Evidence to be confined to facts in issue and relevant fact
The primary function of court of law is to ascertain facts and circumstances of the case in order to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. It is therefore, important that courts will take into consideration certain facts in order to find out the truth of the controversy before it. In any controversy before the court there can be large number of facts. It is not possible for the court to take into account all those facts. That would lead to unnecessary wastage of time because not all facts are important.
Facts of which evidence can be given
Section 3 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provides that in any suit or proceeding, evidence may be given to prove the existence or non existence of:
(i) Fact in issue, and
(ii) Such other facts as declared to be relevant under Section 4 to 50 of the Adhiniyam.
Apart from the above facts, evidence cannot be given to prove any other facts, even if it is essential for ascertainment of truth. The evidence of the fact in issue may be given under Section 3 and the evidence of relevant facts may be given under Section 4-50 of the BSA.
Furthermore, as per Explanation to Section 3, if some provisions in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 disentitles the person to give evidence to a fact, he will not be entitle as of right to adduce that evidence in Court.
The following are the facts which are declared relevant under the Act:
1. Facts forming part of the same transaction (Section 4)
2. Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue (Section 5)
3. Motive, preparation, conduct of a party (Section 6)
4. Facts necessary to explain facts in issue (Section 7)
5. Things said or done by conspirators (Section 8)
6. Facts inconsistent with facts in issue (Section 9)
7. Facts helping in the estimation of damages (Section 10)
8. Transaction creating right, custom, etc (Section 11)
9. Facts showing state of mind and body (Section 12)
10. Facts showing whether act is intentional or accidental (Section 13)
11. Existence of course of business (Section 14)
12. Admissions and Confessions (Section 15 - 25)
13. Statements of persons who are dead or cannot be found (Section 26 and 27)
14. Statements made under certain cases (Section 28 to 33)
15. Judgments (Section 34 to 38)
16. Opinions of experts and other (Section 39 to 45)
17. Charachter (Section 46 to 50)
Thus, apart from the above mentioned facts, evidence of no other fact can be given by the parties to the suit. Section 3 excludes everything which is not declared relevant under Section 4 - 50. The expression 'and of no others' imposes an obligation on the court to exclude all irrelevant evidences.
Relevancy and Admissibility
The expression 'Relevancy of a fact' is not defined under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Section 2(1)(k) of the Adhiniyam only defines 'relevant fact' as one fact is relevant to another when one is connected to the other in the manner provided under Section 4 to 50 of the Adhiniyam. Thus, this definition also does not clarify what are relevant facts and what is relevancy. In general, relevant facts are those fact which are so connected with the fact in issue framed between the parties which suggest an inference as to the existence or non-existence of fact in issue.
Meaning of relevancy
According to Phipson, relevancy denotes connection of two events as cause and effect. So, relevancy, denotes connection between two facts such that the existence of one fact renders the existence of other fact probable or improbable. This is called logical relevancy based on deductive reasoning. Relevancy is that attribute of the fact that it is related to fact in issue or relevant fact in one or the other way specified in Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
However, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam does not recognize all fact which are logically relevant. It allows the party to prove only those facts which are expressly declared as relevant under Section 4 to 50 of the Adhiniyam. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam makes it very clear that evidence is to be given only for fact in issue and relevant fact and of no others. So, only legally relevant facts, are allowed to be proved and not logically relevant fact. All facts which are logically relevant may not be legally relevant. Whatever is legally relevant is also logically relevant but not vice versa. For example, confession made to a police officer may appear to be logically relevant but it is not legally relevant. Question of relevancy is a question of law which is decided by the judge and it can be raised at any stage in the proceedings.
Admissiblity of fact
Unlike relevancy of fact which explains what may be proved by the parties, admissibility on the other hand, is based on strict legal rules rather than logical reasoning. It relates to the permissibility of the evidence to prove a particular fact in any proceeding.
It provides the mode of proving fact in issue or relevant fact. It declares whether certain types of evidences are admissible or are to be excluded for instance, Section 3 of the Adhiniyam provides that evidence for proving only fact in issue and relevant fact are allowed and for no others. This proposition is further strengthened by reading First Proviso to Section 168 which provides that the judgement of the court should be based on relevant facts duly proved.
