FACULTY OF LAW

JAMIA MLLIA ISLAMIA

EVIDENCE LAW ASSIGNMENT

“RELEVANCY OF FACT AND

EVIDENCE”
UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1972

SUBMITTED BY:
SUBMITTED TO:
ABHISHEK DUBEY ASS.
PROF. GAURAV GUPTA
Page | 1
B.A.LL.B.(HONS.) (S/F)
FACULTY OF LAW
7TH SEMESTER JAMIA
MILLIA ISLAMIA
CONTENT
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………….

2. PREFACE………………………………………………………………..

3. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….

4. FACT…………………………………………………………………….

5. RELEVENCY……………………………………………………………

6. RELEVANT FACT………………………………………………………

Page | 2
INTRODUCTION
Indian Evidence Act is very unique in nature. This is because it was introduced some 141 years
ago. The mere fact that it was introduced so many years ago does not make it unique, it is unique
because in such a long time it has not been amended many times. To stay unchanged for such a
long time is a very special achievement indeed because it is not considered obsolete by any
means. It was introduced by Sir James Stephen who was vested with this responsibility back in
the year 1871. The Indian Evidence is very important for our country. This is because our
country follows the Due Process Model, which opposite of the crime control model where the
police and court play an active role in solving the veracity of the allegations made. In the Due
Process Model, it is the parties of the suit on whom the burden of proof is vested. Thus, it is very
important to have a guideline for the submission of evidence.

The Act not only regulates the procedure for the admission of the evidence it also looks after
which evidence will not be admissible under Indian Evidence Act. The fact that India follows the
due process model means that theoretically the discretionary powers of the judge is very large.
To prevent the judge from being arbitrary in nature while admitting evidence of a case, it is
imperative that the judge is made subject to a standard set of guidelines which is to be followed
across the board. This fact of denying the judge the misuse of his discretionary powers is all the
more important in the present times when corruption is rampant in our country. This Indian
Evidence Act is objectively used to give true justice and so that corrupt elements cannot subvert
the justice system.

Before going to further discussion in detail, we need to ascertain properly what is fact, what is
fact in issue and what is relevant fact and also the related aspects thereof in view of the law of
evidence.

Page | 3
Fact
‘Fact’ means an existing thing, event or action. The event or fact which is likely to occur in
future and which neither occurred in the past nor is occurring at present, do not amount to ‘fact’
within the meaning of I.E.Act.

As per I.E.Act, the fact is divided into two categories as following:-

1. Physical Facts (External facts) [they can be perceived by five senses]

Psychological facts (Internal facts) [they are subject to consciousness]

2. Positive facts & Negative facts

As per Sec.2 of Indian Evidence Act, Fact means and includes ----

(i) Anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses.
[Physical fact]

For example----

a) A, a man, saw something, it is a fact

b) B, a woman, said some words, it is fact.

c) C, a man, is riding on a horse, it is a fact.

d) Some chairs are arranged in a certain order in a certain place, it is a fact.

These facts have their seat in some inanimate being or animate being, but such animate being
should not be constituted by virtue of qualities.

Any Mental condition of which any person is conscious [Psychological fact].

For example-

Page | 4
a) A has a good reputation in his locality.

b) A fraudulently sold his car to B.

c) A has a bad opinion about B.

The feelings, opinions etc. can’t be perceived by the senses but can be felt by the mind, so these
are psychological facts.

These facts have their seat in an animate being by virtue of the qualities which constituted it as
animate.

Psychological facts can further be divided into two categories, namely, positive facts and
negative facts.

Positive or affirmative facts:- These facts are those facts whose existence are positive or
affirmative. For example,

a) A killed B. There are blood strains on the floor. There is a knife in the hand of A.

b) Parliament of India is situated at New Delhi.

Negative facts:- These facts mean non-existence of positive facts. For example,

a) A and B are not seen together since last 30 days.

b) Nothing is heard from B.

c) No weapon is found in the house of A.

d) A, the complainant, failed to identify B, the accused, due to lack of light.

It is pertinent to mention that in the law of evidence ‘Facts’ include-

(i) the factum probandum (i.e. principal fact to be proved) and

(ii) the factum probans (i.e. the evidentiary fact from which the principal fact follows
immediately or by inference)

Page | 5
Relevancy
Relevant Evidence is evidence that makes a reality practically obligated to be legitimate than it
would be without confirmation. Relevant proof might be rejected for unreasonable partiality,
perplexity, or a waste of time. The relevant proof is commonly permissible and irrelevant proof
is never acceptable. Two main fundamental standards on relevance:

1. Nothing is to be received which is logically not verified regarding the matters which are
required to be proved.

2. Unless and until the clear ground of law or policies excludes it, everything which is
verified or probative should come in. Relevancy act as a link between a statement of proof and a
statement that needs to be proved.

