DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERISTY

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY

Submitted to Submitted by

Dr. Vipul Vinod Param Chaudhary

Assistant Professor Enrolment No. – 210101099

Law of Evidence B.A. L.L.B (Hons.)

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University 5th Semester, Section ‘B’
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that my project work titled “Relationship between Relevancy and

Admissibillity” submitted to the Law department, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law

University, Lucknow is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Dr.

Vipul Vinod and this project work is submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of B.A. LLB.(hons). This project work has not been submitted to

any other University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express profound gratitude to Dr. Vipul Vinod, Prof. (Law), who gave me the

opportunity to work on this project and allowed me to develop the skills and acquire the

necessary knowledge to complete this project. I would also like to express humble gratitude

for the exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of

this project.

I would also like to thank the faculty of Dr. Madhu Limaye Library who extended their

assistance to me by helping me consult relevant legal research material which was essential to

the completion of this project.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their constant encouragement without which this

project would not have been possible to complete.

 INTRODUCTION

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 as discussed before is facts that connected to one another in ways

described under Chapter II of the Evidence Act (i.e: Section 5 to 55) and also fact proven to

be relevant to the judge under Section 136 of the same act.

Facts that are admissible are any facts in issue or relevant facts introduced and received by a

court as evidence in order to establish a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For an

evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and fulfill further requirements of the

provisions of the Act. Relevancy refers to the degree of connection and probative value

between a fact that is given in evidence and the issue to be proved.

Admissibility involves the process whereby the court determines whether the Law of

Evidence permits that relevant evidence to be received by the court. The concept of

admissibility is often distinguished from relevancy. Relevancy is determined by logic and

common sense, practical or human experience, and knowledge of affairs. On the other hand,

The admissibility of evidence, depends first on the concept of relevancy of a sufficiently high

degree of probative value.

Relevancy is not primarily dependant on rules of law but admissibility is founded on law.

Thus, relevancy usually known as logical relevancy while admissibility is known as legal

relevancy.
RELEVANT

Generally the term "Relevant" in the context of facts means that any two facts when applied

together are so related to each other. In any ordinary course of events, one fact either taken by

itself or in connection with other facts, proves or renders possible the past, present or future

existence or non-existence of the other. In other words, relevant is having some reasonable

connection with, and in regard to evidence in trial, having some value or tendency to prove a

matter of fact significant to the case.

Fact in issue means the matters which are in dispute or which form the subject of

investigation. When a case comes before the court, it is most important that the facts in

controversy should first be determined as because the evidence tendered must be relevant and

pertinent to the points in issue. Evidence of collateral facts which have no connection with

the principal transaction must be excluded.

Facts in issue are those facts which are-

1. Alleged by one party and denied by the other in the pleadings in a civil case or

2. Alleged by the prosecution and denied by the accused in a criminal case.

Facts in issue are those facts out of which some legal right, liability or disability involved in

the enquiry, necessarily arises and upon which a decision must be arrived at.

What facts are facts in issue in a particular case is a question to be determined by the

substantive law or by the branch of law of procedure which regulates the law of pleadings,

civil or criminal. It is the main fact which controls the case and its proof often depends on the

relevant facts.

In civil cases the matters in dispute are sorted out and framed into issues. They become facts

in issue in civil suits. So the facts in issue are determined by the process of framing of issues.
In criminal cases, the ingredients of the offences become the facts in issue as they are alleged

by the prosecution and denied by the accused. The charge constitutes and includes facts in

issue.

RELEVANT (ACCORDING TO SEC. 2 OF THE ACT)

It defines relevant as, "one fact is said to be relevant to other 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." i.e. The Act does not give any specific definition of ‘relevancy’ or ‘relevant fact’. It

simply describes when one fact becomes relevant to another fact.

While Sec.5 to Sec.55 of Indian Evidence Act provides several ways in which one fact may

be connected with the other fact and therefore the concept of relevant fact can be meted out.

One fact is relevant to another fact if they are connected with each other in any of the ways as

described in Sec.5 to Sec.55. If a fact is not so connected, it is not a relevant fact. All facts are

relevant which are capable of affording any reasonable presumption as to fact in issue or the

principal matter in dispute.

Sir Stephen says that the ‘relevancy’ means connection of events as cause and effect.

Generally the facts relevant to an issue are those facts which are necessary for proof or

disproof of a fact in issue. Such facts may be given in evidence directly or inferentially. What

is really meant by ‘relevant fact’ is a fact that has a certain degree of probative force. A fact is

relevant when it is so related to the fact in issue, that they render the fact in issue probable or

improbable. They themselves are not facts in issue but may affect the probability of fact in

issue.
RELEVANT FACT

"Relevant facts' are facts so connected with each other as to prove or disprove the facts in

issue. They are not themselves issues before court but they are useful inference regarding the

facts 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. are not admissible though they may be relevant1.

