Relevancy Of Facts In Evidence Act

The concept of Relevancy of Facts in Evidence Act is a cornerstone in determining the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts. Governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, relevancy ensures that only facts logically connected to the issues in question are considered during legal proceedings. By filtering out irrelevant or prejudicial information, the Act aims to streamline the judicial process and uphold fairness. This blog delves into the principles, key provisions, and applications of relevancy, highlighting its pivotal role in maintaining judicial integrity and efficiency.

Definition Of Relevancy

As outlined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) “relevant” refers to facts connected with the matters in issue in such a way that they can influence the determination of the case. A fact is relevant to another when, in the doctrines of logic or human experience, the existence or nonexistence of one fact tends to affect the probability of the existence or nonexistence of the other. In very simple terms, a fact is considered relevant if there is some logical relationship to the fact in issue.

Relevancy As The Cornerstone For Admissibility Of Evidence

Relevancy is a leading test for deciding whether evidence may or may not be admitted in court. A fact that happens to be untrue cannot be admitted, for lack of relevance. On the other hand, relevant evidence, if it meets additional requirements specified in the Act, is admissible.

Distinction Between Relevancy And Admissibility

While the terms “relevancy” and “admissibility” are often used interchangeably, the Act provides a clear distinction between the two. Relevancy applies to whether there exists a logical link among facts as under Sections 5 to 55 of the Act. Admissibility, on the other hand, pertains to whether the evidence is legally acceptable under the provisions of the Act and procedural rules. That is, all admissible evidence must be relevant, but not all relevant evidence is necessarily admissible. For example, evidence relevant might still be held by the court to be inadmissible because it was illegally obtained.

All Admissible Facts Are Relevant, But Not All Relevant Facts Are Admissible

One of the key principle of the Act is that all admissible facts are relevant, but not all relevant facts are admissible. This itself speaks to a layered approach of the Act. Distinguishing between relevancy and admissibility ensures fairness, reliability, and efficiency in legal proceedings by excluding unreliable or prejudicial evidence, protecting parties from bias, and maintaining focus on trustworthy, credible evidence for informed court decisions.

Key Provisions On Relevancy

Sections 5 to 55 of the Act extensively provides for relevancy of facts. These Sections provide different categories of relevant facts and the criteria under which it is admissible.

• Section 5: Evidence of Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts
  Section 5 provides that evidence can only be adduced for “facts in issue” and “relevant” facts between Sections 6 to 55. This Section requires that evidence for only relevant facts shall be produced before the Court.
• Sections 6 to 11: Different Types of Relevant Facts
  • Section 6: Res Gestae
    Principle of “things done” or res gestae, allows the admission of facts that are part of the same transaction. Statements or actions so connected in point of time, or circumstances with the fact in issue, may be received to illustrate a setting. Spontaneous utterances made during a crime can be relevant because they constitute an immediate response and contribute to a better and clearer picture of the incident.
  • Sections 17 to 31: Admissions and Confessions
    Admissions (statements made by a party which admit facts against an interest of such party) and confessions (statements in criminal cases admitting that a crime has been committed) are relevant because they directly reveal the intents, knowledge, or beliefs of the parties.
  • Section 32: Statements by Persons Who Cannot Be Called as Witnesses
    Section 32 provides an exception for admission if the declarant is unavailable as a witness by reason of death or incapable of testifying. Such statements may play an important role where the information available from the declarant is relevant in understanding the facts in issue.
  • Sections 40 to 44: Judgments of Courts of Justice when Relevant
    Judgments from other cases may be relevant under Sections 40 to 44. In cases which involve questions of res judicata or for ascertaining legal character of persons and property, prior judgments can be relevant.
  • Sections 45 to 51: Opinions of Third Persons when Relevant
    Such admissibility can also be found under Sections 45 to 51 on expert opinions. These are admissible if the matter requires a special knowledge where it covers science, art, foreign law, and even handwriting.
  • Sections 52 to 55: Character when Relevant
    Generally speaking, the character of a person is never deemed relevant unless Sections 52 to 55 intervene to make an exception in certain criminal cases relating to decisions regarding credibility and motive.

Also Read : Difference Between Fact In Issue And Relevant Fact

Applications And Implications Of Relevancy Of Facts

Relevancy determines how courts balance the evidence and derive results at trial. For example, in a criminal trial, applying the concept of relevancy, a court may admit all DNA findings, CCTV footage, or eyewitness testimonies, linking an accused to the crime. Judges demand that such standards of relevancy and admissibility be applied to make sure that trials do not deviate from the genuine issues at question, thus streamlining the judicial process.

Any evidence that would clarify, confirm, or deny facts in issue would be termed relevant and thus admissible. Any extraneous information would be excluded. For example, in a murder case, the presence of the accused in the murder scene would definitely be relevant, but personal history that has nothing to do with this case would not be.

Significance Of Relevancy Of Facts

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, relevant evidence is one of the key principles whereby judicial decisions are made regarding what facts bear a relationship to the case. By focusing attention on issues at hand with facts bearing a logical connection thereto, it ensures judici
al efficiency and fairness. It enables the drawing of logical inferences, with an end result being the preservation of integrity in legal proceedings. It aids in establishing the truth after coupled with procedural safeguards in place. The Act, thereby provides a structured application of relevancy. It does facilitate a rigorous yet fair procedure of justice. It helps in ensuring that the very subject on which the case is decided must be weighed with facts effectively mattering to such a case.

FAQs

Q1: What is the definition of "relevancy of facts" under the Indian Evidence Act?

The term "relevancy of facts" refers to the requirement that only those facts which are directly connected to the issue in dispute can be admitted as evidence in court. Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act emphasizes that evidence must have a logical connection to the matter being tried to ensure a fair trial.

Q2: How is the relevancy of a fact determined in court?

The relevancy of a fact is determined by its ability to help establish or refute the matters in dispute. Various sections of the Evidence Act, such as Sections 6 to 55, provide guidelines for identifying facts that are relevant to the case, including facts related to the context, motive, and conduct of the parties involved.

Q3: Can you provide examples of relevant facts under the Evidence Act?

Relevant facts under the Evidence Act include things like a person’s motive (Section 8), actions that directly link to the fact in issue (Section 7), or previous statements made by a party (Sections 17-31). These facts are crucial for establishing the truth of the matter being examined in the case.

Q4: Are irrelevant facts admissible in a court of law?

No, irrelevant facts are not admissible in court. Only facts that are directly relevant to the issue at hand can be presented as evidence. Any irrelevant evidence that does not assist in proving or disproving a fact in issue can be objected to and excluded by the judge.

Q5: Why is the principle of relevancy important in ensuring a fair trial?

The principle of relevancy is vital in ensuring that the court only considers evidence that is material to the case. By preventing irrelevant information from influencing the judgment, the court can focus on facts that are critical in determining the outcome of the trial, leading to a fair and unbiased decision.