UILS, Panjab University

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

RELEVANCY OF CHARACTER IN
CIVIL CASES AND IN CRIMINAL
CASES
A project report submitted as a part of internal assessment of the course B.Com. LL.B.
(Hons.) in the subject of LAW OF EVIDENCE - I for the session 2022-23.

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Purushotam Mehak

263/19

B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.)

Section E

P a g e 1 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The detailed project on “Relevancy of Character in Civil cases and in Criminal cases” would
not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to
extend my gratitude to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Dr. Purushotam for his guidance and constant help as well as for
providing necessary information regarding the project and also for his support in completing
the project.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my parents and friends for their kind cooperation
and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.

A sincere thanks to all of them.

-MEHAK

P a g e 2 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CASES.................................................................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 5

RELEVANT ............................................................................................................................. 5

CHARACTER .......................................................................................................................... 5

REPUTATION ..................................................................................................................... 6

DISPOSITION ..................................................................................................................... 6

ADMISSIBILITY OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CIVIL SUITS (Section 52) ......... 6

ADMISSIBILITY OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL SUITS (Section 52 to

54) .............................................................................................................................................. 8

PREVIOUS GOOD CHARACTER RELEVANT (Section 53)....................................... 8

BAR ON PROOF OF PREVIOUS BAD CHARACTER (Section 54).......................... 11

HALSBURY’S OBSERVATION ......................................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 15

WEBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................ 15

P a g e 3 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

TABLE OF CASES

Abdul Shakur and others v. Kotwaleshwar Prasad and others, AIR1958 All 54

APHC v. Bandana Ramayya, 2004 Cr LJ 3510(AP)

Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Maharashtra, AIR1965 SC 682

Guntaka Hussenaiah v. Busseti Yerraiah, AIR1954 AP 39

Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad, 1954 Cr LJ 338; AIR 1954 SC 51

Makin v. Attorney General of New South Wales, 1897 AC 57, 64 (1893, Privy Council)

Mangal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 199

Ram Lakhan Singh and Ors. v. State of UP, 1977 AIR 1936; 1978 SCR (1) 125

Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar vs State of Maharashtra, 1957 AIR 747; 1958 SCR 161

P a g e 4 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

INTRODUCTION
Like most common law countries, Indian law greatly limits the ability to connect the past and
the present of an accused in order to prove the commission of an offence. The circumstances
can be such that people with good character are forced to become accused. They may become
victim of temporary mental imbalance. In such cases, it is important to consider the character
of the accused to understand the real intention in the act done. In India, criminal cases are to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt while civil cases follow the criteria of balance of
probabilities. In such a system of law if the character of a person is given primacy, then every
person with a bad character would be considered as criminal on first instance, which shall erode
our justice system in tot. So, it becomes essential to analyse as to how and up to what extent
our legislative regime vide Indian Evidence Act, 1872 given importance evidence as to the
character of a person.

RELEVANT
The first hurdle to presenting any piece of evidence to a Court is showing that the evidence is
relevant. Relevance is a threshold requirement that must be met before the Court can consider
the value the evidence may have. Evidence is relevant when it “has any tendency to make a
fact less or more probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of
consequence in determining the action”.

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.1

For example, in a breach of contract case, the most relevant and direct piece of evidence is
usually the contract itself.

Once evidence is shown to be relevant, that evidence is admissible in Court unless it is excluded
by some other rule of law or evidence. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

CHARACTER
The word ‘character’ has not been defined in any Indian Law. In general, the term ‘character’
means qualities of an individual which may be moral or psychological. In words of Webster,
“the character is a combination of peculiar qualities impressed by nature or habit of a person

1
Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
P a g e 5 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

which distinguishes him from others”. The character of person varies from one another as one’s
character is unique to oneself.

Explanation attached to Section 55 of the Act says that, “the word “character” includes both
reputation and disposition but except as provided in Section 54, evidence may be given only of
general reputation and general disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or
disposition were shown.”

REPUTATION
Woodroffe states that “Reputation means what is thought of a person by others and is
constituted by public opinion. It is the general credit which a man has obtained in that opinion.

