INTRODUCTION
The legal system of our country has a tradition of observing ordinary principles of proof and natural justice[1], the sophisticated rules of relevancy and admissibility are one of those principles enshrined in the Evidence Act[2], which is now replaced by Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam[3]. This act[4] is a procedural law that provides guidelines that should be followed while considering the evidence, and ultimately, which will help in finding the truth. The Act [5] applies to both civil and criminal types of cases. In civil cases, the rule of probability prevails, whereas in criminal cases, the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[6] Thus, the rules of relevancy and admissibility apply to both civil and criminal laws. These rules ensure that only the evidence that will help in solving the case should be placed in the court of law; it is like sifting the unnecessary chaff of facts from the necessary grains of facts to save the time of the court.[7] Thus, these rules show that not every kind of evidence is permissible in a court of law. The act[8] contains various provisions related to relevancy and admissibility, but a proper definition of the words is not given in the act[9].
RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Relevancy
Under Chapter II of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam[10] (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the relevancy of fact has been mentioned. Under section 3 of the Act,[11] Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts. What is the meaning of the term ‘relevant’? Under the act, facts that will fall under sections 3 to 50[12] shall be considered relevant. Here, relevancy means both logical relevancy as well as legal relevancy.[13] A fact might seem logically relevant according to the facts and circumstances of the case, but if it does not fall under any of the provisions from sections 3 to 50 of the Act,[14] then it is not relevant legally. Thus, these provisions are guidelines for the counsels as well as judges on what type of evidence shall be placed and about which type of facts, and what type of evidence shall be considered and about which type of facts. Sections 4 to 14 of the Act[15], explain closely connected facts; sections 15 to 25[16], explain admissions; sections 26 to 33[17] are about statements by various types of persons which are related to the case; sections 34 to 38[18] are about judgement relevancy; sections 39 to 45[19] are about opinions of third persons and section 46 to 50[20] are about character relevancy. Thus, in this way, relevancy is defined through various heads.
Section 141 of the act[21], indicates that while considering evidence, a judge should take into consideration the relevancy of evidence. But under section 168 of the act[22], it is the discretion of the judge to ask any questions, whether relevant or irrelevant, from either party to find out the truth. Thus, this provision is like an extra power that is given to the judge to consider even an irrelevant aspect. This takes us to the question of admissibility, This provision is an indication that sometimes irrelevant facts, which are not logically relevant and not even legally relevant under sections 3 to 50[23], are legally admissible.
Admissibility
After the relevancy of evidence, the next thing that is considered in a court of law is admissibility, i.e., whether the relevant evidence will be accepted in a court of law as evidence to prove a fact which is essential to decide the truth of the matter.
Under section 141 of the act[24], the power is given to the judge to decide the admissibility of the evidence. Under section 141, the judge must decide the admissibility after considering the relevancy of the evidence. But some instances allow the judge to accept even the irrelevant evidence. This discretion is given due to the ultimate goal of finding the truth. But even if the discretion is given to the judge, the judge has to adhere to the fundamental rules of evidence based on logic, fairness, and expediency.[25]
One syllogism that is important to understand the relation between relevancy and admissibility is that ‘all relevant evidence is not admissible, and all admissible evidence is not relevant’[26]. Thus, for evidence to be admissible, it is not always necessary that it must be relevant; sometimes even logically irrelevant facts may be admissible to decide a case. For example, under section 149 of the act[27], questions put during cross-examinations of the witness are legally admissible, but at the same time, it is logically irrelevant because during cross-examination the witness might be under pressure and nervousness to accept all the charges put by the opponent lawyer, and this might subvert the judicial process.[28] This is one example of a logically irrelevant fact that is admissible. There are various examples like this under the act.[29]In the same way, some relevant facts might not be admissible, for example, under section 22(1) of act[30], a confession made due to a threat, inducement or promise, is a relevant piece of evidence but it is not admissible due to its coercive character.[31] This is one example where there are various other instances of relevant evidence that are not admissible due to one or other illegality attached to its nature or character. So, the facts and circumstances of the case will determine whether the evidence is admissible or not, and the final decision will be of the judge according to section 141 of the act[32].
