The question is whether A was robbed Applying Section 8 Indian Evidence Act which of the following f...........

Indian Evidence Act (IEA) 1872 Relevancy of Facts

The question is, whether A was robbed. Applying Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, which of the following facts can be relevant?

The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery he made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which the complaint was made

The terms in which, the complaint was made

Though she did not make a complaint however she said that she had been robbed as a dying declaration

All of them

Explanation:

- Option 1: The fact that A made a complaint soon after being allegedly robbed, and the circumstances around that complaint, *are* relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. This shows A’s conduct after the incident, which helps decide if the robbery likely happened.

- Option 2: The exact words or terms A used in the complaint also matter. Why? Because how A described the event can help judge the credibility and the immediacy of her reaction—key pieces to understanding whether she was actually robbed.

- Option 3: Even if there was no formal complaint, but she claimed she was robbed in a dying declaration, that’s huge. Dying declarations have special legal weight under the law. Section 8 would still make this relevant because it’s conduct and a statement tied directly to the alleged robbery.

- Option 4: So here’s what it all leads to—all of the above are relevant under Section 8. Each one gives a different angle on A’s conduct and statements after the alleged robbery.