Reputation and character are not synonymous terms. Character is what a man or woman is
morally while reputation is what he or she is reputed to be i.e., the estimate which the
community has of the person’s character. Character lies in the man, it is the mark of what he
is, it shows itself on all occasions, reputation depends upon others; and it is what they think of
him2.

DISPOSITION
The word ‘disposition’ means a tendency to act, think or feel in a particular way. For example,
character certificate given by the employer or by Head of Educational Institutions. It is a
permanent, settled and respects the whole frame and texture of the mind. It is the aptitude or
tendency of character. Character is often used in the sense of the social estimate formed of a
man, his reputation for good or bad.

Basically, reputation is what other people think about a particular person while disposition is
what the person is in reality. A man may be reputed to be a good man but in reality, he may
have a bad disposition.

ADMISSIBILITY OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CIVIL

SUITS (Section 52)
As a general rule, in civil action, evidence of character of any person concerned is not
admissible for the purpose of raising an inference as to his conduct. In other words, that a party
did or did not act may not be established in civil actions, by showing that his character is such

2
D. Rama Subba Reddy vs P.V.S. Rama Das and another, 1970 CriLJ 83 Para 13
P a g e 6 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

as to predispose him to one course or to the other. In civil cases the evidence of character is
generally inadmissible unless the character is of the fact in issue.

Section 52 of the Act runs as follows:

“In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render
probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him, is irrelevant, except in so far as such
character appears from facts otherwise relevant.”

In civil proceeding, good or bad character is not relevant. For example, if a person is charged
with negligent driving, he cannot give evidence of fact of his character and conduct has been
such that he could not have been guilty of negligence. Similarly, his opposite party cannot give
evidence of the fact that his character and conduct had been so bad that he must have been
negligent. The reason is that the court has to try the case on the basis of its fact for the purpose
of determining whether the defendant should be liable or not. The court has not to try the
character of the parties.

The character of a party to a civil suit cannot be relevant to the decision of issue arising in that
suit. When a question arises whether a contract entered between the parties, or whether it is
supported by consideration, the character of the plaintiff or defendant is certainly irrelevant to
the issue. But there may be cases in which the character of a person may be relevant for the
disposal of a suit, such as action for defamation, etc. In Guntaka Hussenaiah v. Busseti
Yerraiah3, the High Court said that the section deals with the relevancy of character in civil
cases. The character of a party to a civil suit cannot be relevant to the decision of an issue
arising in that suit. but this section has no bearing on a case where the veracity of witness is in
question.

In Abdul Shakur and others v. Kotwaleshwar Prasad and others4, it has been held that
where the contention that certain pronotes had been obtained from the insolvent while he was
under the influence of drink, has been found to be baseless, mere general bad character of the
insolvent would be quite irrelevant in a civil case to provoke want of consideration.

Section 140, 146, 148, 153, 155 of the Act deals with the character of a witness. Section 52 to
55 provide for character of parties to proceeding.

There are certain exceptions to this rule:

3
AIR 1954 AP 39
4
AIR 1958 All 54
P a g e 7 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

• When character is in issue: Evidence can be given when a party’s character is itself a
fact in issue. For example, a suit for libel or divorce suit.
• Character as to affect damages: Section 55 of the Act works as an exception to the
rule. It says that, “When the character of any person is such as to affect the amount of
damages which he ought to receive, is relevant”. In mitigating damages, the evidence
of character is relevant.
• When character became issue from other relevant fact: The facts which are
otherwise not relevant, are relevant can be taken into account if the court forms an
opinion that the character of the party might have been guilty of conduct imported to
him or he might not be worthy of credit.

ADMISSIBILITY OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN

CRIMINAL SUITS (Section 52 to 54)
PREVIOUS GOOD CHARACTER RELEVANT (Section 53)
Section 53 of the Act deals with relevancy of good character in criminal cases. It reads as
follows,

“In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of good character, is relevant.”