CASE LAWS WHERE THE COURTS DISCUSSED ABOUT RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY
In the case, State of U.P. v. Raj Narain[33], it was said that not all relevant facts are admissible. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar[34], the difference between relevancy and admissibility was explained. It was said in the case that ‘More often the expressions relevancy and admissibility are used as synonyms but their legal implications are distinct and different for more often than relevant facts are not admissible; so, also admissible facts may not be relevant, for example, questions permitted to be put in cross-examination to test the veracity or impeach the credit of the witnesses, though not relevant are admissible. The probative value of the evidence is the weight to be given to it which has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.’[35] Thus, in both cases, the elation between relevancy and admissibility was explained. In Pramod E.K v. Louna V.C[36], through section 14[37] of the Family Courts Act, family courts are not bound to sophisticated rules of relevancy or admissibility of evidence, but despite this rule of the Family Courts Act, the court said, that despite the provision the courts must adhere to the fundamental rules of evidence based on logic, fairness and expediency and also principles of natural justice.[38] Thus, this case shows that even when by express provision of any act rules of relevancy or admissibility of evidence are relaxed, then also courts must be cautious about the basic rules of evidence.
So, these are some case laws where the aspect of relevancy and admissibility was discussed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it can be said that relevancy, which is a question of logic as well as law and admissibility, which is a question of law; both are important rules of evidence enshrined in the act[39] which must be followed in a court of law to find out the truth in the case. It is possible that the evidence which is used to reach the truth of the matter might not be both relevant and admissible at the same time, but in the process of considering the evidence in the court of law both relevancy and admissibility are important factors. Thus, while considering evidence both the stages of relevancy and admissibility are important and after these stages, that evidence shall be used to reach the finality in the case which would be before the court of law.
Author(s) Name: Anshika (Law centre-II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi)
References:
[1] Pramod E.K v. Louna V.C (2019 1 KER LJ 428
[2] The Indian Evidence Act 1872
[3] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Neeraj Malik, ‘The Concept of Relevancy, Admissibility and Reliability under Indian Evidence Act, 1872: An Appraisal’ (2017) 3(7) Innovative Research Thoughts <https://irt.shodhsagar.com/index.php/j/article/download/171/169/339> accessed 26 February 2025
[7] Sidhartha Sekhar Dash, ‘Principles of Relevancy and Admissibility Under the Indian Law of Evidence’ (2017) 1(10) International Journal of Engineering Technology Research and Management
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3796301> accessed 26 February 2025
[8] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 3
[12] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 3 to 50
[13] Paridhi Selvan and Roja K, ‘A Critical study of Admissibility of Evidence’ (2018) 120(5) International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
<https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/2/119.pdf > accessed 26 February 2025
[14] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 3 to 50
[15] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 4 to 14
[16] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 15 to 25
[17] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 26 to 33
[18] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 34 to 38
[19] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 39 to 45
[20] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 46 to 50
[21] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 141
[22] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 168
[23] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 3 to 50
[24] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 141
[25] Pramod E.K v. Louna V.C (2019) 1 KER LJ 428
[26] Priyanshi Sodani, ‘Concept of Admissibility and Relevancy vis-a-vis section 5, 136 AND 165, Indian Evidence Act of 1872’ (2022) 2(5) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law
<https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CONCEPT-OF-ADMISSIBILITY-AND-RELEVANCY-VIS-A-VIS-SECTION-5-136-AND-165-INDIAN-EVIDENCE-ACT-OF-1872-.pdf > accessed 26 February 2025
[27] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 149
[28] Neeraj Malik, ‘The Concept of Relevancy, Admissibility and Reliability under Indian Evidence Act, 1872: An Appraisal’ (2017) 3(7) Innovative Research Thoughts
<https://irt.shodhsagar.com/index.php/j/article/download/171/169/339> accessed 26 February 2025
[29] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
[30] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 22(1)
[31] Neeraj Malik, ‘The Concept of Relevancy, Admissibility and Reliability under Indian Evidence Act, 1872: An Appraisal’ (2017) 3(7) Innovative Research Thoughts
<https://irt.shodhsagar.com/index.php/j/article/download/171/169/339> accessed 26 February 2025
[32] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 141
[33] (1975) 4 SCC 428
[34] (1998) 4 SCC 517
[35] Sidhartha Sekhar Dash, ‘Principles of Relevancy and Admissibility under The Indian Law of Evidence’ (2017) 1(10) International Journal of Engineering Technology Research and Management <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3796301> accessed 26 February 2025
[36] (2019) 1 KER LJ 428
[37] Family Courts Act 1984, s 14
[38] Ibid
[39] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
