Law and You >Procedural Laws > Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 > Part II > Relevancy and Admissibility under BSA
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), governs the rules of evidence in India. It lays down the principles that determine what evidence is relevant and admissible in a court of law. Two important concepts under this Act are relevancy and admissibility. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings and implications in legal proceedings. Relevancy refers to the logical connection of evidence to the facts in issue, whereas admissibility pertains to whether such evidence is legally acceptable in court. This article explores these concepts, their differences, and how they apply under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the term “fact” is broadly defined and forms the foundation for determining admissibility and relevance in legal proceedings. The Act defines fact as anything capable of being perceived by the senses. It includes physical realities that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted and any mental condition of which a person is conscious. This covers internal states like emotions, intentions, or beliefs.
Relevancy under BSA:
According to Section 2(k) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, one fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. ” The said provisions are contained in sections 3 to 50 of the Act.
Where in a case direct evidence is not available to prove a fact in issue then it may be proved by any circumstantial evidence and in such a case every piece of circumstantial evidence would be an instance of a “relevant fact”.
According to Section 3, evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts, which means that any fact that is connected with the case at hand is considered relevant.
For example, A is accused of B’s murder, and A denies any such act. C saw A with B on the day of the murder. Here, the question of whether A had committed murder or not is a “fact in issue” and the fact that C saw A on the day of murder with B will be the “relevant fact”, i.e., a fact connected to the fact in issue which either helps to prove or disprove.
A relevant fact is admissible if there is a nexus to the fact in issue and not by the exclusionary rule. Also, a relevant fact’s admissibility may well depend upon the particular way in which it is intended to be used.
Facts Recognized to be Relevant Under the BSA:
The facts, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, recognizes as relevant facts are given under Sections 4 to 50 and they may be grouped as follows:
- Facts logically connected with facts in issue or relevant facts (Ss. 3 to 14)
- Admissions and Confessions (Ss. 15 to 25)
- Statements by persons who cannot be called as witness (Ss. 26 and 27)
- Statements under special circumstances (Ss. 28 to 31)
- Judgments in other cases (Ss. 34 to 38)
- Opinion of third persons (Ss. 39 to 45)
- Evidence as to Character (Ss. 46 to 50)
Classification of Relevancy:
A fact may either be logically relevant or legally relevant. It is generally upheld that “Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant or admissible.
Logical Relevancy
A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when by application of our logic it appears that one fact has a bearing on another fact. Where a fact bears such casual relation to the other that it renders probable its existence or non-existence, it is said to be a logically relevant fact. For instance, where it is to be determined whether A has placed the murder weapon in the field or not, the fact that B saw A walking towards the field with the murder weapon is logically relevant. If logically relevant fact is not declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible as evidence under the Act. A fact may be logically relevant to a particular case but there is no guarantee that it will be legally admissible in the courts. So, all the evidence that are to be produced in the courts have to both logically relevant and legally admissible.
In Hadu v. State, AIR 1951 Ori 53 case, the Court observed that if one fact is connected to the other logically, it is called logical relevancy and it may be based on the following factors, among others:
- Cause and Effect
- Occurrence at the same time (unity of time)
- Occurrence at the same place (unity of place)
- Common purpose and design
Example: A dead body is found on railway track, it can be inferred that the death of the person took place due to running over the person by the train. If no blood stains are seen near by, then we can infer that the person was killed somewhere else and his body is thrown on the railway track to create misleading impression that the person was run over by the train.
Legal Relevancy
fact is said to be legally relevant when it is expressed as relevant under Section 4 to 50 (Relevancy of Fact). The Act recognizes some of the kinds of causal relations. Thus, those kinds of causal relations which are recognized by law are known as legally relevant fact. For instance, an accused gives the following statement- “I have kept in the field the knife with which I killed A.” While the statement may be logically relevant to establish the guilt of the accused, its legal relevancy extends to only so far as it confirms the fact that the accused had kept the knife in the field. This is so because Proviso to section
23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 clearly lays down that only that part of the information may be proved which clearly relates to the fact thereby discovered.
Distinguishing Between Logical Relevancy and Legal Relevancy:
| Logical Relevancy | Legal Relevancy |
| A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when by application of our logic it appears that one fact has a bearing on another fact. | A fact is said to be legally relevant when it is expressed as relevant under Section 4 to 50 (Relevancy of Fact). |
| If logically relevant fact is not declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible as evidence under the BSA. | Legally relevant fact is admissible as evidence under the BSA. |
| Logical relevancy is not defined under the Section 4 to 50 of the BSA. | Legal relevancy is defined under the Section 4 to 50 of the BSA. |
| Example: where it is to be determined whether A has placed the murder weapon in the field or not, the fact that B saw A walking towards the field with the murder weapon is logically relevant. | Example: an accused gives the following statement- “I have kept in the field the knife with which I killed A.” While the statement may be logically relevant to establish the guilt of the accused, its legal relevancy extends to only so far as it confirms the fact that the accused had kept the knife in the field. |
Section 3:
Evidence May be Given of Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts:
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.
