Relevancy under indian evidence act

It is related to confession made due to threat, inducement or a promise. If a friend of the accused induces him to make a confession or a relation if he makes him a promise that if he confesses he will get him released or even if he threatens him and the accused on that account admits his guilt this statement will not be excluded by Section 24 as the threat, inducement or promise do not emanate from a person in authority.

The admissibility has not been defined but it is based on the factor of relevancy which has been defined.

Relevancy of Facts under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Distinction between Relevancy and Admissibility The previous part of the project dealt with the matter of relevancy and the admissibility of the facts. The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, it relevant.

State of Kerala A. A confession to the police officer is the confession made by the accused while in the custody of a police officer and never relevant and can never be proved under Section 25 and When the evidence is tendered, if it is prima facie admissible, it is for the other side to show that it is not admissible.

Difference between ‘Relevancy’ and ‘Admissibility’ under the Indian Evidence Act

Section 15 Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional 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.

Introduction The word relevant means any two realities to which it is connected are so identified with one another that, as stated by, the regular course of occasions, one, either taken without anyone else present or in association with different actualities, demonstrates or renders in the cards the past, present or future presence or on presence of the other.

It can be relied upon only when it is clear, consistent and convincing. There was not even the shadow of a policeman when the letter was being written, and planted. 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 he 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.

The extra-judicial confession is open to the danger of mistake due to the misapprehension of the witness before whom the confession was made to the misuse of the words and the failure of the party to express his own meaning.

Confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him. In Kashmira Singh v. In a rather unusual case, the accused left a letter recording his confession near the dead body of his victim with the avowed object that it should be discovered by the police, the supreme court held the confession to be relevant.

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. The evidence will be admissible only after the court is totally satisfied that the accused was a free man at the time of confession and that his movements were not controlled by the police or any other investigative agency for the purposes of securing the confession [18].

Section 52 also talks about facts which are logically relevant but not legally admissible. This section applies to examinations-in-chief as well as to cross- examinations. In State of M. The legal admissibility and the logical relevancy both are very important for the evidence to be used properly for any particular case.

Relevancy is the genus of which admissibility is a species. If at all no evidence is given or enough evidence is given for the fact its said fact is 'Not proved'; The second Concept for evaluation is "Presumption" In Evidence many Section suggest these presumptions, Where there is said Facts 'may presume', Court is extremely free to believe it or not and may ask to prove the fact, In 'shall presume' there is more weight given to believe facts but in that too court may ask to give more evidence to prove the facts, Where in any provision it is said that particular fact, or particular fact in particular circumstances must be concluded as "conclusive proof' Court has no liberty then to believe it to be proved.

State of Maharashtra, A. To be clear the person giving different promises, threatening the accused or inducing him to make the confession must be a person in authority as stated in the Pyare Lal v. As stated above, all facts which are logically relevant are not legally relevant.

The fact must have been discovered in the consequence of the information received from the accused. When the evidence is tendered, if it is prima facie admissible, it is for the other side to show that it is not admissible.

Police Custody The word custody is used here in wide sense. So all the evidences that are to be produced in the courts have to pass two hurdles it has to be both logically relevant and legally admissible at the same time. Such a confession will be irrelevant whatever may be its form, direct, express, implied or inferred from conduct.

He is in custody of the police officer. Again a police officer may not even touch a person but may keep such a control over him that the person so controlled cannot go any way he likes.

Section of the Criminal Procedure Code- Difference between judicial and extra-judicial confession- Judicial confession Extra-judicial confession 1.

Indian Evidence Act

If it flows from hope or fear, excited by a person in authority, it is inadmissible. Relevancy and Admissibility: an introductory overview under Indian Evidence Act.

The expressions ‘relevancy’ and ‘admissibility’ are often taken to be synonymous. But they are not the same. Their legal implications are different. All admissible evidence is relevant but all relevant evidence is not admissible.

Relevancy is the genus of which admissibility is the species.

Relevancy and Admissibilityunder Indian Evidence Act

RELEVANCY OF FACTS. The second chapter of the Indian Evidence Act deals with Relevancy of Facts. Section 5 to Section 55 fall under Chapter II. Casually speaking, this is the biggest chapter of Indian Evidence Act with total fifty sections.

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.

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, _____ Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence. Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein.

The Indian Evidence Act lays down, in Ss.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. 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.

Relevancy under indian evidence act
Rated 4/5 based on 14 review
Relevancy and Admissibilityunder Indian Evidence Act