Relavancy and Admisibility
Written by - Shalini bishi
Introduction
According to the Due Process Model, the burden of proof lies on the parties to prove their case. The common method of discovering the truth plays an important role in the modernisation of evidence. If the allegations of one party are not disputed or contested by the other, then no proof is required. Therefore, the evidence is introduced to the judge to prove the required and important facts of the case.
As per the law, evidence helps in establishing the guilt or innocence of a person. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines the “Evidence.” The definition states that any statements through which the court sanctions or requires to be presented before it by witnesses, concerning matters of fact under inquiry, such statements or documents are oral evidence. Whereas any documents including any electronic evidence which the court permits or requires, concerning matters of fact under inquiry, such documents are documentary evidence. There is no exact distinction between admissibility and receivability under this Code. Evidence may be described as inadmissible irrelevant evidence or an immaterial fact as evidence.
Definition of admission
According to Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, admission is defined as any statement made by any of the persons, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and under certain circumstances. Admissibility simply means the power to approach. Admission can be oral or documentary or contained in electronic form. Thus, the admissibility of evidence means any evidence or document used in the court of law to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact.
As mentioned in Amir Ali and Woodroffe’s Commentaries the word ” relevant” as used in the Act, is equivalent to “having probative force” and the effect of the Section is to make the evidence admissible in the circumstances specified independently of the consent of the parties.
Relevancy has been stated in Section 5 to Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The concept of relevancy is based on logic and human experience. Relevancy merely implies the relevant facts and signifies what facts are necessary to prove or disprove a fact in an issue.
Admissibility is the concept in the law of evidence that determines whether or not the evidence can be received by the court. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when any fact has been declared to be legally relevant then they become admissible. All admissible facts are relevant but, all relevant facts are not admissible. Admissibility is a decisive factor between relevance and proof and only legally relevant facts are admissible.
According to Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the final discretion on the admissibility of evidence lies with the judge. It states that when either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the judge may ask the proposing party to give the evidence in what manner the facts were alleged, then the judge shall admit that, if he thinks that a relevant fact and if the facts were proved relevant, then it would be considered, otherwise not. The evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact until the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the court is satisfied with such an undertaking.
documents such as leases, sale deeds, rent agreements, gift deeds, etc. The general rule in a civil proceeding is that the burden of proof lies on “the person who claims must prove”. In a civil trial, the legal burden of proving a fact lies on the party who claims that fact. If the defendant denies the allegations and finds a positive default such as “counterclaim”, then in that case the burden of proof shifts towards the defendant. However, at first, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in civil proceedings, after that it will shift to the defendant.
Case laws
Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia v. State
In this case, the court laid down some “relevant facts” under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1876. The Court held that a fact in an issue became relevant if it is necessary to explain or introduce, or facts which support or rebut an inference, facts which establish the identity of anything or person, facts which fix the time and place at which any fact in issue has happened and any facts which show the relation of parties by whom any fact in issue was transacted.
Ambica Charan Kundu And Ors. v. Kumud Mohun Chaudhury And Ors.
In the case of Ambica Charan v. Kumud Mohun, a general rule of Section 11 is controlled by Section 32, “when evidence consists of a statement of persons who are dead and further tests the relevance of such a statement under Section 11. Though it is not relevant and admissible under Section 32, it is admissible or relevant under Section 11. It states that it is admissible even if it is altogether immaterial, but it is highly material that it was said whether it was true or false.”
The state of Gujarat v. Ashulal Nanji Bismol
The Court held that the expression means “admissible and relevant”, there is no implied or explicit provision set out in this Act, which laid down the evidence “admissible and relevant”, in respect to the consideration of the judge to pronounce the judgment. However, it cannot be determined that any statements or documents which are not admissible or relevant can be put on record or not. Hence, the Act does not guarantee that the information which is insignificant or inadmissible cannot be recorded and put on a record of facts if the judge’s found it unfit. Any Evidence or information that may be inappropriate or admissible cannot be avoided or precluded from the record.
Conclusion
Hence, evidence is significant and crucial in both civil and criminal proceedings. It is the most integral and indispensable element of any proceedings. The evidence should always be admissible in court if the facts are relevant and reliable. The evidence shall satisfy all the specific provisions under the code. Both logical and legal relevance should be considered during admission. Hence, the courts should let in only those facts which have a high degree of probative value that would help the courts.
The law relating to evidence is not suitable for the present age and it must be amended for better functioning. The law is supreme and no man should be given the discretionary power to bend it. There must be a distinction between the law and the discretionary power of the judge. However, a new mechanism must be developed to admit or not admit a particular evidence.
.jpeg)
.png)
.jpeg)