Further Section 141 of the Adhiniyam provides that the court shall admit any evidence and allow it to be duly proved if it is satisfied that the fact, if duly proved, would be relevant. Thus, by reading these provisions, it appears that all admissible facts are necessarily relevant.
Admissibility presupposes relevancy. Admissible evidence should be received by the court unless there is a legal reason for its rejection. Facts should not be received in evidence unless it is both relevant and admissible. The question of relevancy arises with the question of admissibility of evidence i.e. if in a trial a party proposes to prove a particular evidence that would be a question of admissibility of evidence but answer to that question would depend upon the question as to whether the fact sought to proved is relevant or not and later that relevant fact will be admissible only if it has been duly proved. Thus, if we start from Section 3 it states that the evidence can be given only of fact in issue or relevant fact as given from Section 4 - 50 of the Adhiniyam. Thus if any person whishes to adduce any evidence then he has to prove that that evidence is either the fact in issue or is a relevant fact.
Its manifestation is found in Section 141(1) also which provides that whenever any party proposes to give the evidence then the judge may ask that party to show that in what manner the evidence he proposes to give, if proved, would be relevant and may allow it only if he thinks that evidence, if proved, would be relevant.
Further Section 141(2) provides that if the party proposes to prove a fact is depended on some other fact and will be relevant only if that other fact is proved. In such a case court shall require the party to prove the other fact first on which the fact of which he proposes to give evidence, is depended.
For example if in a case, any person wishes to give evidence of dying declaration then he should first prove the fact of death of 'A' as dying declaration will be a relevant fact only when 'A' is dead. Hence, if the fact of death of 'A' cannot be proved then court will not allow the evidence of dying declaration as this fact will not be relevant if the other fact cannot be proved. Though it permits the proving of the second fact first upon an undertaking [See illustration (a) or (b)]
Section 141(3) provides that when one alleged fact depends on other alleged fact being first proved then the judge may in his discretion permit or require any of the evidence to be given first. The difference between sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section 3 in that in Seb-Section 3 both the facts are alleged fact and one of such alleged fact depends on other alleged fact. [see illustration (c) and (d)].
Even further First Proviso to Section 168 provides that judgement must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant and duly proved. This section thus mandates two requirements. Firstly, judgement can be based upon relevant fact only and secondly, such relevant fact must be duly proved. Thus, when the party who proposes to adduce evidence has proved that that evidence is relevant in said matter then he is further required to duly prove that relevant fact. Thus that relevant fact will be taken into account in judgement only when that relevant fact is duly proved and even after proving relevancy of a fact, if that fact cannot be duly proved then that fact will not be taken into account in judgement.
In Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram, (2020) 16 SCC 209, Supreme Court held that objections regarding admissibility and proof of evidence is to be decided by the court at the final stage. Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding admissibility of any material, trial court can make note of such objection and decide it at the stage of final judgement.
Relevancy and admissibility not synonymous
The Supreme Court, in Ram Bihar Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1850, has clarified that relevancy is different from admissibility and they cannot be held synonymous to each other. Relevancy is a genus while admissibility is a specie.
Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Narayan, (1975) 4 SCC 428 held that evidence is admissible and should be received by the Court unless there is legal reason for its rejection. Facts should not be received in evidence unless they are both relevant and admissible.
There are facts which even though but are not admissible under the BSA. For example, a confession made to a police officer is relevant fact but in Section 23(1) of the BSA makes it inadmissible. Similarly, communication between spouses, though relevant in certain cases, but they are declared as privideged by virtue of Section 128 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Furthermore, there are also instances under the Adhiniyam where the facts, even though irrelevant, are made admissible for example, Section 158 of the Adhiniyam allows the facts to be admitted in court in order to impleach the credibility of witness during cross-examination even though these facts are not related to fact in issue in any manner.
Court in this case has also held that it is a fundamental rule of law that evidence must be relevant in order to be admissible. But the converse in not true. Thus, relevancy of fact and admissibility of fact are neither co-extensive nor sysnonymous, the former being based on probative force and logical reasoning while the latter is based on legal policy or legal rules. All admissible facts are relevant but all relevant facts are not admissible.
0 Comments