Correct option is A
Under the Indian Evidence Act, previous conduct, including prior incidents involving the same cause of action, is relevant if it helps establish a pattern of behavior or knowledge. In this case, the fact that the dog had bitten others previously shows that 'Y' was aware of its ferocity, which makes the fact relevant to the case.
Information Booster: Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act states that facts are relevant if they make the existence of a fact in issue more probable or less probable. In this scenario, prior instances of the dog's ferocity help establish 'Y's knowledge of the danger, making these facts relevant.
Additional Knowledge:
·
(b) Incorrect: The facts are relevant because they indicate 'Y's knowledge of the dog's dangerous nature.
·
(c) Incorrect: The facts are admissible as they provide evidence of prior knowledge of risk.
·
(d) Incorrect: The facts are reliable as they show a consistent pattern of behavior involving the dog.
