Logical Relevancy And Legal Relevancy of Facts
"Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant."
The Indian Evidence Act is very unique in nature. This is because it was introduced some 141 years ago. The mere fact that it was introduced so many years ago does not make it unique, it is unique because in such a long time it has not been amended many times. To stay unchanged for such a long time is a very special achievement indeed because it is not considered obsolete by any means. It was introduced by Sir James Stephen who was vested with this responsibility back in the year 1871. The Indian Evidence is very important for our country. This is because our country follows the Due Process Model, which opposite of the crime control model where the police and court play an active role in solving the veracity of the allegations made. In the Due Process Model, it is the parties of the suit on whom the burden of proof is vested. Thus it is very important to have a guideline for the submission of evidence.
The Act not only regulates the procedure for the admission of the evidence it also looks after which evidence will not be admissible under Indian Evidence Act. The fact that India follows the due process model means that theoretically the discretionary powers of the judge is very large. To prevent the judge from being arbitrary in nature while admitting evidence of a case, it is imperative that the judge is made subject to a standard set of guidelines which is to be followed across the board. This fact of denying the judge the misuse of his discretionary powers is all the more important in the present times when corruption is rampant in our country. This Indian Evidence Act is objectively used to give true justice and so that corrupt elements cannot subvert the justice system.
A very important fact also that needs to be brought to the forefront is that the Indian Evidence Act deals with two important terms that are:
The admissibility has not been defined but it is based on the factor of relevancy which has been defined. The relevancy is based on the section 5 and section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act. The procedural side of the law is the law that lays down the guidelines for the courts to search for the truth by examining the evidence produced before it.
Facts form the kernel of Indian Evidence Act and it is imperative to know about it. As the topic of this project is "logical relevancy and legal relevancy of facts". Before looking into the logical and legal relevancy of the facts it is very important to see what constitutes the facts itself. The term fact has been described under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,
·"Fact": Fact means and includes-
1.anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
2.any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
In the layman terms fact simply means a thing that exists. That is anything that is tangible is termed as a fact in layman terms. For the purposes in the evidence act it is not confined to the tangible nature even the feelings, state of mind and personal opinions are construed under the broad umbrella of facts. According to this definition, as it is clear from illustrations, the statements, feelings, opinion and state of mind are as much fact as any other fact which is tangible and visible or any way, the object of senses. According to this definition, as it is also clear from illustrations, the statements, feelings, opinion and state of mind are as much fact as any other fact which is a tangible and visible or any other circumstance of which, through the medium of senses we become aware.
Facts can also be divided as:
2.Psychological in nature.
Anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses are considered to be physical facts. Physical fact is a fact considered to have its seat in some inanimate or animate being, by virtue not of the quality by which it is considered animate, but of those which it has in common class of inanimate things. A horse, a man are physical facts. This clause refers to external facts, the subject of perception by five senses.
a) A, a man, saw something, it is a fact
b) B, a woman, said some words, it is fact.
c) C, a man, is riding on a horse, it is a fact.
Any Mental condition of which any person is conscious is Psychological fact. It is considered to have its seat in some animate being, and that by virtue of the quality by which it is constituted animate. Thus the existence of visible object, the outward aspect of intelligent agents, range themselves under the former class while to the latter belong such facts as only exist in the mind of individuals, e.g., the sensation or recollection of which man is conscious, his desires, his intentions in doing particular acts, etc.
It also refers to internal facts the subject of consciousness, such as intention, fraud, good faith and knowledge.
a) A has a good reputation in his locality.
b) A fraudulently sold his car to B.
c) A has a bad opinion about B.
The feelings, opinions etc. can’t be perceived by the senses but can be felt by the mind, so these are psychological facts.
Psychological facts can be further divided as:
a) Positive facts and
b) negative facts.
These facts are those facts whose existence are positive or affirmative.
a) A killed B. There are blood strains on the floor. There is a knife in the hand of A.
b) Parliament of India is situated at New Delhi.
