Admissibility and Relevancy

Relevant facts have been defined in Section 3 and 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). A perusal of both the provisions says that evidence may be
given of-

(i) the existence or non-existence of facts in issue; and

(ii) of such other relevant facts.

The first part deals with points to facts which directly tend to prove or disprove facts in issue
and the second part refers to collateral facts which are so inseparably connected with the facts
in issue that they indirectly and presumptively tend to prove or disprove any fact in issue.

All relevant facts may not be admissible (they may be ruled out due to prejudice, paucity of
time, confusion) but all admissible facts are relevant. While relevancy is based on logic and
legality both, admissibility only relies on lawful pertinence, i.e., whether a fact can be
permitted in Court on the basis of the Act. (Legal) Relevant facts can thus be termed as genus
and admissibility as its specie.

DEFINITIONS BY THINKERS
1. Bentham:

one fact is relevant to another, if the effect or tendency of the former when presented to the
mind, is to produce a persuasion concerning the existence of some other matter of fact. As
such the relation between factum probandum and factum probans/probantia is called
relevancy.

2. James Fritz:

relevant means any two facts to which it is applied are so related to each other that, according
to the common course of events, either taken by itself or in conjunction with other facts,
proves or renders probable past, present or future existence, or non-existence of the other.

CASE LAWS
The Supreme Court in Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar7, has observed that more often
the expressions 'relevancy and admissibility' are used as synonyms but their legal
implications are distinct and different from for more often than not facts which are relevant
are not admissible; so also facts which are admissible may not be relevant, for example
questions permitted to put in cross examination to test the veracity or impeach the credit of
witnesses, though not relevant are admissible. The probative value of the evidence is the
weight to be given to it which has to be judged having regards to the fact and circumstances
of each case.

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Lakshmandas Changalal Bhatia v. State, laid down the
following to be "relevant facts:

 Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact;

 Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant

fact;

 Facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant;

 Facts which fix the time and place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact
happened;

 Facts which show the relation of parties by whom any fact in issue or relevant fact
was transacted.

Admissibility of evidence is decided based on the provisions of the Act or any other relevant
written law, not from the deduction of the facts itself. In the case of Sri Chandra Nandy v
Rakhalananda [AIR 1941 PC 16] Lord Atkin ruled that "...it is not open for any judge to
exercise a dispensing power, and admit evidence not admissible by the statute because to him
it appears that the irregular evidence would throw light upon the issue..."

As seen from above, Admissibility of evidence is strictly based on law whereas relevancy is
based on logic and probability. Secondly, Admissibility declares whether evidence is
admissible or not, whereas relevancy declares whether the given facts are relevant to the facts
in question.

As held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat vs Ashulal Nanji Bisnol 9,
there is no express or implied mandate laid down in the Act with respect to relevancy and
admissibility. By phrase "admissible and relevant", it clearly means that admissible for the
consideration of the judge, "admissible and relevant" for the consideration of the judge to
pronounce the judgment. It cannot be laid down, therefore, that the statements or documents
which are not admissible or relevant, cannot be taken on the record. It is nowhere provided by
the Act that the material which the judge thinks not relevant or inadmissible, cannot be
brought on record. Evidence and material which may not be relevant or admissible cannot be
precluded from placing on record.