- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Evidence May Be Given of Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts [Section 3]
Introduction
Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam lays down the basic rule regarding admissibility of evidence. It provides that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding regarding the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and such other facts as are declared relevant under the Act, and of no others. The provision establishes the foundation of the law of evidence by limiting proof only to facts that are legally connected with the matter under inquiry.
The Explanation attached to the section clarifies that the provision does not permit a person to prove any fact which he is otherwise prohibited from proving under any law relating to civil procedure. Thus, procedural laws continue to regulate the manner and stage of production of evidence.
Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts
A fact in issue is the principal fact which must be proved or disproved in a case. It is also known as factum probandum. A relevant fact, on the other hand, is a fact connected with the fact in issue in such a manner that it helps the Court in arriving at a conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue. Such evidentiary facts are known as factum probans.
For example, in a murder case, the fact in issue is whether the accused committed the murder. Facts such as motive, preparation, possession of blood-stained weapons, absconding after the offence, or concealment of evidence are not themselves facts in issue, but they are relevant because they assist the Court in determining whether the accused committed the crime.
Illustration (a): Murder Case
Illustration (a) explains the concept of facts in issue through a murder trial. A is tried for murdering B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing death. In this case, the facts in issue are whether A beat B with the club, whether the beating caused B’s death, and whether A intended to cause B’s death. These facts directly constitute the offence and therefore require proof before the Court.
Illustration (b): Production of Documents
Illustration (b) shows that Section 3 does not override procedural law. If a plaintiff fails to produce a bond at the first hearing despite relying upon it, the section does not automatically allow him to produce it later unless the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. Thus, admissibility of evidence remains subject to procedural requirements.
Rule Under Section 3
The section establishes that evidence may only be given regarding facts in issue and relevant facts declared admissible under the Act. Evidence relating to facts not declared relevant is excluded. This rule ensures that judicial proceedings remain focused and prevents unnecessary or unrelated matters from being introduced before the Court.
For instance, if A alleges that B borrowed ₹250 from him and B denies it, the fact in issue is whether B borrowed the money. Facts such as B being in financial difficulty, B attempting to borrow money from others, A being a moneylender, or B possessing money shortly afterwards become relevant because they make the borrowing more probable.
Relevancy and Admissibility
Relevancy and admissibility are related but distinct concepts. A fact is relevant when it is logically connected with the fact in issue and is recognized by law as relevant. A fact is admissible when it is legally receivable in evidence before the Court.
Relevancy is wider than admissibility. Every admissible fact is relevant, but every relevant fact may not necessarily be admissible due to legal or procedural restrictions. Legal relevancy therefore requires not only logical connection but also recognition by the provisions of the Act.
Legal Relevancy and Logical Relevancy
Logical relevancy refers to a connection between facts according to ordinary reasoning and common sense. Legal relevancy exists only when the law specifically recognizes that connection and permits proof of such facts under Sections 4 to 50 of the Act.
Thus, the law imposes stricter standards than mere logical connection before permitting evidence to be admitted in Court.
Decision Regarding Relevancy
The question of relevancy is a question of law and must be decided by the Judge. Whenever an objection regarding relevancy is raised, the Court should determine it immediately and should not postpone the decision until final judgment.
Courts in India are under a duty to exclude irrelevant evidence even if no objection is taken by the parties. Where doubt exists, the Court generally leans in favour of relevancy rather than exclusion.
Objection to Relevancy and Admissibility
If irrelevant evidence is wrongly admitted, an objection can be raised even at the appellate stage because irrelevant evidence does not become relevant merely due to absence of objection.
However, where evidence is relevant but the mode of proof is defective or irregular, objection must be raised at the trial stage itself. Failure to object amounts to waiver of the defect. For example, secondary evidence of a document may be admitted only after proving loss of the original. If such evidence is admitted without objection during trial, the objection cannot generally be raised later.
Similarly, once a document has been exhibited and admitted into evidence, it ordinarily cannot later be removed from the record merely because it was improperly proved.
Meaning of the Words “And of No Others”
The phrase “and of no others” strictly limits parties to proving only those facts which are declared relevant under the Act. A party seeking to introduce evidence must identify the provision under which the evidence becomes admissible.
The section therefore imposes a duty upon Courts to exclude irrelevant evidence from consideration.
Effect of the Explanation
The Explanation clarifies that Section 3 does not override procedural laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure. Where procedural law prohibits production of certain evidence at a later stage, Section 3 cannot be used to bypass those restrictions.
For example, under Order VII Rules 14 and 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, documents not produced at the appropriate stage may only be admitted later with the permission of the Court.
Closely Connected Facts
Sections 4 to 14 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deal with closely connected facts. These provisions explain different categories of relevant facts that may be proved in addition to facts in issue. Together, these sections broaden the scope of relevancy and assist Courts in discovering the truth through surrounding circumstances and connected facts.
Conclusion
Section 3 forms the foundation of the law of evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It confines admissible evidence to facts in issue and legally relevant facts, thereby ensuring fairness, clarity, and efficiency in judicial proceedings.
The section also distinguishes between relevancy and admissibility, emphasizes the duty of Courts to exclude irrelevant evidence, and recognizes the continued applicability of procedural laws governing production of evidence. By restricting evidence to legally relevant matters, Section 3 helps Courts arrive at reliable and just decisions.