These facts mean non-existence of positive facts.
a) A and B are not seen together since last 30 days.
b) Nothing is heard from B.
c) No weapon is found in the house of A.
d) A, the complainant, failed to identify B, the accused, due to lack of light.
The event or fact which is likely to occur in future and which neither occurred in the past nor is occurring at present, do not amount to ‘fact’ within the meaning of the act.
The word relevant has two meanings. In one sense it means "connected" and in another "admissible". According to Stephen, ‘relevancy’ means connection of events as cause and effect. What is really meant by relevant fact is a fact that has a certain degree of probative force. The connection may be traced either from cause to effect or from effect to cause. All facts are relevant which exists in relation to cause or effect to the fact alleged to exist.
The relevancy of facts in a case of circumstantial evidence can be explained by illustration of Rv.Richardson. In this case, a young woman of weak intellect was alone in the cottage when her parents had gone to harvest field. On their return, a little after mid-day, they found murdered with throat cut. The circumstances excluded the possibility of suicide. According to the surgeon who examined the wound, the throat was cut by a sharp edged weapon by left hand. On opening the body, the deceased was found to be pregnant for some months. On the ground, there were marks of footsteps of a person who might have run hastily through indirect way with confusion and slipped into a quagmire or bog which had stepping stones and he must have been wet till his middle of leg. The impression of footsteps were taken and measured. It appeared that the impression of the foot steps were of the person who must have worn shoes and were newly mended. The shoes appeared to be with iron knobs or nails. Along the tracks of the footsteps with a certain drops of blood were found. At this stage, there was neither any suspicion on any person murdering the woman nor was any suspicion on the man by whom she was impregnated. At the funeral, a number of persons assembled and the steward thought it a fit occasion to detect the criminal as he might not be absent to avoid any kind of suspicion. There were about sixty men at that time and after interment, the steward called one by one and asked them to take off their shoes, measured and found one of them pretty of same impression as measured nearby the cottage. The person who wore the shoes was a school master and it was suspected that he might have been father of the child and would have murdered the woman to save his character. On a closer examination, the shoes corresponded exactly with the impression in the shoes were on ground near the cottage. On a closer examination, the shoes were found to be pointed at the toe but the impression of the shoes at the place of incident were round in shape. Rest of shoes corresponded exactly with the impression in dimension, shape, sole and the position of nails. On being questioned as to where he was on the day of the murder, he without any embarrassment replied that he was employed whole day in his master’s work. His statement was confirmed by his master and fellow servant present there. A few days there-after, he was apprehended. On the examination, he acknowledged to be left-handed man. On being asked regarding some scratches on his cheek, he told that he got scratches while pulling the nuts in the wood. He adhered to his previous statement of being employed that day in his master’s work. In course of inquiry, it appeared that on the day of murder he had been absent from the work for half an hour in the forenoon; he called at a smith’s shop in the way of cottage of deceased. A young girl about hundred yards away from the cottage saw a man exactly with the dress and appearance of Richardson running hastily towards the cottage at about the same time when the deceased was murdered but she did not see his return as he might have gone by a small eminence to avoid being viewed by her. It was the very track on which footprints were found.