The rationale behind this Section is the presumption that operates against the commission of
an offence by the accused. The accused is allowed to prove his good character, either in chief
or by cross- examination. But so far as it concerns proof of the accused’s good character by
another witness, what must be deposited to is, not particular good acts by him, but his general
reputation in the community. The evidence of character is primarily relevant as to credibility
i.e., it makes his testimony more worthy of belief. This, however, is subject to the right of the
prosecution to call evidence in rebuttal. The Supreme Court in, Sardar Sardul Singh
Caveeshar vs State of Maharashtra5, held the evidence of both general reputation and general
disposition are relevant in criminal proceedings in India. The Court also explained the
distinction between the two terms. A general reputation of a person is how the community
perceives him/her whereas a general disposition of a person comprises of his/her inherent traits.
The Court in this case answered the question of what is the evidentiary value of the character
of an accused in a criminal case and held that the character evidence is weak evidence and can’t

5
1957 AIR 747; 1958 SCR 161
P a g e 8 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

outweigh positive evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. Good character is not a defence,
but is useful to the extent of establishing a lesser likelihood of the accused having committed
the offence he/she is charged with.

Evidence of good character must relate to the period of supposed offence, and it also must be
kept in consideration as well that a man’s guilt is to be proved by proof of facts and not by
proof of his character6.

Despite being weak evidence, ‘character evidence’ plays an insightful role in doubtful cases.
The Supreme Court, in Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad7, held that character of
an accused is always relevant in a criminal case. In a criminal proceeding, the accused is
entitled to show that he is a person of good character. A man’s character helps in explaining
his conduct and in judging his innocence or criminality. Acts of an accused would be suspicious
or free from suspicion when we come to know the charter of the person by whom they are
done. In doubtful cases, evidence of good character helps to tilt the scale in favour of the
accused. This concurs with the presumption of innocence of the accused in mind and not his
guilt. In doubtful cases, evidence as to the state of the mind of the accused also becomes
relevant.

In the case of Bhagwan Swaroop8, the appellant was convicted for a criminal breach of trust
under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and for conspiracy under section 120-B of the
IPC. The defence examined two eminent and respected men of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
and Sri Sreeprakasha, in order to show the good character of the appellant. Subba Rao, J
speaking for the bench, stated that the testimony of the eminent persons as regards to the
character of the appellant established that, in their opinion, the appellant was a man of integrity,
sincerity and simplicity. He further stated that under Section 53 and the Explanation to Section
55 of the IEA, general evidence of good character and disposition was relevant in a criminal
trial and that evidence could be given of both good character as well as general disposition. He
further held that was a difference between reputation and disposition; disposition means the
inherent qualities of a person whereas reputation means the general opinion prevailing about
the person among the public.

6
Amrita Lal Hazra v. Khagendra Nath Chaudhari, 42 C 957; 16 Cr LJ 497
7
1954 Cr LJ 338; AIR 1954 SC 51
8
Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682
P a g e 9 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

In other words, a man may be reputed to have a good character but he may, in fact, have a bad
disposition. The value of a witness’s evidence as to the disposition of the accused will depend
on the witness’s perspicacity as well as the opportunities the witness had to observe the
accused. This has to be balanced against the cleverness of the accused to hide his real traits as
well as the opportunity the witness had to observe specific traits of the accused.

However, Subba Rao, J stressed that character evidence, on the whole, was very weak
evidence. It could be used to tilt the case in favour of the accused in doubtful cases or to explain
the reaction of the accused in certain situations. However, it had to give way to positive
evidence and once positive evidence with regards to the guilt of the accused had been tendered,
character evidence could not be used to turn the scale in favour of the accused.

CHARACTER OR PREVIOUS SEXUAL EXPERIENCE (Section 53A)

Section 53A reads as follows:
“In a prosecution for an offence under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376, 376A,
376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or
for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is in issue, evidence of
the character of the victim or of such person’s previous sexual experience with any person
shall not be relevant on the issue of such consent or the quality of the consent.”

It was inserted into the Act by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, which was based on
the recommendation of Justice JS Verma Committee Report in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya
Gangrape incident with an aim to prevent character assassination of the victim in the courts.
In this particular case, the defence tried to portray the character of the victim in a bad light to
tilt the case in favour of the accused persons. This is no longer permissible as the character or
previous sexual experience of the victim is not relevant in the offences prescribed by this
section. By virtue of this section, the defence has been debarred from leading any evidence or
asking such questions in cross- examination as may be suggestive of the victim’s past sexual
experience with any person. This is a progressive provision and is aimed at victim protection
in case of offences as mentioned in this Section.

