The specific relevance rules in Chapter II cover most situations a court will encounter — same-transaction facts, causation facts, motive and conduct, explanatory facts, conspirators' statements. But some facts do real evidentiary work without fitting any of those specific rules. They contradict a fact in issue, or make a fact in issue highly probable or improbable. Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is the catch-all that admits them.
9. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. 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.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Chennai on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Ladakh is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else, and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
The BSA's edit: illustration modernisation
Section 9 corresponds to Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records that the substantive text is unchanged; only the illustration's city references have been updated. Where the IEA illustration spoke of Calcutta and Lahore, Section 9 speaks of Chennai and Ladakh — modernising the geographic references while preserving the illustrative logic entirely.
Two limbs of catch-all relevance
The alibi illustration and the elimination illustration
The two illustrations show the two limbs of Section 9 in operation.
Illustration (a) is the alibi case. The question is whether A committed a crime at Chennai on a certain day. The fact that, on the same day, A was at Ladakh is directly inconsistent with A having committed the crime at Chennai. Even though a fact about A being at Ladakh has no bearing on the general Chennai crime under Sections 3-8, it becomes relevant under Section 9(1) precisely because it contradicts the fact in issue. The second sentence of (a) picks up the high-improbability limb: even where A is not at a completely inconsistent location but at a distance rendering commission "highly improbable, though not impossible", the fact is relevant.
Illustration (b) is the elimination case. The question is whether A committed a crime, and the circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed by A, B, C, or D — one of the four. Facts showing that the crime was not committed by B, that it was not committed by C, and that it was not committed by D become highly probative on the question whether A committed it, though those individual "not-committed-by-B" facts would ordinarily have no bearing on A's case. Section 9(2) admits them through the high-probability limb, because the collective elimination makes A's guilt highly probable.
The section in context
| Section | Function |
|---|---|
| 3 | Facts in issue and relevant facts may be given in evidence |
| 4–8 | Specific relevance rules (same transaction, cause/effect, motive/conduct, explanatory, conspiracy) |
| 9 | Catch-all — otherwise-irrelevant facts become relevant if inconsistent or making a fact in issue highly probable/improbable |
Why the catch-all is necessary
The specific relevance rules in Sections 4 to 8 are shaped by well-defined conceptual categories — "same transaction", "cause or effect", "motive", "explanation or introduction", "conspiracy". They work well when the facts fit those categories, but not every important evidentiary fact does. Alibis are the classic example: an alibi has no natural home in the same-transaction rule (it is the opposite of same-transaction) or in the cause-effect rule (it is a fact about the accused being elsewhere, not a cause or effect of the crime). Section 9 supplies the mechanism to admit such facts by their evidentiary force rather than by fitting them into a category.
Standing case-law of "highly probable"
The high-probability threshold has been interpreted by Indian courts as a substantial filter, not merely a rhetorical flourish. Facts admitted under Section 9(2) typically carry strong probative force — the sort of facts that would materially move a reasonable finder of fact's assessment of the underlying question. Marginal or peripheral facts, even where genuinely bearing on probability, tend to be rejected under this section. Where the fact's real force is more modest, counsel usually try to bring it under one of the specific Sections 4-8 rules rather than Section 9(2).
Section 9 as the alibi provision in practice
In criminal trials, Section 9 is most invoked in support of the plea of alibi. The accused says: "I could not have committed the offence at that time and place because I was somewhere else." The evidence of that "somewhere else" — witness testimony, travel records, CCTV footage, mobile-tower location, hotel-registration entries — is directly inconsistent with the fact in issue and therefore relevant under Section 9(1). The burden of establishing the alibi rests on the accused, and the standard is one of preponderance (rather than beyond reasonable doubt), but the initial admissibility under Section 9(1) is straightforward.
Key Takeaways
- Catch-all for otherwise-irrelevant facts: two routes — inconsistency and high probability/improbability.
- Two illustrations: the alibi case (inconsistency) and the elimination-of-alternatives case (high probability).
- City-name modernisation: illustration updated to Chennai and Ladakh (from Calcutta and Lahore); substantive rule unchanged.
- High threshold on limb (2): "highly probable or improbable" is a real filter, not a general "relevant material" catch-all.
- The alibi provision: primary vehicle for admitting alibi evidence in criminal proceedings.
Conclusion
Section 9 is the safety net of the Chapter II relevance regime. It ensures that facts with genuine evidentiary force do not fall through the cracks between the specific relevance rules of Sections 4 to 8. Its two limbs — inconsistency and high probability/improbability — carry a discipline of their own, keeping the catch-all from becoming a general licence for loose material. The BSA has updated the illustration's geography to modern India (Chennai for Calcutta, Ladakh for Lahore) but left the doctrine intact, and the section continues to serve as the foundational admissibility rule for alibi evidence and analytical elimination proofs.