In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar 1, Supreme Court said that more often the expression
relevancy and admissibility are used as synonyms but their legal implication is different. Facts
which are relevant may not be admissible so also facts which are admissible may not be relevant.

One fact is said to apply to one another when one is associated with the other in any of the ways
alluded to in the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act relating to the relevancy of fact.

Indian Evidence Act does not give a particular meaning of relevancy or relevant fact. It
essentially depicts when one fact become applicable to another one.

Sec.5 to Sec.55 of Indian Evidence Act gives a few manners by which one fact might be
associated with another fact and in this way the idea of relevant fact can be distributed. One fact
is pertinent to another fact if they are associated with one another in any of the ways as portrayed
in Section 5 to Section 55. In the event, if a fact isn’t so associated, then the fact is irrelevant.

A court may bar important proof when the probative estimation of the proof is significantly
exceeded by the peril of at least one of the accompanying: out of line bias; confounding the
issues; misdirecting the jury; undue postponement; unnecessarily exhibiting aggregate proof.

1
AIR 1996 SC 1613.

Page | 6
As per Sec.2 of Indian Evidence Act, One fact is said to be relevant to another when one is
connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of I.E.Act relating to
relevancy of facts.

I.E.Act does not give any specific definition of ‘relevancy’ or ‘relevant fact’. It simply describes
when one fact becomes relevant to another fact.

Sir Stephen opines that the ‘relevancy’ means connection of events as cause and effect.

Generally the facts relevant to an issue are those facts which are necessary for proof or disproof
of a fact in issue. Such facts may be given in evidence directly or inferentially.

What is really meant by ‘relevant fact’ is a fact that has a certain degree of probative force. They
themselves are not facts in issue but may affect the probability of fact in issue.

Relevant facts are subsidiary or collateral in nature, but pertinent or probable in giving rise to an
inference of right or liability by a process of reasoning.

A fact may be relevant as it has connection with the fact in issue, but still it may not be
admissible. For example, communication made by spouses during marriage or professional
communication, communication made in official capacity relating to affairs of state etc. are not
admissible though they may be relevant.

On the basis of logic and not of law it can be ascertained whether a particular fact is reasonably
connected with the main issue or not. So logical relevancy signifies reasonable connection
between facts. But logical relevancy is not the sole test of admitting such fact on the record of a
court. Admissibility is founded on law not on logic. Many facts which are relied as probable and
relevant, are rejected by law as irrelevant on the ground of public policy, precedent, remote
relation or slight probative value. For examples,

a) Communication made between advocate and client under certain circumstances

b) Communication made by one spouse leally wedded to another

c) Confession made to a police officer

d) Insufficiently stamped document

The above facts are not legally relevant though they are reasonably connected with or logically
relevant to the main issue.On the other hand, there are certain facts which are logically irrelevant,
but are admissible in record by the court under I.E.Act. For example,

a) The facts or questions permitted to be asked in cross examination to test the veracity or
impeach the credit of a witness,

Page | 7
b) The facts which corroborate the evidence of a witness.

The above facts may not be relevant but admissible.

Essential ingredients of relevance

1. Relevancy is not totally dependent on law.

2. Relevancy is determined on the basis of practical experience, logic, common sense,

human experience and basic knowledge of affairs.

Relevant facts
Facts will help in supporting, refuting, clarifying or presenting significant realities are
additionally important under this section, for instance, if an individual is absconding away not
long after in the wake of being blamed for a wrongdoing, it is applicable as lead ensuing and
influenced by certainties in the issue. In Sainudeen v State of Kerala distinguishing proof of the
blamed through his voice was significant under this section.

This Section likewise covers test recognizable proof processions (TI parades). Its utility was
clarified by the Supreme Court in Ramanathan v State of TN expressing that the normal and old
routine with regards to arranging suspects for distinguishing proof by observers or by the
unfortunate casualty winds up fundamental where the personality of the culprit is obscure.

Case – Lakkshmandas Chaganla Bhatia v State

Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872, brings out certain facts which can be treated as applicable.
On the basis of this case Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia v. State , the court laid down some of
the following relevant facts:

1. Facts are important to clarify or present reality in issue or relevant fact.

2. Certainties that support or counter an induction proposed by a fact or truth in issue or a

relevant fact. Realities that set up the character of anything or individual whose personality or
identity is relevant. Substances which fix the time and spot at which any reality in issue or
noteworthy assurance occurred. Certanities which shows the relationship of social events by
whom any reality in issue or fitting truth was executed.