It is wrong and misogynistic to simply believe that because a woman has had multiple partners
or has been in multiple relationships, she is of easy virtue, and thus her consent can be assumed.
The victim/ prosecutrix’s past sexual history is often used to cast doubts on their testimony and

P a g e 10 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

cast aspersions on their honesty9. The statements made by the victim are doubted and they are
effectively shamed for having a relationship outside the marriage. Such provisions also
perpetuate gender- based double standards; a man’s prior sexual history or immoral character
is assumed to have no effect on his veracity whereas a woman’s past sexual history calls her
entire testimony into doubt10.

BAR ON PROOF OF PREVIOUS BAD CHARACTER (Section 54)

Section 54 reads as follows:

“In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant,
unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.

Explanation 1. – This Section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person
is itself a fact in issue.

Explanation 2. – A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.”

The reason for the irrelevancy of the fact is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of accused
with the necessary evidence in support of the charge. But the prosecution cannot take the help
of the bad character of the accused in order to establish its case. If the prosecution is allowed
to prove bad character of the accused, then that would prejudice the mind of the Court. If
evidence of the bad character of the accused is permitted to be proved the Court may come to
the conclusion that he has committed the offence in question. This would vitiate the
requirement of a fair trial. The Supreme Court, in Ram Lakhan Singh and Ors. v. State of
UP11, held that description of the accused as a law breaker amounts to evidence of character
and thereby excluded it.

There are three exceptions to the rule of irrelevance of bad character in criminal cases:

• The first exception: The latter part of the provision acts as an exception to the general
rule, which prescribes that evidence of bad character of the accused becomes relevant
if evidence has been given that he has a good character. In that case, the prosecution
can call for evidence in rebuttal. If the accused puts his character in issue, the
prosecution may attack it. This is allowed so that the court is not misled and judges are
presented with neutral evidence. In cases of defamation, malicious prosecution, etc.,

9
84th Law Commission of India Report, Rape and Allied Offences: Some Questions of Substantive Law, Procedure
and Evidence (1980), available at: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/84rpt.pdf
10
Ibid
11
1977 AIR 1936; 1978 SCR (1) 125
P a g e 11 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

the question of reputation is to be considered. In such cases, the bad character of the
party may be adduced as evidence.
• The second exception: Explanation attached to the Section clearly says that the rule of
irrelevance does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a
fact in issue. In case of binding over proceedings for keeping good behaviour under
Section 109 and 110 of Cr.P.C. and in proceedings for the offence of dacoity under
Sections 400, 401 Indian Penal Code, the bad character of the person involved would
be a fact in issue. Under Section 110 Cr.P.C. a person is to be bound down if he is by
habit a robber, a house breaker or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being
at large hazardous, the very character of the accused is in question and so the evidence
to that effect is admissible. The evidence that the accused had committed similar
criminal acts previously is admissible upon the issue to decide whether the act was
intentional or accidental. If the evidence of bad character is introduced in order to
establish a relevant fact which cannot be proved separately the evidence of bad
character is admissible.
In Public Prosecutor; APHC v. Bandana Ramayya12, it has been held that in a rape
case, where the medical evidence clearly points out that there was forcible intercourse,
the bad character of the prosecutrix becomes irrelevant.
• The third exception: A previous conviction is not admissible in evidence against the
accused, except where he is liable to enhanced punishment under Section 75 of the IPC,
on account of previous conviction, or unless evidence of good character be given, in
which case the fact that the accused had been previously convicted of an offence is
admissible as evidence of bad character. Under Section 75 of IPC, a person who had
been previously convicted by a Court of an offence punishable under Chapter Ⅻ or
Chapter ⅩⅦ of the IPC with an imprisonment of three years or more, is liable for
enhanced punishment if he had, again committed an offence under those chapters
subsequently, may be proved as evidence of bad character.

