- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Difference Between Relevancy and Admissibility
Introduction
Relevancy and admissibility are two important concepts under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). Though these expressions are often used together and overlap to a large extent, they are not synonymous. Relevancy determines whether a fact is connected with the matter in issue, whereas admissibility determines whether such relevant fact can legally be received in evidence before the Court.
The law relating to relevancy is mainly contained in Sections 4 to 50 of the BSA, while the admissibility of evidence is governed by later provisions of the Act. In Ram Bihari Yadav v State of Bihar & Others, the Supreme Court clarified that relevancy and admissibility are distinct legal concepts. A fact may be relevant but still inadmissible, and certain facts may be admissible even though they are not strictly relevant in the ordinary sense.
Meaning of Relevancy
Relevancy refers to the connection between two facts in such a manner that one fact tends to prove or disprove another fact in issue. It is based upon logic, probability, common sense, and human experience.
A relevant fact is one which helps the Court in arriving at a conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. The concept of relevancy is therefore wider in nature and includes all facts having a logical relation with the matter under inquiry.
Meaning of Admissibility
Admissibility means the legal acceptability of evidence in a Court of law. A fact may be logically relevant, but unless the law permits its reception in evidence, it cannot be admitted before the Court.
Admissibility is therefore governed by strict statutory rules and legal principles. The Court must determine whether a relevant fact is legally receivable according to the provisions of the BSA and other procedural laws.
Difference Between Relevancy and Admissibility
1. Nature and Scope
Relevancy is the general tendency of a fact to prove or disprove another fact in issue. It merely establishes a logical connection between facts. Admissibility, however, is narrower and determines whether the relevant fact can legally be presented before the Court as evidence.
Thus, relevancy is broader, while admissibility is more restrictive and technical.
2. Basis
Relevancy is based upon logic, probability, human conduct, and common experience. Admissibility is based upon strict rules of law and statutory provisions.
A fact may appear logically convincing, but if the law excludes it on grounds of public policy or legal prohibition, it becomes inadmissible.
3. Relationship Between the Two
All admissible facts are relevant, but all relevant facts are not admissible. Only legally relevant facts become admissible evidence.
For example, a confession made to a police officer may be logically relevant because it helps establish guilt, yet it is legally inadmissible under Section 23 of the BSA.
4. Function
Relevancy indicates what facts are connected with the matter under inquiry. Admissibility determines which of those relevant facts may actually be proved in Court and which must be excluded.
Therefore, relevancy is concerned with logical connection, while admissibility is concerned with legal reception.
5. Cause and Effect
Relevancy is the cause, whereas admissibility is the effect. A fact must first become relevant before the question of its admissibility arises.
6. Discretion of the Court
In matters of relevancy, the Court may exercise judicial discretion in determining whether facts are logically connected. In matters of admissibility, however, the Court is bound by statutory provisions and cannot act contrary to law.
Kinds of Relevancy
Logical Relevancy
Logical relevancy arises when the connection between facts is based upon logic, reason, and probability. Every logically connected fact may help in proving or disproving the matter in issue.
However, all logically relevant facts are not legally admissible.
Example
If A confesses before a police officer that “I killed B and hid the knife in the field,” the entire statement is logically relevant because it relates to the offence. Yet legally, only the portion relating to the discovery of the knife may become admissible under Section 23(2) of the BSA, while the confession itself remains inadmissible.
Legal Relevancy
Legal relevancy refers to those facts which are expressly declared relevant by the provisions of the BSA, especially Sections 4 to 50.
All legally relevant facts are logically relevant, but the law recognizes only certain facts as admissible for reasons of justice, fairness, and public policy.
Relevant Facts Which Are Not Admissible
Certain facts may be relevant but are excluded from evidence by law. Examples include:
Admissible Facts Which May Not Be Strictly Relevant
There are also certain facts which are admissible though not directly relevant under the ordinary rules of relevancy. These include:
Relevancy and Admissibility in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
The general rules of relevancy and admissibility apply to both civil and criminal proceedings. However, certain distinctions exist.
In civil cases, facts are proved on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities, whereas in criminal cases the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Similarly, admissions in civil cases may dispense with formal proof, but in criminal cases the prosecution must still prove all essential ingredients of the offence.
Certain rules such as confession and dying declaration mainly apply to criminal proceedings, whereas doctrines like estoppel are more commonly associated with civil law.
Conclusion
Relevancy and admissibility are closely connected but fundamentally different concepts under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Relevancy is based upon logical connection and probability, while admissibility depends upon legal recognition and statutory provisions. A fact may be logically relevant yet inadmissible because of legal restrictions. Therefore, the law carefully distinguishes between facts which merely assist logical reasoning and those which can legally be used as evidence before the Court.
Introduction
Relevancy and admissibility are two important concepts under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). Though these expressions are often used together and overlap to a large extent, they are not synonymous. Relevancy determines whether a fact is connected with the matter in issue, whereas admissibility determines whether such relevant fact can legally be received in evidence before the Court.