The fellow servants of Richardson recollected that on that day they and Richardson were driving master’s cart. While passing a wood, Richardson left the cart saying that he must run to smith shop and told fellow that he would come back in half an hour but he took longer time. On being asked by a fellow servant, he told that he had stopped in the wood to gather some nuts. One of his stockings was wet and soiled. He told that he had stepped into a marsh which he named also. His fellow servants remarked that that he must have been either mad or drunk as there was a foot path by the side of the marsh. The time of absence from the cart and the distance of the cottage from there appeared from the cart and the distance of the cottage from there appeared that he might have gone there, committed the crime and returned. On the search, his stockings were found concealed in the tatch of his apartment. The stockings were much soiled and some blood stains were also found on them. He first told that he had bleeding in the nose a few days back and then he said that he had assisted a horse in bleeding but it proved that he had not assisted. The soil on examination was found to correspond with that of more the puddle adjoining the cottage and was of a particular kind found in the neighbourhood. The shoe-maker who had mended his shoes a short while ago, was discovered. On the shoes being exhibited to the shoe-maker, he told that he had mended the shoes which were of prisoner. It came out that he was acquainted with deceased and was on one occasion seen with her in such situation as to give rise to suspicion that he had criminal intercourse with her. On being taunted with such connection with one in her situation, he felt ashamed and greatly hurt. The man sitting next to him at the time, the shoes were measured, he appeared to be a good deal agitated. Between that time and his apprehension he was advised to fly but he answered, "Where can I fly to?" the prisoner was convicted, confessed and hanged.
According to Woodroffe and Amair Ali, this is a case of illustration of method of agreement as described by Mill excluding the supposition of chance. Thus –
1."the murderer had a motive- Richardson had a motive.
2.The murdered had an opportunity at a certain hour of certain day in a certain place- Richardson had an opportunity on that hour of that day at that place.
3.The murderer was left-handed – Richardson was left- handed.
4.The murderer wore shoes which made certain marks- Richardson wore shoes which made exactly similar marks.
5.If Richardson was the murderer and wore stockings, they must have been soiled with a peculiar kind of sand- he did wear stockings which were soiled with that kind of sand.
6.If Richardson was the murderer, he would naturally conceal his stockings- he did conceal his stockings.
7.The murderer would probably get blood on his clothes- Richardson got blood on his clothes.
8.If Richardson was the murderer, he would probably tell lies about the blood – he did tell lies about the blood.
9.If Richardson was the murderer, he must have been at the place at the time in question- a man very like him was seen running towards the place at the time.
10.If Richardson was the murderer, he would probably tell lies about his proceedings during the time when the murder was committed- he told such lies
Here are ten separate marks, five of which must have been found in the murderer, one of which must have been found on the murderer if he wore stockings, whilst others probably would be found in him.
All ten were found in Richardson. Four of them were so distinctive that they could hardly have met more than one man. It is hardly imaginable that two left-handed men, wearing precisely similar shoes and closely resembling each other, should have put the same leg into same hole of the same marsh at the same time, the one of them should have committed a murder, and that the other should have causelessly hidden the stocking which had got soiled in the marsh. Yet this would be the only possible supposition consistent with Richardson’s innocence."
Relevant under the act
This act does not give any definition of word "relevant". It only lays down that a fact becomes relevant only when it is connected with other facts in any of the ways referred to, in this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. Under Chapter II, section 5 to 55 deal with the relevancy of facts. A fact in order to be relevant fact must be connected with the fact in issue or with any other relevant fact in any of the ways referred to in Sections 5 to 55. A fact not so connected is not a relevant fact. The scheme of the Act seems to make all relevant facts admissible.
Logically relevant and legally relevant
The main problem in this regard is deciding which fact is legally relevant as well as logical in nature. A fact may be logically relevant to a particular case but there is no guarantee that it will be legally admissible in the courts. So all the evidences that are to be produced in the courts have to pass two hurdles it has to be both:
1.logically relevant and
2.legally admissible at the same time.
When a fact is connected with another fact, it is logically relevant but it is relevant if the law declares it to be relevant. If it is not declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible in evidence. "Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant." Under the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be relevant to another when it is relevant under the provisions of Sections 6 to 55 of Evidence Act.
In Chamberlayne's Modren Law of Evidence, relevant, as applied to evidence, must be understood as touching upon issue which parties have made by their pleadings so as to assist in getting at the truth of the disputed facts. Whatever evidence will withstand this text should not be objected to.