However, it is important to distinguish "facts in issue" and "relevant facts". The distinction

between the two is that facts in issue are facts that are in dispute and which form the subjects

of decision in a case. Relevant facts are connected facts, because of their connection with the

principal fact, they lead to an inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in

issue. What are relevant facts are set out from Section 5 to Section 55 of the Act and are

exhaustive. They will not be treated as relevant facts unless it falls into one of the sections

mentioned above.

RELEVANT EVIDENCE

“Relevant Evidence is evidence that makes a fact more or less likely to be true than it would

be without the evidence (looking for probative value). Relevant evidence may be excluded

for unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Relevant evidence is generally admissible

and irrelevant evidence is never admissible2.

1
primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/2012/11/relevancy-v-admissibility
2
www.wcl.american.edu/sba/outline_databank/outlines
RELEVANCY

"Relevancy" refers to the degree of connection between a fact that is given in evidence and

the issue to be proved. It is the tendency of a fact offered as evidence in a lawsuit to prove or

disprove the truth of a point in issue. A relevant fact under section 5 to 55 may not be

admissible if the other Sections of the Act do not permit it to be received by the Court.

According to Janab’s Key to Evidence, relevancy refers to the degree of connection and

probative value between a fact that is given in evidence and the issue to be proved. Relevancy

of facts had been provided from Section 5 to 55 of Evidence Act 1950.

By referring to the illustration (a) provided in Section 5 where A is tried for the murder of B

by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death. There are three facts in

issue to be proved that A’s beating B with the club, A’s causing B’s death by the beating and

A’s intention to cause B’s death3.

A fact is relevant when it is so related to the fact in issue, that they render the fact in issue

probable or improbable. For example, to prove the third facts in issue in the example just

now, the facts that A and B was having quarrel before the murder happens is relevant to prove

the third facts in issue which is A’s intention to cause B’s death.

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,

admissibility only relies on lawful pertinence, i.e., whether a fact can be permitted in court on

the basis of the Evidence Act. A fact could appear sensibly pertinent, however may not be

admissible in court. For example, police confessions, hearsay statements, privileged

communications, etc are relevant, but not admissible.

3
primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/relevancy-v-admissibility
LOGICAL RELEVANCE VS. LEGAL RELEVANCE

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 the reasonable

connection between facts. But logical relevancy is not the sole test of admitting such fact on

the record of a court. A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when it bears such a

causal relation with the other as to render probable the existence or non-existence.

One fact is said to be legally relevant to another, only when the one is connected with the

other in any of the ways referred to in Sec. 5 to 55 of the Evidence Act.

Logical relevancy is wider than legal relevancy; every fact which is legally relevant is

logically relevant, but every fact which is logically relevant is not necessarily legally

relevant. Thus, a confession made to a police officer may appear to be logically relevant, but

such a confession is not legally relevant, for Sec. 25 of the Act declares that it cannot be used

as evidence against the person making it4. From Sec. 5 to 55 of the Act, what facts are

relevant, but the mere fact of logical relevancy does not ensure the admissibility of a fact 5.

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. Thus, all evidence that is admissible is relevant, but all that is relevant is not

necessarily admissible. Relevancy is the genus of which admissibility is a species. Thus, oral

statements which are hearsay may be relevant, but not being direct evidence, are not

admissible. Legal relevancy is, for the most part, based upon logical relevancy, but it is not

correct to say that all that is logically relevant is necessarily legally relevant and vice versa.

Certain classes of facts which, in ordinary life, are relied upon as logically relevant are

rejected by law as legally irrelevant.

4
www.firm3ukm.blogspot.in/significance-of-relevancy
5
primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/relevancy-v-admissibility
ADMISSIBILITY

Admissibility means that the facts which are relevant are only admissible by the Court.

According to section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, however, the final discretion on

the admissibility of evidence lies with the judge.

It states that Court has to decide as to admissibility of Facts. Therefore, it is easily understand

that Court has the power to determine the admissibility of certain facts, and this power is

given under Evidence Act. However, the issue further discuss is whether power of section

136 can be exercised by the court before a proposed witness begins to give evidence?

Where a party applies for summoning a person as is witness to give evidence in the case, a

duty is cast by section 136 of the Evidence Act on the court to inquire from the party

summoning the witness in what manner the evidence of the witness would be relevant for the

purpose of the case. The court should only issue summons it if thinks fit that the evidence

would be relevant for the decision and not in mechanical manner Sankaran v Dr

Ambulakshan Nair6 The objective of this discretion power of the court is to ensure that

evidence confined to relevant facts and does not stray beyond the proper limits of the issue of

trial (Augustine Paul)7.

“The essential ingredients of the above section are:

 It is the judge who decides the questions of relevancy and admissibility.

 When a party proposes to adduce evidence of any fact, the judge may ask the party to

clarify ‘in what manner’ the fact would be relevant.

6
[1989] 2 KLT 570)
7
RELEVANCY & ADMISSIBILITY - LAW OF EVIDENCE (weebly.com)
The judge would ‘admit’ the particular adduced fact only if he is satisfied with the answer of

the party that it is, indeed, relevant under one or the other provisions of S. 6 to 55. