Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023- When the Relevancy of One Alleged Fact Depends upon Another Alleged Fact [Section 141(3)]
​
IntroductionIn many cases, the relevance of a particular fact does not exist independently. Instead, it depends upon the prior proof of another fact. Section 141(3) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) addresses this situation and vests the trial judge with discretion to regulate the order in which such facts may be proved. This provision ensures flexibility in trials while preserving judicial control over admissibility and relevance.

Statutory Provision – Section 141(3) Section 141(3) provides that:
If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either:

• Permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or
• Require evidence of the second fact to be given first before permitting evidence of the first fact.

Thus, the law does not impose a rigid sequence but leaves the order of proof to judicial discretion.

Illustrations ExplainedIllustration (c): Receiving Stolen Property

• A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen.
• Prosecution proposes to prove that A denied possession of the property.
• The relevance of denial depends on identification of the property.

📌 Judicial Discretion:
The Court may:

• Require the property to be identified first, and then prove denial, or
• Permit proof of denial before identification, depending on the circumstances.

Illustration (d): Chain of Cause and Effect

• Fact A is alleged to be the cause or effect of a fact in issue.
• Intermediate facts B, C, and D must exist to connect A with the fact in issue.

📌 Judicial Discretion:
The Court may:

• Allow proof of A first, and later insist on proof of B, C, and D, or
• Require B, C, and D to be proved before permitting proof of A.

This is especially relevant in circumstantial evidence cases, where facts must be linked in a logical chain.

Scope of Section 141(3)1. Admissibility Is a Question of Law

• Determination of relevance and admissibility is exclusively within the domain of the Judge.
• Parties can adduce evidence only of facts declared relevant under BSA.

2. Duty of the JudgeThe Judge must:

• Admit all relevant evidence, and
• Exclude all irrelevant evidence.

To decide admissibility, the Judge may:

• Ask the party proposing to give evidence how the alleged fact becomes relevant, and
• Decide whether such evidence should be allowed.

3. Judicial Control over Proceedings

• The Judge may:
  • Disallow irrelevant or hypothetical questions,
  • Exclude questions contrary to public policy or law,
  • Prevent misuse of evidence to confuse or prejudice proceedings.

This reinforces the principle that the Judge must always remain in control of the trial.

Connection with Examination of WitnessesEvidence does not come to court automatically; it is unfolded through witnesses by a structured process:
Stages of Examination

• Examination-in-chief – Witness narrates facts supporting the case of the party calling him.
• Cross-examination – Opposite party tests the truth and reliability of that narration.
• Re-examination – Clarifies doubts or explanations arising from cross-examination.

These stages are governed by:

• Section 142 – Types of examination
• Section 143 – Order and scope of examinations
• Section 146 – Leading questions

Section 141(3) operates before and during these stages, by determining whether and when a fact can be proved at all.

Why Section 141(3) Is Important

• Prevents premature rejection of evidence merely due to sequence
• Avoids rigid technicalities in trials
• Enables courts to deal effectively with complex factual matrices
• Particularly useful in:
  • Circumstantial evidence cases
  • Property and fraud cases
  • Criminal cases involving intent, knowledge, or motive

Critical AnalysisStrengths

1. Provides flexibility in the order of proof
2. Strengthens judicial discretion
3. Prevents miscarriage of justice due to technical sequencing
4. Aids efficient trial management
5. Suitable for complex evidentiary chains

Limitations

1. Heavy reliance on judicial discretion
2. Possibility of inconsistent application
3. Requires careful balancing to avoid prejudice

ConclusionSection 141(3) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 recognizes that relevance is often conditional and interdependent. By empowering the Judge to regulate the sequence in which such facts are proved, the provision ensures that justice is not obstructed by rigid procedural formalism.
Ultimately, this section reinforces the role of the Judge as the gatekeeper of relevance and admissibility, ensuring that evidence is presented in a manner that is logical, fair, and conducive to the discovery of truth.