Example in this regard would be the case of "State of UP v. Raj Narain" where it was shown that not all relevant facts are admissible .The case of "Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar"is a very important case which helps us to understand the concept of clearing the two hurdles and the distinction between relevancy and admissibility. The force of the section lies in the last four words where it is meant that relevancy is actually the test of admissibility. The Supreme Court in this case said that in most cases the two words admissibility and relevancy are used interchangeably with each other but their legal implication are very different because often relevant facts such as communication between the spouses in marriage is important but not legally admissible.
An important section with regard to the relevancy of the facts is section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act which speaks about the relevancy of the facts which form the part of the same transaction. The principle of section 6 is called Res Gestae this simply means a transaction or a thing done.
Section reads as following:
·Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.:
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
b) A is accused of waging war against the 1[Government of India] by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.
c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.
d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
Moreover, it can be safely concluded that the Indian Evidence Act has very intelligently created the following categories for the relevancy of facts:
i. The facts which are directly connected to the issue such as motive, cause, effect are most relevant this is contained in sections 6 to section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act.
ii. The next important relevant facts were the confessions (sections 17 to section 31)
iii. This is followed by decisions in other cases or the precedents established by law (section 40 to section 44).
The admissibility of facts is the most important factor in deciding whether a particular piece of evidence will help in solving the case. The question of the admissibility of evidence is undoubtedly a question of lawwhich is decided by the judge. Admissibility is founded and based on law and not logic. So surprisingly facts that have no logical relevancy to the issue at hand might be legally admissible in the courts. The main aim of the trial is to find out the truth. To find out the truth generally the widest possible ambit is given so that all evidence can be put before the judges so that a correct decision can be taken.
Also it is very interesting to note that after an evidence has been declared both logically relevant and legally admissible, the fact about how it has been gathered is irrelevant for the purpose of the case.
Sometimes there may be a situation when it is practically impossible to differentiate between an evidence that is admissible and evidence that is not. That is if the inadmissible is mixed up with admissible evidence to such an extent that both cannot be separated, then the whole evidence has to be rejected but this will not hold true if the evidences can be segregated on the basis of their admissibility.
There is no distinction between the rules of admitting evidence when it comes to criminal and civil cases.The omission to object about the relevancy of the evidence by the opposing party or by the court itself does not mean that the evidence has been rendered admissible.It is the court’s responsibility and duty to reject the evidences which are not admissible. In this regard it is very important to note that it does not matter in the court of law about how particular evidence has been obtained. For all practical purposes even the evidence which has been illegally obtained might be legally admissible. The mere fact that the method of obtaining it is illegal has no effect on the admissibility.The court is only interested in deciding the relevancy of the evidence to the given case. The landmark judgment in this regard is the case of "Magraj v. R K Birla". But it does not mean that the court will not look into the originality of the evidence procured that is it will check whether the evidence is free from tampering and mutilation.
Example of a logically relevant fact which is not legally admissible will be the confession made by the accused in police custody. The fact that an accused is confessing before the police seems logically relevant but the problem with this sort of situation is that the police may be too eager to solve a case before them and thus they may torture a suspect into accepting the accusation. In the due process model, the rights and freedoms of the individual are more important and all care and precaution is taken to protect these freedoms. So any confession made in police custody is not legally admissible in courts.
The previous part of the project dealt with the matter of relevancy and the admissibility of the facts. It is very important therefore to clearly describe the distinction between the two. The differences between the two are as follows:
1.The first and foremost distinction between the two is that admissibility of the evidence is strictly based on the strict questions of law whereas the relevancy is not a question of law rather it is based on the probability and the logic.
2.The next fundamental difference between the two is the basic feature of the two. That is admissibility decides whether relevant evidence has to be admitted or not whereas the relevancy declares whether the evidence is logically relevant to the facts of the given case.
1.When facts are so related as to render the existence or non-existence of other facts probable according to common course of events or human conduct, they are called relevant.
2.It is founded on logic and human experience.
3.The question regarding relevancy has been enunciated in Sec.5 to Sec.55 of I.E.Act.
4.It signifies as to what facts are necessary to prove or disprove a fact in issue.
