — five gateways, one limit

Section 7 does not create a free-standing category of evidence. It admits a fact only by reference to some fact in issue or relevant fact, and only "in so far as" the fact is necessary for one of five purposes. The Act's own illustrations show each purpose.

1. To explain or introduce. Illustration (b): in a libel suit, the position and relations of the parties when the libel was published may be relevant "as introductory to the facts in issue"; the particulars of an unconnected dispute are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected their relations. Illustration (d): C's statement on leaving A's service ("I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer") is relevant as explanatory of C's conduct. Illustration (e): B's words when handing stolen property to A's wife ("A says you are to hide this") are relevant as explanatory of a fact that is part of the transaction. Illustration (f): the cries of a mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of a riot.
2. To support or rebut an inference. Illustration (c): an accused's absconding soon after the crime is relevant under Section 6 as subsequent conduct; the fact that he had sudden and urgent business at the place he went to is relevant under Section 7 "as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly". The details of that business are not relevant, except so far as needed to show it was sudden and urgent.
3. To establish identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant. This is the gateway the Supreme Court has used for evidence identifying an accused (see the judgments below).
4. To fix the time or place at which a fact in issue or relevant fact happened.
5. To show the relation of the parties by whom the fact was transacted. Illustration (a): where the question is whether a document is A's will, the state of A's property and family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant.

The limit. Every illustration pairs what is admitted with what is not — the particulars of an unconnected dispute in (b), the details of the business in (c). The closing words, "in so far as they are necessary for that purpose", confine the evidence to what the purpose requires.

What this means in practice

For the prosecution and investigating officer

• Where the accused was not known to the witness, identification evidence is admitted through the identity limb of Section 7. On the judgments below, the substantive evidence is the witness's identification in court; a parade held during investigation serves to corroborate it.
• Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) lets the court, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct an arrested person "to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit". Where the identifying person is mentally or physically disabled, the proviso requires supervision by a Magistrate and recording "by any audio-video electronic means". Section 54A CrPC (inserted by Act 25 of 2005, provisos by Act 13 of 2013) referred to a "Judicial Magistrate" and required the process to be "videographed".
• Witnesses who took part in the parade must be examined at trial; otherwise, on Vinod (below), the parade report cannot corroborate anyone.

For the defence

• Test whether the identification evidence rests only on a parade. Budhsen (below) set aside a conviction where the High Court treated parades as substantive evidence and ignored how they were conducted.
• Where an explanatory fact is tendered, hold it to its purpose: Illustration (c) shows that the reason for a sudden departure is relevant, but its details only so far as they show it was sudden and urgent.

For civil litigants

• The introductory and relationship limbs apply equally in civil suits: Illustration (a) (a disputed will) and Illustration (b) (a libel suit) are civil examples. Plead why the fact is necessary to explain, introduce or show relations, not merely that it is background.

Judgments that still matter

Budhsen and Another v. State of U.P., [1971] 1 S.C.R. 564 (1970 INSC 131) — 6 May 1970. A Bench of A. N. Ray and I. D. Dua JJ. (judgment by Dua J.) heard appeals against death sentences resting on identification at test parades. The Court stated: "Now, facts which establish the identity of an accused person are relevant under s. 9 of the Indian Evidence Act." It held that the substantive evidence of a witness is his statement in court, that identification at trial for the first time is inherently weak, that a prior test identification serves to test and strengthen its trustworthiness, and that parades "do not constitute substantive evidence". Because the High Court had treated the parades as substantive evidence and ignored how they were held, the appeals were allowed and the accused acquitted. The report does not show paragraph numbers. The identity limb of Section 9 is repeated in Section 7 BSA.

Malkhansingh and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh — Supreme Court, 8 July 2003. A Bench of N. Santosh Hegde, Ashok Bhan and B. P. Singh JJ. (judgment by B. P. Singh J.) dealt with a conviction resting on the prosecutrix's identification of the accused in court, where no test identification parade had been held during investigation. The Court said: "The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under section 9 of the Evidence Act." It held that no provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure obliges the investigating agency to hold, or gives the accused a right to claim, a parade; that parades are "essentially governed by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure"; that failure to hold one does not make identification in court inadmissible; and that the weight of such identification is for the courts of fact. Finding the prosecutrix reliable, it dismissed the appeals. Our record gives no S.C.R. or INSC citation and the text shows no paragraph numbers.

Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 80 (2025 INSC 220) — 14 February 2025. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra JJ. (judgment by Manoj Misra J.) held that "A test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence" (para 14). The parade had two purposes: to show the investigation was proceeding in the right direction where the accused was unknown, and to corroborate identification at trial. Because the three witnesses who took part were not examined, the report was "of no evidentiary value" (para 15). The Court found the remaining dock identification by a police witness unreliable, allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant (para 25). The judgment applied the IEA, not the BSA.

Section 7 BSA repeats the operative words of Section 9, so on a reading of the text these judgments remain relevant to the new section.

Which law applies to your case

Section 170(2) BSA provides that any application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before the BSA came into force "shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as in force immediately before such commencement". On a reading of that provision, a trial pending on 1 July 2024 applies Section 9 IEA; one that began afterwards applies Section 7 BSA, whatever the date of the events. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BSA equivalent of Section 9 of the Evidence Act? Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaces Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from 1 July 2024. It makes relevant the same five kinds of facts — those that explain or introduce, support or rebut an inference, establish identity, fix time or place, or show the relation of parties — in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. The changes are drafting only.

What kinds of facts does Section 7 BSA make relevant? Section 7 BSA makes relevant facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact; facts that support or rebut an inference suggested by such a fact; facts that establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant; facts that fix the time or place at which a fact in issue or relevant fact happened; and facts that show the relation of the parties by whom it was transacted. Each is relevant only in so far as it is necessary for that purpose.

Is a test identification parade substantive evidence? No. In Budhsen v. State of U.P., [1971] 1 S.C.R. 564, the Supreme Court held that facts establishing the identity of an accused are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, but that identification parades do not constitute substantive evidence; the substantive evidence is the witness's statement in court. In Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 80, the Court restated that a test identification parade is only corroborative (para 14).

Is identification of the accused in court without a prior parade admissible? Yes. In Malkhansingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supreme Court, 8 July 2003), the Court held that failure to hold a test identification parade does not make identification in court inadmissible, and that the weight to be given to it is for the courts of fact. It also said that no provision of the CrPC obliges the police to hold, or gives the accused a right to claim, a parade.

What happens if the witnesses who identified the accused at the parade are not examined at trial? In Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 80, the witnesses who took part in the parade were not examined at trial, so the Supreme Court held that the TIP report, which could only have been used to corroborate or contradict them, was of no evidentiary value (para 15). The appellant was acquitted (para 25).

Which provision lets a court direct an arrested person to join an identification? Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, formerly Section 54A CrPC, lets the court, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct an arrested person to subject himself to identification. Where the identifying person is mentally or physically disabled, the process takes place under a Magistrate's supervision and is recorded by audio-video electronic means.

Which law applies to a trial that was pending on 1 July 2024? Section 170(2) BSA provides that a trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before the BSA came into force is dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as in force immediately before commencement. The BSA commenced on 1 July 2024 under S.O. 849(E), so Section 9 IEA continues to govern those matters.

Related

• Section 8 IEA vs Section 6 BSA — Motive, preparation and conduct
• Section 162 CrPC vs Section 181 BNSS — Statements to police
• Section 27 IEA vs proviso to Section 23(2) BSA — Discovery statements
• Sections 91-92 IEA vs Sections 94-95 BSA — Exclusion of oral by documentary evidence
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• Evidence Act to BSA — master mapping table

Sources

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 6, 7, 9 and 170; commencement footnote to Section 1 (S.O. 849(E)).
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (India Code text): Sections 8, 9 and 11.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 54 and 181.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Section 54A with its footnotes, and Section 162.
• Judgments read in full text: Budhsen v. State of U.P. (1971_1_564_580_EN.md); Malkhansingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Diary_7471-2002_Judgment.md); Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025_3_80_90_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.