HALSBURY’S OBSERVATION
In a criminal trial to prove that the accused committed the crime with which he is charged, the
prosecution cannot adduce evidence that the accused:

12
2004 Cr LJ 3510 (AP)
P a g e 12 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

• Was regarded as having a bad reputation in the community; or

• Had a disposition to commit crimes of the class or kind of which he was charged; or
• Had committed acts of a similar kind or description as those with which he was charged
in the past

And thus, could be said to bear a disposition towards the same or show propensity towards the
same.

In the case of Makin v. Attorney General of New South Wales13, a couple had been tried and
held guilty of the murder of an infant child whose body had been recovered from their garden
where it had been buried. There was no evidence that either the husband or the wife had killed
the child other than the fact that the body had been buried in their garden. The prosecution had
tendered evidence before the trial court that bodies of other children had also been found and
that certain other people had entrusted their children to the couple and the children had never
been heard of again. The Privy Council held that:

“It is undoubtedly not competent for the prosecution to adduce evidence tending to show that
the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment for the
purpose of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his criminal
conduct to have committed the offence for which he is being tried. On the other hand, the mere
fact that the evidence adduced tends to show the commission of other crimes does not render
it inadmissible, if it be relevant to an issue before the jury, and it may be so relevant if it bears
upon the question whether the acts alleged to constitute the crime charged in the indictment
were designed or accidental, or to rebut a defence which would otherwise be open to the
accused.”

Section 54 does not override other sections of IEA with regards to the admissibility and
relevancy of evidence thus, evidence which could or which tends to show the bad character of
the accused can still be admissible if it is otherwise relevant under the IEA. In the case of
Mangal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh14, an objection was taken that evidence of bad
character had been allowed to the prejudice of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the
evidence was admissible because although it disclosed certain unpleasant things about the
accused in the past, the lower courts had examined it as proof of motive of the crime and not
as an imputation against the character of the accused and the probative value of the same

13
1897 AC 57, 64 (1893, Privy Council)
14
AIR 1957 SC 199
P a g e 13 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

overweighed the prejudicial value against the accused. In other words, if the evidence is
otherwise relevant, it is not rendered irrelevant merely because it shows bad character of the
accused or the commission of an offence which is separate and distinct from the offence with
which the accused is charged and for which he is undergoing a trial.

CONCLUSION
Character evidence in criminal trials can broadly be classified into two categories: evidence as
to good character of the accused and evidence as to the bad character of the accused. The
jurisprudence related to the first category of the character evidence is settled to a large extent.
Evidence as to good character of the accused is relevant and can be entered into evidence. At
the same time, the only evidence as to the general character of the accused can be tendered and
not the opinion of the witness as to the accused’s disposition. The jurisprudence regarding
evidence as to the bad character of the accused is slightly murkier. The general principle is that
evidence as to the bad character of the accused is not admissible as evidence. This is subject to
three exceptions. The guiding principle in all such cases is a balancing act between the
probative value of the evidence and its prejudicial effect against the accused.

The exclusionary rule in light of character evidence is not absolute and character evidence does
not continue to play a role. This becomes glaring when seen in practice. The bar on producing
character evidence has been put up at the trial stage and not during the investigative stage.
Investigative agencies use their direction based on the notions of bad character and they make
arrests accordingly. As a result, persons from poor or minority groups are far more likely to be
targeted by the police as suspects. A change in the positive direction would be stricter checks
on enforcement of law by police by arrests. This necessitates a reform in the process of pre-
trial custody.

P a g e 14 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Avtar Singh, Principles of the Law of Evidence (2008) Central Law Agency, New Delhi
• Rattan Lal, Dhiraj Lal: Law of Evidence (1994) Wadhwa, Nagpur
• Phipson and Elliot Manual of Law of evidence, Universal publishing, New Delhi, 2001
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

WEBLIOGRAPHY
• https://www.intolegalworld.com/article?title=relevancy-of-character-under-the-
indian-evidence-act
• http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/570/Role-of-Character-in-Evidence-
Law.html
• https://crlreview.in/2020/06/13/relevancy-of-character-evidence/
• https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2016/12/relevancy-of-character.html
• https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/evidence-law-the-rule-of-relevance-and-
admissibility-of-character-evidence
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/character-evidence-criminal-trials/
• https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f6afe4b014971113e22e#32

P a g e 15 | 15