Difference between s 9 and s11 evidence act is difficult to gauge. And hence i asked gpt about it.
S9 talks about facts which support or rebut inference suggested by fact in issue/relevant facts. S11 makes fact otherwise irrelevant, relevant if they make existence or non existence of fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable
But both talk about supporting or defeating main case. How are they different? Explain with example.
Chat GPT resolves the dispute-
Example:
A is accused of murder. A bloodstained knife is found near him (relevant fact).
→ A forensic report shows the blood on the knife matches the victim.
→ This supports the inference that the knife was used in the murder.
→ Relevant under Section 9 — it supports an inference already drawn from a relevant fact (i.e., knife near accused).
Same murder case. A claims he was in another city — CCTV footage shows him at a mall 500 km away at the time of murder.
→ This rebuts the inference that A committed the murder.
→ This is not explaining or clarifying an existing inference, but negating it entirely.
→ Relevant under Section 11 — it makes the main inference (A committed murder) improbable.
