Difference between Fact in Issue and Relevant Fact 

Author: Ms. Teresa Dhar, CNLU, Patna

Q1. Defining clauses:

1. a) Facts – “ ‘Fact’ means and includes—

(1) Anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of
being perceived by the senses;

(2) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.”

Hence, it could be either be physical facts which are subject

to perception by bodily senses are physical facts. They are
also called external facts whereas those facts, which cannot be
perceived by senses are ‘Psychological Facts’. They are also
known as internal facts. 

Illustration: A man is able to see an object before him or

think about a particular thing is a fact.

b) Facts in Issue – “The expression “facts in issue” means and

includes— any fact from which, either by itself or in
connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence,
nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted
or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.

Explanation.— Whenever, under the provisions of the law for

the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure,  any Court
records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the
answer to such issue, is a fact in issue.”

In simple words, it is a fact that is disputed where any right or

liability is asserted or denied by the contesting parties. 
 1. Relevant Facts – “One fact is said to be relevant to
another when the one is connected with the other in any
of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act
relating to the relevancy of facts.”
Again, to put it simply, when a fact is connected to the
disputed fact i.e., the fact in issue, it is a relevant fact as it has
a bearing on the former.

Q2. What are the Relevancy of facts and its types?

1. Relevancy of facts is provided in the second chapter of

the IEA and a fact is said to be relevant to another when
it is relevant under the provisions of Sections 6 to 55 of
Evidence Act. Facts can either be logically relevant or
legally relevant. It is generally upheld that “Every fact
that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every
logically relevant fact may not be necessarily legally
relevant or admissible.”  A fact is logically relevant if it
is connected with another fact but it is legally relevant if
the law declares it to be relevant otherwise it is
inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. If it is not
declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible as
evidence under the Evidence Act. A fact may be
logically relevant to a particular case but there is no
guarantee that it will be legally admissible in the courts.
So all the evidence that are to be produced in the courts
have to both logically relevant and legally admissible.
Q3. What is the distinction between Fact in Issue and
Relevant fact?
 1. Other than the difference in the definition of the above 2
concepts as mentioned in Sect.3 of The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, following are the further differences:
i) A fact in issue is a necessary ingredient of a right or
liability. It is from such fact, either by itself or in connection
with other facts, that the existence or non-existence of a right
or liability necessarily follows whereas a relevant fact is not a
necessary ingredient of a right or liability.

ii) A fact in issue is called the “principal fact” or factum

probandum whereas a relevant fact is called the “evidentiary
fact” or factum probans.

iii) Fact in issue is asserted by one party and denied by the

opposing party whereas relevant facts are the basis of
inferences made.

Q4. How are the 2 concepts fundamental to the effective use

of evidence?

1. Knowledge of facts in issue and how to prove it with the

available evidence and relevant facts composes the
effective use of rules of evidence. The two concepts put
forth questions which are constructed to bring the
evidentiary material into order by showing its
significance upon the facts in issue; and under control by
leading to the recognition that the use to which an item
of evidence is to be put is a function of the needs of the
user as they are affected by the rules of evidence, and not
an essential attribute of the piece of evidence itself.
Identification of the facts in issue is integral to a
systematic approach to problems of evidence. They
provide the organizing structure and they operate at the
 highest level of generality because the dissolution of
nearly all questions concerning particular items of
evidence depends upon maintaining a lively sense of
what ultimately has to be proved. Once the facts in issue
in a particular case are clear then attention can be
focused on the precise manner in which the evidence in
question is probative of them. As for relevant fact, since
the idea is to be relevant to something, it is established
that the relevant fact is admissible if there is a nexus to
the fact in issue and not by the exclusionary rule. Also, a
relevant fact’s admissibility may well depend upon the
particular way in which it is intended to be used.
Q5. What is their importance in establishing circumstantial
evidence?

1. As mentioned before that evidence must be relevant and

it must be so to something i.e., for admission, evidence
must be relevant to facts and in cases depending upon
circumstantial evidence, evidence may have imminent
bearing not to the facts in issue themselves but rather to
facts which fall short of being themselves facts in issue
but which are more or less valuable in establishing the
facts in issue. In circumstantial evidence, the deciding
conclusion as to the guilt of the defendant is based on the
inferences drawn from the fact which are not facts in
issue themselves. However, since the evidentiary net in
case of circumstantial evidence is generally cast wider, it
is essential to utilize the facts in issue and relevant facts
to deduce the further issues that are to be proved.
Q6. What is the relevance of Sect.6 in this context?
 1. Sect. 6 or Res Gestae is associated with relevancy of
facts which form part of the same transaction i.e, “Facts
which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact
in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are
relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and
place or at different times and places.
Illustration:
a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever
was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating,
or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the
transaction, is a relevant fact.”                      

Every fact which is part of the same transaction as the fact in

issue is deemed to be relevant to the fact in issue although it
may not be actually in issue, and although if it were not part
of the same transaction it might be excluded as hearsay.
Hence this an exception to this general rule although it
essential that such facts must part of the same transactions.
The causes and effects may not be remote and every evidence
given must stand in the relation of the cause and effect of the
transaction. Hence, facts in issue and relevant facts if part of
the same transaction, are integral to the Doctrine of Res Gest