The law relating to relevancy is mainly contained in Sections 4 to 50 of the BSA, while the admissibility of evidence is governed by later provisions of the Act. In Ram Bihari Yadav v State of Bihar & Others, the Supreme Court clarified that relevancy and admissibility are distinct legal concepts. A fact may be relevant but still inadmissible, and certain facts may be admissible even though they are not strictly relevant in the ordinary sense.
Meaning of Relevancy
Relevancy refers to the connection between two facts in such a manner that one fact tends to prove or disprove another fact in issue. It is based upon logic, probability, common sense, and human experience.
A relevant fact is one which helps the Court in arriving at a conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. The concept of relevancy is therefore wider in nature and includes all facts having a logical relation with the matter under inquiry.
Meaning of Admissibility
Admissibility means the legal acceptability of evidence in a Court of law. A fact may be logically relevant, but unless the law permits its reception in evidence, it cannot be admitted before the Court.
Admissibility is therefore governed by strict statutory rules and legal principles. The Court must determine whether a relevant fact is legally receivable according to the provisions of the BSA and other procedural laws.
Difference Between Relevancy and Admissibility
1. Nature and Scope
Relevancy is the general tendency of a fact to prove or disprove another fact in issue. It merely establishes a logical connection between facts. Admissibility, however, is narrower and determines whether the relevant fact can legally be presented before the Court as evidence.
Thus, relevancy is broader, while admissibility is more restrictive and technical.
2. Basis
Relevancy is based upon logic, probability, human conduct, and common experience. Admissibility is based upon strict rules of law and statutory provisions.
A fact may appear logically convincing, but if the law excludes it on grounds of public policy or legal prohibition, it becomes inadmissible.
3. Relationship Between the Two
All admissible facts are relevant, but all relevant facts are not admissible. Only legally relevant facts become admissible evidence.
For example, a confession made to a police officer may be logically relevant because it helps establish guilt, yet it is legally inadmissible under Section 23 of the BSA.
4. Function
Relevancy indicates what facts are connected with the matter under inquiry. Admissibility determines which of those relevant facts may actually be proved in Court and which must be excluded.
Therefore, relevancy is concerned with logical connection, while admissibility is concerned with legal reception.
5. Cause and Effect
Relevancy is the cause, whereas admissibility is the effect. A fact must first become relevant before the question of its admissibility arises.
6. Discretion of the Court
In matters of relevancy, the Court may exercise judicial discretion in determining whether facts are logically connected. In matters of admissibility, however, the Court is bound by statutory provisions and cannot act contrary to law.
Kinds of Relevancy
Logical Relevancy
Logical relevancy arises when the connection between facts is based upon logic, reason, and probability. Every logically connected fact may help in proving or disproving the matter in issue.
However, all logically relevant facts are not legally admissible.
Example
If A confesses before a police officer that “I killed B and hid the knife in the field,” the entire statement is logically relevant because it relates to the offence. Yet legally, only the portion relating to the discovery of the knife may become admissible under Section 23(2) of the BSA, while the confession itself remains inadmissible.
Legal Relevancy
Legal relevancy refers to those facts which are expressly declared relevant by the provisions of the BSA, especially Sections 4 to 50.
All legally relevant facts are logically relevant, but the law recognizes only certain facts as admissible for reasons of justice, fairness, and public policy.
Relevant Facts Which Are Not Admissible
Certain facts may be relevant but are excluded from evidence by law. Examples include:
- Confession made to a police officer under Section 23(1) BSA.
- Confession made in police custody to any person other than a Judicial Magistrate under Section 23(2).
- Privileged communications between husband and wife, advocate and client, etc., under Sections 128, 132, 133, and 134.
Admissible Facts Which May Not Be Strictly Relevant
There are also certain facts which are admissible though not directly relevant under the ordinary rules of relevancy. These include:
- Questions asked during cross-examination to test the veracity or credibility of a witness.
- Previous statements used to corroborate or contradict a witness.
Relevancy and Admissibility in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
The general rules of relevancy and admissibility apply to both civil and criminal proceedings. However, certain distinctions exist.
In civil cases, facts are proved on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities, whereas in criminal cases the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Similarly, admissions in civil cases may dispense with formal proof, but in criminal cases the prosecution must still prove all essential ingredients of the offence.
Certain rules such as confession and dying declaration mainly apply to criminal proceedings, whereas doctrines like estoppel are more commonly associated with civil law.
Conclusion
Relevancy and admissibility are closely connected but fundamentally different concepts under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Relevancy is based upon logical connection and probability, while admissibility depends upon legal recognition and statutory provisions. A fact may be logically relevant yet inadmissible because of legal restrictions. Therefore, the law carefully distinguishes between facts which merely assist logical reasoning and those which can legally be used as evidence before the Court.
0 Comments