Another section of the Indian Evidence Act which manages adequacy is Section 11. Section 11
manages those substances which are not regularly noteworthy yet somewhat wound up being
significant in the event that they are conflicting with any appropriate truth or they make the
proximity or non-closeness of any relevant sureness exceedingly more likely than not or
fantastical.

Page | 8
Sheik Ketab-Uddin v. Nagarchand Pattak – In this case, it was held, that where the executants of
a record-holding presentations of cutoff purposes of property are alive and don’t give their
evidence, such records are not adequate around there.

Bibi Khaver v. Bibi Rukha - In this case, the court said that all together that a security truth
might be passable as significant under this segment, the state of the law is that:

The insurance truth must itself be developed by usually indisputable proof.

It must, when developed, bear the expense of a reasonable presumption or deducing concerning
the issue in the contest.

Numerous confinements are made in Section 11. R.v. Prabhudas – In a charge of fraud, proof of
ownership by the blamed for different records suspected to be forged is prohibited.

Another containment referenced for the circumstance Bela Rani v. Mahabir . In this case, the
Section 11 is also obliged by Section 17-39. Besides, concerning the appropriateness of
declarations made by a person since perished, it has been held that except if on the off chance
that they are acceptable in chapter 32 and Section 33, Section 11 won’t profit to make them
proof.

In the case of Director of PP v. Kilbourne , Lord Saimon of Glaisdale defined relevant evidence
as;

“Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative/disprobative of some matters which requires

proof. The term logical probativeness does not of itself express the element of experience. The
relevant evidence is evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less
probable.”

While in R v Hare , Thesigner J referred to the James Stephen Digest in defining relevant
evidence, as,

“the word relevant is used in the sense in which it is defined in Stephen’s Digest… Relevant to
all intents and purposes are synonymous with probative values.”

Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts (Section 5)

Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact
in issue and of such other facts which are declared to be relevant, and of no others.

Note- This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled
to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure.

Illustrations-

Page | 9
(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his
death.

At A’s trial the following facts are in issue:-

A’s beating B with the club;

A’s causing B’s death by such beating;

A’s intention to cause B’s death.

(b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at the first hearing of
the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce the bond or
prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the
conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Producer.

Further Section 165 says that the judgment should be based upon facts declared by this act to be
relevant, and duly proved.

Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction (Res Gestae)

(Section 6)
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same
transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times
and places.

Illustrations-

(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the
by-standers at the beating, or so shortly or after it as to form part of the transaction and is a
relevant fact.

(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed
insurrection in which property is destroyed troops are attacked and goals are broken open. The
occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may
not have been present at all of them.

(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between
the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the
correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel
itself.

(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were
delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.

Page | 10
Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue (Section 7)
Facts which are occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in
issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an
opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.

Illustrations-

(a) The question is, whether A robbed B.

The facts that, shortly before the robbery B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that
he showed it or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons are relevant.

(b) The question is whether A murdered B.

Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was
committed, are relevant facts.

(c) The question is whether A Poisoned B.

The state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A,
which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.

Motive preparation and previous or subsequent conduct (Section 8)

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact.

The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to
such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the
conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if
such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was
previous or subsequent thereto.

Explanation 1-

The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements unless those statements
accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the
relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.

Explanation 2-

When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and
hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.

Illustrations-

Page | 11
(a) A is tried for the murder of B.

The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and B had tried to had extort
money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.

(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond.

The fact that, at the time when the bound was alleged to be made, B required money for a
particular purpose, is relevant.

(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.

The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to
B, is relevant.

(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A.

The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which
the provisions of the alleged will relate that the consulted Vakils in reference to making the will,
and that he caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant.

(e) A is accused of a crime.

The acts that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A proved evidence which
would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself, or that he
destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons
who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are
relevant.

(f) The question is, whether A robbed B.

The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in and A’s presence – “the police are coming to look
for the man who robbed B” and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.

(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000.

The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C in A’s presence and hearing –
“I advise you not to trust A, for he B 10,000 rupees,” and that A went away without making any
answer, are relevant facts.

(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime.

The fact that A absconded after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being made for
the criminal and the contents of the letter, are relevant.

(i) A is accused of a crime.

Page | 12
The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of
property of the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which
were or might have been used in committing if, are relevant.

(j) The question is, whether A was ravished.

The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the
circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.

The fact that, without, making a complaint, she said that she had been ravished is not relevant as
conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32,
clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.

(k) The question is, whether A was robbed.

