The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) establishes a comprehensive legal framework governing the principles of relevancy and admissibility of evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings. Evidence forms the cornerstone of judicial adjudication, serving to substantiate claims, refute allegations, and persuade courts regarding the positions presented before them. Without evidence, courts lack the foundation for informed decision-making. Proper application of the rules of evidence ensures fairness and justice by precluding the influence of misleading, irrelevant, or prejudicial material on judicial outcomes.

 

Section 3: Admissibility And Relevance Of Evidence

Section 3 of the BSA, 2023, succinctly encapsulates the principle of relevancy and admissibility. The same is produced herein below in verbatim for the ready reference-  

“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 as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.

Explanation- 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.” 

This provision underscores that evidence must pertain exclusively to the “facts in issue” or other “relevant facts” as defined under the Act. Relevance, therefore, serves as the threshold criterion for evidence to be admitted in court. This fundamental doctrine ensures that only pertinent evidence is presented, maintaining the focus and integrity of judicial proceedings.

 

Relevancy Of Evidence

Relevancy, as defined under Section 3, pertains to evidence that, if believed, could provide logical inferences regarding the existence or non-existence of facts in issue or other facts deemed relevant under subsequent provisions of the Act. The concept of relevance requires a direct connection between the evidence and the central issues of the dispute, whether in criminal cases—such as determining the commission of an offense—or in civil disputes—such as establishing a breach of contract or harm caused.

The BSA also includes provisions recognizing facts that, while not central to the dispute, bear significant influence on determining core facts. These include:

  • Section 4 (Res Gestae): Statements or actions forming part of the same transaction are admissible to clarify the facts in issue.
  • Sections 15–26 (Admissions): Statements made by parties that affect the determination of matters in issue. Sections 25 and 26a also address the admissibility of statements made by deceased persons under certain circumstances.
  • Sections 45–50 (Other Relevant Facts): Evidence indirectly connected to the facts in issue, such as prior conduct or patterns indicating intent, motive, or context.

This structured framework ensures that only logically and materially related evidence is considered, facilitating a fair and focused judicial process.

 

Admissibility Of Evidence

Admissibility is the judicial determination of whether evidence, even if relevant, can be legally considered in proceedings. This safeguard ensures that evidence adheres to established legal standards and is free from procedural infirmities. Evidence deemed inadmissible, such as that obtained through coercion or unlawful means, is generally excluded unless justified under exceptional circumstances.

 

Criteria For Admissibility

Evidence must satisfy the following conditions for admissibility:

  1. Relevance: The evidence must logically relate to the facts in issue or other relevant facts.
  2. Legal Standards: Evidence must comply with procedural and substantive requirements of the Act.
  3. Exclusion of Unlawful Evidence: Evidence obtained through illegal means is inadmissible unless overriding public interest necessitates its inclusion.

 

Categories Of Evidence

  • Direct Evidence: Directly pertains to the facts in issue and is generally admissible.
  • Hearsay Evidence: Admissible only under exceptions, such as dying declarations under Section 26a .
  • Electronic Evidence: Requires certification under Section 63 to ensure authenticity.
  • Privileged/Professional Communications: Attorney-client communications which is stipulated under Section 132 are protected unless privilege is waived.

 

Judicial Discretion

Judges retain discretion to admit or exclude evidence based on its probative value relative to potential prejudicial effects. For example, under Section 151, if the Judge, is of the view that if a question which is not directly related to the dispute in issue but can help in accessing the credibility of the witness then such question(s) can be admitted in the court of law.

 

Landmark Judgments

  1. In State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 8:  The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that evidence must logically relate to the facts in issue to be admissible. 
  2. In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 118, the Supreme Court held that documentary evidence is admissible only if it directly pertains to the facts in issue or any relevant facts as defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court also provided guidelines to assess the relevance and admissibility of such evidence in accordance with Section 35 of the Act.
  3. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517, the Supreme Court distinguished between relevancy, admissibility, and probative value. Relevant facts are those with a logical connection to the issue, but not all relevant facts are admissible. For example, privileged communications may be excluded despite their relevance. Conversely, certain admissible facts, such as some questions asked during cross-examination, might lack direct relevance. Dying declarations, falling under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act/ 26 a of BSA as exceptions to the rule against hearsay, are considered both relevant and admissible. They do not require corroboration for a conviction; however, their probative value—i.e., the weight given to them—depends on the circumstances, including the declarant’s mental state and the statement’s authenticity. Courts are required to carefully scrutinize the credibility of such declarations before relying on them.

 

Conclusion

Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, provides a robust framework for ensuring that judicial proceedings are founded on logically relevant and legally admissible evidence. By delineating the principles of relevance, admissibility, and probative value, the Act upholds the integrity of the judicial process while safeguarding the rights of all parties. This legislative framework fosters a judicial system rooted in truth, fairness, and equity, ensuring that justice is administered with precision and integrity.