- Published on
KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Logical Relevancy and Legal Relevancy
Introduction
Relevancy is one of the most important principles under the law of evidence. Only those facts which are relevant to the facts in issue may generally be admitted before the Court. However, all relevant facts are not necessarily admissible. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam recognizes two kinds of relevancy, namely:
Kinds of Relevancy
1. Logical RelevancyLogical relevancy refers to the natural connection or interrelationship between facts based upon logic, reason, common sense, and probability. A fact is logically relevant if it helps in proving or disproving another fact.
Logical relevancy is broader in scope and acts as the genus. Every fact which has a logical connection with the matter in issue may be logically relevant.
However, logical relevancy alone is not sufficient to make evidence admissible in a Court of law.
2. Legal Relevancy
Legal relevancy means relevancy recognized and permitted by law. The interconnection between facts is specifically defined and regulated by statutory provisions, particularly Sections 4 to 50 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Legal relevancy is narrower in scope and forms a species of logical relevancy. Only those logically relevant facts which are declared admissible by law become legally relevant.
Thus, every legally relevant fact is logically relevant, but every logically relevant fact is not legally relevant.
Difference Between Logical Relevancy and Legal Relevancy
Nature
Logical relevancy is the genus, whereas legal relevancy is one of its species.
Recognition in Law
Logical relevancy by itself has no direct place in law unless recognized by statutory provisions. Legal relevancy, on the other hand, is specifically dealt with under Sections 4 to 50 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Scope
All logically relevant facts are not legally admissible. However, every legally relevant fact is logically relevant because legal relevancy is based upon logic and probability.
Illustrations
Example 1 – Confession to Police
Suppose A states before a police officer:
“I killed B and kept the knife in the field.”
Logically, the entire statement is relevant because both parts are connected with the offence. However, legally only the portion relating to the discovery of the knife is admissible under Section 23(2) of the BSA. The confession “I killed B” remains legally inadmissible.
Thus, a fact may be logically relevant but not legally relevant.
Example 2 – Police Confession
A confession made to a police officer may appear logically relevant because it directly relates to the commission of the crime. However, such confession is legally inadmissible under Section 23 of the BSA.
This shows that public policy and statutory rules restrict the admissibility of certain logically relevant facts.
Relevancy and Admissibility in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. Generally, the rules of evidence are common to both types of proceedings. However, certain important differences exist.
1. Difference in Standard of Proof
In civil cases, facts are proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The Court decides in favour of the party whose version appears more probable.
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Effect of Admission
In civil proceedings, admission of facts or documents generally dispenses with formal proof.
However, in criminal proceedings, even if the accused admits certain facts, the prosecution must still prove all essential ingredients of the offence.
3. Applicability of Special Rules
Certain rules such as confession and dying declaration mainly apply to criminal proceedings, whereas the doctrine of estoppel generally applies in civil proceedings.
Important Points
Every fact is usually preceded and followed by other interconnected facts. Facts rarely exist in isolation.
The law does not require every logically relevant fact to be admitted in evidence. Only those facts which satisfy the requirements of legal relevancy under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam become admissible before the Court.
Conclusion
Logical relevancy and legal relevancy together form the basis of admissibility of evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Logical relevancy depends upon reason, probability, and common sense, whereas legal relevancy depends upon statutory recognition and public policy. The law carefully filters logically relevant facts and admits only those facts which satisfy the legal requirements prescribed under the Adhiniyam.
Introduction
Relevancy is one of the most important principles under the law of evidence. Only those facts which are relevant to the facts in issue may generally be admitted before the Court. However, all relevant facts are not necessarily admissible. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam recognizes two kinds of relevancy, namely:
- Logical Relevancy, and
- Legal Relevancy.
Kinds of Relevancy
1. Logical RelevancyLogical relevancy refers to the natural connection or interrelationship between facts based upon logic, reason, common sense, and probability. A fact is logically relevant if it helps in proving or disproving another fact.
Logical relevancy is broader in scope and acts as the genus. Every fact which has a logical connection with the matter in issue may be logically relevant.
However, logical relevancy alone is not sufficient to make evidence admissible in a Court of law.
2. Legal Relevancy
Legal relevancy means relevancy recognized and permitted by law. The interconnection between facts is specifically defined and regulated by statutory provisions, particularly Sections 4 to 50 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Legal relevancy is narrower in scope and forms a species of logical relevancy. Only those logically relevant facts which are declared admissible by law become legally relevant.
Thus, every legally relevant fact is logically relevant, but every logically relevant fact is not legally relevant.
Difference Between Logical Relevancy and Legal Relevancy
Nature
Logical relevancy is the genus, whereas legal relevancy is one of its species.
Recognition in Law
Logical relevancy by itself has no direct place in law unless recognized by statutory provisions. Legal relevancy, on the other hand, is specifically dealt with under Sections 4 to 50 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Scope
All logically relevant facts are not legally admissible. However, every legally relevant fact is logically relevant because legal relevancy is based upon logic and probability.
Illustrations
Example 1 – Confession to Police
Suppose A states before a police officer:
“I killed B and kept the knife in the field.”
Logically, the entire statement is relevant because both parts are connected with the offence. However, legally only the portion relating to the discovery of the knife is admissible under Section 23(2) of the BSA. The confession “I killed B” remains legally inadmissible.
Thus, a fact may be logically relevant but not legally relevant.
Example 2 – Police Confession
A confession made to a police officer may appear logically relevant because it directly relates to the commission of the crime. However, such confession is legally inadmissible under Section 23 of the BSA.
This shows that public policy and statutory rules restrict the admissibility of certain logically relevant facts.
Relevancy and Admissibility in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. Generally, the rules of evidence are common to both types of proceedings. However, certain important differences exist.
1. Difference in Standard of Proof
In civil cases, facts are proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The Court decides in favour of the party whose version appears more probable.
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Effect of Admission
In civil proceedings, admission of facts or documents generally dispenses with formal proof.
However, in criminal proceedings, even if the accused admits certain facts, the prosecution must still prove all essential ingredients of the offence.
3. Applicability of Special Rules
Certain rules such as confession and dying declaration mainly apply to criminal proceedings, whereas the doctrine of estoppel generally applies in civil proceedings.
Important Points
Every fact is usually preceded and followed by other interconnected facts. Facts rarely exist in isolation.
The law does not require every logically relevant fact to be admitted in evidence. Only those facts which satisfy the requirements of legal relevancy under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam become admissible before the Court.
Conclusion
Logical relevancy and legal relevancy together form the basis of admissibility of evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Logical relevancy depends upon reason, probability, and common sense, whereas legal relevancy depends upon statutory recognition and public policy. The law carefully filters logically relevant facts and admits only those facts which satisfy the legal requirements prescribed under the Adhiniyam.
0 Comments