The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to the offence, the
circumstances under which, and the terms in which the complaint was made, are relevant.

The fact that he said he had been robbed, without making any complaint, is not relevant as
conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32,
clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.

Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts (Section 9)

Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut
an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of
anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue
or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was
transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.

Illustrations-

(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A.

The state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.

(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be
libelous is true.

The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant
facts as introductory to the facts in issue.

The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel
are irrelevant though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant it is affected the relations
between A and B.

Page | 13
(c) A is accused of a crime.

The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant,
under section 8 as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.

The fact that at the time when he left home he had sudden and urgent business at the place to
which he went is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.

The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are
necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.

(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A. C, on leaving A’s
service, says to A— “I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer”.

This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C’s conduct, which is relevant as a fact in
issue.

(e) A accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A’s wife.
B says as he delivers it— “A says you are to hide this”. B’s statement is relevant as explanatory
of a fact which is part of the transaction.

(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob
are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.

Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design

(Section 10)
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such
persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first
entertained by any one of them is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so
conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose showing that any such persons was a party to it.

Illustration-

Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the
Government of India.

The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected in
Calcutta for a like object D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, E published
writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Kabul the
money which C had collected at Calcutta, and the contents of a letter written by H giving an
account of the conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy, and to

Page | 14
prove A’s complicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all of them, and although the
persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and although they may have taken place
before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.

When Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant (Section 11)

Facts not otherwise relevant, are relevant,

a- if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact.

b- if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of
any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

Illustrations-

(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.

The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.

The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place
where it was committed. Which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that
he committed it, is relevant.

(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.

The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A,B,C or D.
Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else and that it was
not committed by either B, C or D is relevant.

In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine

amount are relevant (Section 12)
In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the
amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant.

Facts relevant when right or custom is in question (Section 13)

Where the question is as to existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant;

(a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed modified,
recognised, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence.

Page | 15
(b) Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised, or exercised, or in
which its exercise was disputed, asserted, or departed from.

Illustrations-

The question is whether A has a right to a fishery.

A deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, a
subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, instances in
which A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s
neighbours, are relevant facts.

Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body or bodily feeling

(Section 14)
Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith,
negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence
of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant when the existence of any such state of mind
or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.

Explanation1-

A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of
mind exists, not generally but in reference to the particular matter in question.

Explanation2-

But where, upon the trail of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the
accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this Section, the previous conviction of
such person shall also be a relevant fact.

Illustrations-

(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, It is proved that he was in
possession of a particular stolen article.

The fact that at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as
tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession to be
stolen.

(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin which, at the time
when he delivered it, he know to be counterfeit.

The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of
counterfeit is relevant.

Page | 16
The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a
counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.

Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional

(Section 15)
When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular
knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrence, in
each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

Illustrations-

(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.

The facts that a lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of which
a fire occurred, and after each of which fires. A received payment from a different insurance
office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a
book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular
occasion he received less than he really did receive.

The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional.

The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in
each case in favour of A, relevant.

(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit rupee.

The question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental.

The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D
and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.

Existence of course of business when relevant (Section 16)

When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of
business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.

Illustrations-

(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched.

Page | 17
The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be
carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place, are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A.The facts that it was posted in due
course, and was not returned through the Dead Letter Office, are relevant.

Relevant Evidence
“Relevant Evidence is evidence that makes a fact more or less likely to be true than it would be
without the evidence (looking for probative value). Relevant evidence may be excluded for
unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Relevant evidence is generally admissible and
irrelevant evidence is never admissible. Two leading principles on relevance: 1) that nothing is to
be received which is not logically probative of some matter requiring to be proved; and 2) that
everything which is thus probative should come in, unless a clear ground of policy or law
excludes it. Relevancy exists as a relation between an item of evidence and a proposition sought
to be proved.

In an American case , the rule of law stated by the court was that “the determination of the
relevancy of a particular item of evidence rests on whether proof of that evidence would
reasonably tend to help resolve the primary issue at trial.”

All reality is relevant which is equipped for bearing any reasonable assumption as to facts in
issue or principal matter in dispute. Sir “Stephen,” said that relevancy means a connection of
event as cause and effect. By and large, the realities significant to an issue are those actualities
that are important for evidence or disproof of reality in the issue. Such realities might be given in
proof legitimately or inferentially.

What is truly implied by ‘relevancy of fact’ is a fact that has a specific level of probative power.
They are not certainties in issue but rather may influence the probability of reality in the issue.

Relevant evidence is auxiliary or collateral in nature, yet appropriate or likely in offering ascend
to a derivation of right or risk by a procedure of thinking.

A fact will be relevant only when it has a link with the facts in issue, but it is not admissible. For
example- communication between spouses during the marriage or any professional
communication or communication which is made regarding the affairs of the state these all are
not admissible but they are relevant. A particular fact is reasonably connected to the main issue it
can be easily ascertained by logic and not by law. Therefore, logical relevancy signifies a
reasonable link between the facts. Basically, it is a question of fact in which lawyer duty arises
and they have to decide whether to tender the proof in the court or not. The Relevant fact is given
in evidence to act from Section 5 to 55 and they are admissible in court.

Case – Knapp v. state

Page | 18
In the American case of Knapp v. state , the standard of law expressed by the court was that “the
assurance of the determination of a particular thing of evidence lays on whether verification of
that evidence would sensible in general assistance settle the essential issue at trial.

Logical Relevance vs. Legal Relevance

“A reality which is sensibly applicable may not be lawfully pertinent under the procurements of
the Evidence Act, thus might be forbidden in proof. All allowable confirmation is pertinent, yet
all applicable proof is not so much permissible. All certainties which are permitted by the
procurements of the Evidence Act to be demonstrated are important; be that as it may, however
pertinent a certainty may be, unless it is permitted to be demonstrated by the procurements of the
Evidence Act, it is not allowable.

A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when it bears such a causal relation with the
other as to render probable the existence or non-existence of the latter. As stated above, all facts
which are logically relevant are not legally relevant. One fact is said to be legally relevant to
another, only when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in Ss. 5 to
55 of the Evidence Act.

Logical relevancy is wider than legal relevancy; every fact which is legally relevant is logically
relevant, but every fact which is logically relevant is not necessarily legally relevant. Thus, a
confession made to a police officer may appear to be logically relevant, but such a confession is
not legally relevant, for S. 25 of the Act declares that it cannot be used as evidence against the
person making it.

The Indian Evidence Act lays down, in Ss. 5-55, what facts are relevant; but the mere fact of
logical relevancy does not ensure the admissibility of a fact. Very often, public considerations of
fairness and the practical necessity for reaching speedy decisions necessarily cause the rejection
of much of the evidence which may be logically relevant.Thus, all evidence that is admissible is
relevant, but all that is relevant is not necessarily admissible. Relevancy is the genus of which
admissibility is a species. Thus, oral statements which are hearsay may be relevant, but not being
direct evidence, are not admissible.

Legal relevancy is, for the most part, based upon logical relevancy, but it is not correct to say
that all that is logically relevant is necessarily legally relevant and vice versa. Certain classes of
facts which, in ordinary life, are relied upon as logically relevant are rejected by law as legally
irrelevant. Cases of exclusion of logically relevant facts by positive rules of law are:

(i) Exclusion of oral by documentary evidence: Ss. 91-99.

(ii) Exclusion of evidence of facts by estoppel: Ss. 115-117.

Page | 19
(iii) Exclusion of privileged communications, such as confidential communications with a legal
adviser, communication during marriage, official communications, etc.: Ss. 121-130”

CONCLUSION
Relevancy is concerned with facts connected with each other in ways provided by Chapter II of
the EA. Relevancy of Fact is important in order for a fact to be rendered admissible in a court of
law. Relevant fact may also render an evidence which is obtained illegally to be admissible
where the court will overlook on the manner on how the evidence is obtained and admit the
evidence.

Relevancy is a test for admissibility. The topic of admissibility is one of the laws and is
controlled by the Court. In Section 136 of Evidence Act 1950, a variation is made among
relevancy and admissibility, on the off chance that it very well may be demonstrated that the
proof would be relevant whenever demonstrated, the court will concede proof of it. All
admissible evidence is relevant but all relevant evidence is not admissible. An irrelevant truth
isn’t allowable in court. Be that as it may, in specific cases, proof which isn’t relevant under
Section 5 to 55 may, in any case, be acceptable.

Evidence is considered as more important in deciding cases over many years. The power vested
on the managing official in choosing whether a proof is permissible or not is immense and must
be limited through rules. the law identifying with proof isn’t reasonable for the present age and it
must be changed for the better working of the legitimate framework. An unmistakable line must
be drawn between the intensity of the judge and the intensity of the judge all things considered a
gigantic power vested on individuals would just bring about defilement of intensity. the law is
incomparable and no man should given the optional capacity to twist it to his desire. Each bit of
proof which concerns the case must be admissible whether it is found through illicit hunt or some
other methods. There are many people among us who invade the eyes of law forever because of
inadmissible evidence.

Page | 20
Bibliography

Page | 21