Illustrations:
(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 Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
This section excludes every evidence which is not covered by Ss. 4 to 50 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Any person who wants to give evidence, in a suit or a proceeding of a particular fact must show that how and under which provision of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, that evidence is relevant.
Section 3 BSA also imposes a duty on a court to exclude the evidence of the fact which are not relevant.
Admissibility under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Admissibility pertains to whether evidence, even if relevant, can be legally accepted by the court. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down specific rules for the admissibility of evidence to ensure fairness and reliability.
Rules Governing Admissibility
- Hearsay Rule – Generally, hearsay evidence (i.e., statements made by someone not present in court) is not admissible, unless it falls under exceptions like dying declarations (Section 26).
- Primary and Secondary Evidence (Sections 56-60) – The best evidence rule mandates that primary evidence (original documents) must be produced unless secondary evidence is permitted under specific exceptions.
- Confession (Sections 22–24) – A confession is admissible only if it is made voluntarily and without coercion.
- Privileged Communications (Sections 128-134) – Certain communications, such as those between husband and wife or attorney and client, are privileged and cannot be disclosed in court.
- Illegally Obtained Evidence – Indian law generally allows illegally obtained evidence to be admissible if it is relevant, unlike in the United States where such evidence is often excluded.
Distinguishing between Relevancy and Admissibility
| Relevancy | Admissibility |
| Relevancy refers to whether a piece of evidence is related to the matter in dispute. It concerns whether the evidence has a logical connection to the fact of issue of the case and whether it helps in proving or disproving an issue. | Admissibility, on the other hand, refers to whether evidence can be legally presented in court. It deals with whether the evidence can actually be considered by the judge or jury, given the rules of law and procedure. |
| Relevancy merely implies the relevant facts. | Admissibility implies what facts are admissible and what are not admissible. |
| When facts are so related as to render the existence or non-existence of other facts probable according to common course of events or human conduct, they are called relevant. | When facts have been declared to be legally relevant under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, they become admissible. |
| It is founded on logic and human experience. | It is founded on law not on logic. |
| Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue, or if it makes a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. | Even if evidence is relevant, it may not be admissible if it violates any rules of evidence (e.g., hearsay, privilege, exclusionary rules). |
| It determines the relationship between the evidence and the fact at hand. | Admissibility depends on rules that govern what can be introduced in court (e.g., only first-hand knowledge, documentary evidence that meets specific criteria, etc.). |
| The provisions regarding relevancy has been enunciated in Sec.3 to Sec.50 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | The provisions of admissibility is provided in Sec.51 and the following sections of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 |
| The court may apply its discretion. | There is no scope for the court to apply discretion. |
| It is the cause. | It is effect |
| All admissible facts are relevant. | All relevant facts are not admissible. Only legally relevant facts are admissible. |
| Example: In a murder case, a statement made by the accused admitting to the crime is relevant because it is directly related to proving the guilt of the accused. | Example: A statement made by a witness to the police, which is not part of the formal trial, may be relevant to the case, but it might not be admissible if it is deemed hearsay and doesn’t meet the exception for admissibility. |
Judicial Interpretation of Relevancy and Admissibility:
In State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 8 case, the Supreme Court reiterated that evidence must logically relate to the facts in issue to be admissible.
In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 118 case, 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.
In Ram Bihari v State of Bihar, AIR 1998SC 1850 case,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 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:
Relevancy and admissibility are intricately connected concepts that form the bedrock of the legal system’s approach to evidence. Relevancy establishes the nexus between facts, while admissibility ensures that only relevant evidence meeting specified criteria is considered by the court in the pursuit of justice and the determination of legal truths.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a clear framework for determining which evidence can be presented in court. While relevancy ensures that only material facts are considered, admissibility ensures fairness and legal compliance. Understanding these concepts is crucial for legal professionals and litigants alike to ensure a fair trial and just outcomes. In practice, courts exercise discretion in admitting evidence, balancing the principles of justice, fairness, and procedural law. Thus, while all admissible evidence must be relevant, not all relevant evidence is necessarily admissible, underscoring the importance of both concepts in the legal process.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Click Here