Today's discussion will mainly focus on 2 sections in Evidence Act
1950: section 6 & section 7.
The facts that fall under section 6 can be explained in a way to
mean facts which do not directly show the elements of mens rea or actus reus in an offence but will
still play a role in relating the whole case to resolve any doubt that is
possibly raised. This section is interpreted widely as there is no restriction
on the proximity of the facts in terms of the time and place.
In the case of Tan
Geok Kwang v PP, William CJ has clearly explained the concept of section 6
is to allow facts that form the transaction of a case to be taken in order to
avoid other evidences as to the other facts unintelligible. In other words,
section 6 allows parties to a case to bring in relevant facts for the
purpose of establishing fact in issue even though the facts on itself could not
consider to be material to the case.
On the other hands, section 7 in my view would be rather a
restricted provision compared to section 6. It required the facts to be in
conformity requirements listed down in the section in order that the facts can
be considered as relevant. And the requirements could be divided into 3 parts
which I will explain as below:
Requirement 1: facts are a cause OR effect OR occasion of relevant
facts OR facts in issue
In regard to this, the submission of the evidence need to be a
fact that result in the happening of a relevant facts OR facts in issue. The facts
which show the consequences of facts in issue could also be brought up as evidence.
For an example, in the case of Saw Thein Teck v R, court had affirmed
that evidence indicating the accused was drunk could be admitted under section
7 as it could be a causation of dangerous driving which the accused was charged
under.
Besides that, Illustration (b) under section 7 is an example how
marks on ground as the effect of the action of murder committed could be
submitted as a relevant facts to the case.
Requirement 2: facts must constitute the state of things under
which they happened
This requirement might sound alike to the ‘cause’ in Requirement
1. However, there is difference between them. This could be shown in
Illustration (a) of section 7 where the act of victim showed or mentioned the
fact that he had money with him is a relevant fact since it constitutes to a
situation where he possessed of an amount of money which attracted a case of
robbery. The fact that he possessed of an amount of money and make known to the
public is relevant. And this was to differentiate from the cause of robbery(by
pointing a knife at victim) which should fall under Requirement 1.
Requirement 3: facts which would afford an opportunity for the
occurrence of the facts in issue
This requirement could simply prove if there is contemplation for
the occurrence of the facts in issue, the fact is relevant. Illustration (c) shows
that A by knowing the state of B’s health could manipulate and administrate B’s poison could be a relevant fact. So it could be brought it under section 7. The same principle could be seen from the case of Aziz bin Muhd Din v PP, there could be an opportunity for a sexual intercourse to take place since the complainant and accused had spent a night together. Therefore it could be raised as evidence in court.
In short, we could see that there is no certain framework being
provided to prove facts to be relevant under section 6 except the facts must be
in the same transaction. However, this was certainly different from section 7
where there are 3 requirements to be fulfilled before facts could be brought
under it. There might be contradiction among the 2 sections but it will be best
if the facts alleged to be relevant are brought in under the most appropriate
provision.