Introduction
Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam lays down the basic rule regarding admissibility of evidence. It provides that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding regarding the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and such other facts as are declared relevant under the Act, and of no others. The provision establishes the foundation of the law of evidence by limiting proof only to facts that are legally connected with the matter under inquiry.
The Explanation attached to the section clarifies that the provision does not permit a person to prove any fact which he is otherwise prohibited from proving under any law relating to civil procedure. Thus, procedural laws continue to regulate the manner and stage of production of evidence.
Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts
A fact in issue is the principal fact which must be proved or disproved in a case. It is also known as factum probandum. A relevant fact, on the other hand, is a fact connected with the fact in issue in such a manner that it helps the Court in arriving at a conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of the fact in issue. Such evidentiary facts are known as factum probans.
For example, in a murder case, the fact in issue is whether the accused committed the murder. Facts such as motive, preparation, possession of blood-stained weapons, absconding after the offence, or concealment of evidence are not themselves facts in issue, but they are relevant because they assist the Court in determining whether the accused committed the crime.
Illustration (a): Murder Case
Illustration (a) explains the concept of facts in issue through a murder trial. A is tried for murdering B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing death. In this case, the facts in issue are whether A beat B with the club, whether the beating caused B’s death, and whether A intended to cause B’s death. These facts directly constitute the offence and therefore require proof before the Court.
Illustration (b): Production of Documents
Illustration (b) shows that Section 3 does not override procedural law. If a plaintiff fails to produce a bond at the first hearing despite relying upon it, the section does not automatically allow him to produce it later unless the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. Thus, admissibility of evidence remains subject to procedural requirements.
Rule Under Section 3
The section establishes that evidence may only be given regarding facts in issue and relevant facts declared admissible under the Act. Evidence relating to facts not declared relevant is excluded. This rule ensures that judicial proceedings remain focused and prevents unnecessary or unrelated matters from being introduced before the Court.
For instance, if A alleges that B borrowed ₹250 from him and B denies it, the fact in issue is whether B borrowed the money. Facts such as B being in financial difficulty, B attempting to borrow money from others, A being a moneylender, or B possessing money shortly afterwards become relevant because they make the borrowing more probable.
Relevancy and Admissibility
Relevancy and admissibility are related but distinct concepts. A fact is relevant when it is logically connected with the fact in issue and is recognized by law as relevant. A fact is admissible when it is legally receivable in evidence before the Court.
Relevancy is wider than admissibility. Every admissible fact is relevant, but every relevant fact may not necessarily be admissible due to legal or procedural restrictions. Legal relevancy therefore requires not only logical connection but also recognition by the provisions of the Act.
Legal Relevancy and Logical Relevancy
Logical relevancy refers to a connection between facts according to ordinary reasoning and common sense. Legal relevancy exists only when the law specifically recognizes that connection and permits proof of such facts under Sections 4 to 50 of the Act.
Thus, the law imposes stricter standards than mere logical connection before permitting evidence to be admitted in Court.
Decision Regarding Relevancy
The question of relevancy is a question of law and must be decided by the Judge. Whenever an objection regarding relevancy is raised, the Court should determine it immediately and should not postpone the decision until final judgment.
Courts in India are under a duty to exclude irrelevant evidence even if no objection is taken by the parties. Where doubt exists, the Court generally leans in favour of relevancy rather than exclusion.
Objection to Relevancy and Admissibility
If irrelevant evidence is wrongly admitted, an objection can be raised even at the appellate stage because irrelevant evidence does not become relevant merely due to absence of objection.
However, where evidence is relevant but the mode of proof is defective or irregular, objection must be raised at the trial stage itself. Failure to object amounts to waiver of the defect. For example, secondary evidence of a document may be admitted only after proving loss of the original. If such evidence is admitted without objection during trial, the objection cannot generally be raised later.
Similarly, once a document has been exhibited and admitted into evidence, it ordinarily cannot later be removed from the record merely because it was improperly proved.
Meaning of the Words “And of No Others”
The phrase “and of no others” strictly limits parties to proving only those facts which are declared relevant under the Act. A party seeking to introduce evidence must identify the provision under which the evidence becomes admissible.
The section therefore imposes a duty upon Courts to exclude irrelevant evidence from consideration.
Effect of the Explanation
The Explanation clarifies that Section 3 does not override procedural laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure. Where procedural law prohibits production of certain evidence at a later stage, Section 3 cannot be used to bypass those restrictions.
For example, under Order VII Rules 14 and 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, documents not produced at the appropriate stage may only be admitted later with the permission of the Court.
Closely Connected Facts
Sections 4 to 14 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deal with closely connected facts. These provisions explain different categories of relevant facts that may be proved in addition to facts in issue. Together, these sections broaden the scope of relevancy and assist Courts in discovering the truth through surrounding circumstances and connected facts.
Conclusion
Section 3 forms the foundation of the law of evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It confines admissible evidence to facts in issue and legally relevant facts, thereby ensuring fairness, clarity, and efficiency in judicial proceedings.
The section also distinguishes between relevancy and admissibility, emphasizes the duty of Courts to exclude irrelevant evidence, and recognizes the continued applicability of procedural laws governing production of evidence. By restricting evidence to legally relevant matters, Section 3 helps Courts arrive at reliable and just decisions.
0 Comments