5.It merely implies the relevant facts.
6.It is the cause.
7.The court may apply its discretion.
8.All admissible facts are relevant.
1.When facts have been declared to be legally relevant under I.E.Act, they become admissible.
2.It is founded on law not on logic.
3.The question of admissibility are provided in Sec.56 and the following sections.
4.It is a decisive factor between relevancy and proof.
5.It implies what facts are admissible and what are not admissible.
6.It is the effect.
7.There is no scope for the court to apply discretion.
8.All relevant facts are not admissible. Only legally relevant facts are admissible.
Logically relevant facts are the most important for the purpose of the solving of a case because they seem very logically connected to the issue however due to some reason they are not legally admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 24 under the Indian Evidence Act is very important in this regard.It reads as following:
·Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding:
1. A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.
2. A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.
It is related to confession made due to threat, inducement or a promise. Confession has been defined as "it is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime"so there are two conditions which need to be fulfilled when a confession is made either the confession must be direct with the accused stating explicitly that he has committed the crime or an inference can be made from his statements about his involvement in the crime. Since confession is a very important piece of evidence it is very important to examine whether the confession has been made out of free will or it has been made through coercion. Only confessions made out from free will can be accepted.The evidence will be admissible only after the court is totally satisfied that the accused was a free man at the time of confession and that his movements were not controlled by the police or any other investigative agency for the purposes of securing the confession.Also the case where the accused makes a confession thinking that the authorities would soften their attitude towards him then that confession is said to be non-voluntary.
Another section which deals with the logically relevant but legally inadmissible facts is section 25 which deals with the confession made to a police officer. Section 25 reads as follows:
·Confession to police officer not to be proved:
No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
The main principle behind rejecting the confession made under the police officer is that the evidence is considered to be untrustworthy. As for the timing of the confession is concerned all confessions made to the police before or during the investigation are considered to be invalid.It is important to note that only confessions made in presence of police are not admissible however all the statements that the accused has given to the police can be proved and used against the accused.However confessions made to the magistrate under section 164 CrPC which is admissible in the court.
Section 52 also talks about facts which are logically relevant but not legally admissible.
Section 52 reads as follows:
·In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant: In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him, is irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant.
It deals with the prior conduct and character of the accused. The main example of this section is cases of rape where the defence side in most cases tries to blame the victim by questioning the character of the victim. The prior conduct might seem logically relevant but it is not legally admissible. However according to section 53 in criminal cases the previous good conduct does become relevant.
Section 122 also is of this type. Section 122 reads as follows:
·Communications during marriage: No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.
The communication between the spouses is logically relevant but not legally admissible.
The sections of Indian Evidence Act relating to the facts which are legally admissible and relevant but not logically relevant are in stark contrast to the previously mentioned sections where logically relevant facts are not legally admissible. Here the facts are legally admissible but not logically relevant.
Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act is the section relevant here because it talks about the questions in the cross examinations of the witness.
This section reads as follows:
·Questions lawful in cross-examination: When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend:
1.to test his veracity,
2.to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
3.to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture. [Provided that in a prosecution for rape or attempt to commit rape, it shall not be permissible to put questions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix as to her general immoral character.]
This is logically irrelevant because during the cross examination the witness might under pressure and nervousness accept all the charges put by the opponent lawyer and this might subvert the judicial process. Also the cases where custody battle is fought, the child might be brainwashed by the mother and this is logically not relevant because it is commonly known fact that small children are very close to their mothers. Section 53 is also an example of the same where the prior conduct is relevant in criminal cases this is not logically relevant because prior good conduct is no guarantee that the accused will not go back on his previous vitiated conduct.
Section 11 is a very important section as it talks about the facts which are not relevant now but might become relevant at later stage due to further investigation. It reads as follows:
·When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant: Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant:
1.if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
2.if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
b) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D, every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
It has to be read with other important sections of the Indian Evidence Act that is sections 32 and 33. This section does not fall under the previous categories but it is important from the independent standpoint as it talks about the facts which are not logically relevant at the present moment but can become potentially very important for the case.
"Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant."
To conclude it must be said that the Indian Evidence Act is very important for a country like us which follows the due procedure model and is a great check on the powers of the arbitrariness of the judges. The legal admissibility and the logical relevancy both are very important for the evidence to be used properly for any particular case. A very important fact also that needs to be brought to the forefront is that the Indian Evidence Act deals with two important terms that are:
These two hurdles have to be crossed and it does not matter if the fact is logically relevant but not legally admissible because it renders the evidence useless. The word relevant has two meanings. In one sense it means "connected" and in another "admissible". According to Stephen, ‘relevancy’ means connection of events as cause and effect.
In Chamberlayne’sModren Law of Evidence, relevant, as applied to evidence, must be understood as touching upon issue which parties have made by their pleadings so as to assist in getting at the truth of the disputed facts. Whatever evidence will withstand this text should not be objected to.
This act does not give any definition of word "relevant". It only lays down that a fact becomes relevant only when it is connected with other facts in any of the ways referred to, in this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. Under Chapter II, section 5 to 55 deal with the relevancy of facts.
. A fact may be logically relevant to a particular case but there is no guarantee that it will be legally admissible in the courts. So all the evidences that are to be produced in the courts have to pass two hurdles it has to be both:
1.logically relevant and
2.legally admissible at the same time.
When a fact is connected with another fact, it is logically relevant but it is relevant if the law declares it to be relevant. If it is not declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible in evidence. "Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant."
The admissibility of facts is the most important factor in deciding whether a particular piece of evidence will help in solving the case. The question of the admissibility of evidence is undoubtedly a question of law which is decided by the judge. Admissibility is founded and based on law and not logic. So surprisingly facts that have no logical relevancy to the issue at hand might be legally admissible in the courts. The main aim of the trial is to find out the truth. To find out the truth generally the widest possible ambit is given so that all evidence can be put before the judges so that a correct decision can be taken.
Also it is very interesting to note that after evidence has been declared both logically relevant and legally admissible, the fact about how it has been gathered is irrelevant for the purpose of the case.
# Ram Jasvs.Surendra Nath. AIR 1990 All 385.
# Batuk Lal,The Law of Evidence(20th, Central Law Agency, 2013) 9.
# http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/relevancy-and-admissibilityunder-indian-evidence-act-1859-1.html (accessed at 23:02 p.m. on 13thApril 2017).
# Wills pp. 224-229, Stephen, ’Introduction to the Evidence Act’ (1902) p.93, Woodroffe and Amir Ali’ ‘Law of Evidence’ , 14thEd., pp. 64 to 68.
# Vol. I, Sec. 25.
# AIR 1975 SC 865
# AIR 1998 SC 1850
# Bibhabati DevivRamendra NarayanAIR 1947 PC 19.
# Section 136e
# Public ProsecutorvKalagana Rao(1969) 2 Andh WR 449.
# Gurmukh Singhv.Commisioner of Income TaxAIR 1944 LAH 353.
# RvMallory(1884)13 QBD 33.
# Jagdish Chandra devHarihar deAIR 1924 Cal 1042.
# Sarkar,Law of Evidence(15th, Wadhwa and Company, 2001) 95.
# ALL 1971 SC 1295
# Batuk Lal,The Law of Evidence(20th, Central Law Agency, 2013) 62.
# Supra note 2.
# Batuk Lal,The Law of Evidence(20th, Central Law Agency, 2013) 166.
# Francis Stanlyv.Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram,AIR 2007 SC 794 at p 796.
# Kusuma Anjkama Raov,State of A.P.AIR 2009 SC 2819 at p 2824.
# R.K.Dalmiav.Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 MP 132.
# Husaniyav.Emperor, AIR 1936 Lah 380.
# Jailalv.Emperor, 81 IC 347.
Post a comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *