The paper is on the relevancy of facts under the Indian Evidence Act, This is because it was introduced some years ago.
At his trial the following facts may be in issue: Evidence of collateral facts which have no connection with the principal transaction must be excluded.
They become facts in issue in civil suits.
So the facts in issue are determined by the process of framing of issues. The charge constitutes and includes facts in issue. For example - A, a cashier in a factory. It is his duty to bring money from the bank and distribute it among the labourers.
One day A has brought Rs. A pleaded in his defence that he brought the cash from the bank, but on that particular day he was to go on leave and as such he asked the Manager of the Company for handing over the cash to some other staff.
Finally, as per the direction of the Manager of the company he handed over the same to B, the Asstt. Now the question is whether A is liable for criminal breach of trust.
Now, in the instant case, it may be found that the court holds A liable for criminal breach of trust, it has to decide i Whether A handed over Rs. From a The fact that A handed over the amount of Rs. The guilt or innocence of A follows and so these are facts in issue in the trial of A for criminal breach of trust.
Act relating to relevancy of facts. It simply describes when one fact becomes relevant to another fact. One fact is relevant to another fact if they are connected with each other in any of the ways as described in Sec. If a fact is not so connected, it is not a relevant fact.
Such facts may be given in evidence directly or inferentially. They themselves are not facts in issue but may affect the probability of fact in issue.
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.
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. 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, b The facts which corroborate the evidence of a witness.
The above facts may not be relevant but admissible. Difference between relevancy and admissibility: Act, they become admissible. Only legally relevant facts are admissible. Thus it is found that all legally relevant facts are admissible, but all logically relevant facts are not admissible.
What is legally receivable is admissible, whether it is logically probative or not. For practical purpose, relevant fact means what is legally admissible in evidence.Relevancy of Facts under the Indian Evidence Act, Article shared by One fact is relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in Sections 5 to 55 below.
The Indian Evidence Act has very intelligently created a category for the relevancy of facts. The facts which are directly connected to the issue such as motive, cause, effect are most relevant this is contained in sections 6 to section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Home / Articles / All About Relevancy of Facts under Indian Evidence Act, By: Manvi Singh All About Relevancy of Facts under Indian Evidence Act, By: Manvi Singh July 28, Articles Leave a comment Views.
Confession under Indian Evidence Act confession appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.
if it is not excluded from being proved by any other provision on Indian Evidence Act, it cannot be relevant if it was taken from the accused by: 1.
Giving him promise of secrecy, or 2. By deceiving him, or. Oct 18, · This video session explains the concept of 'relevancy' and 'admissibility' under Indian Evidence Act.
The video lecture also explains the provision of Section 5 that Evidence . The Indian Evidence Act does not give the definition of the word Relevant but surprisingly from section 5 to section 55 the relevancy of the facts are dealt with.
The main problem in this regard is deciding which fact is legally relevant as well as logical in nature.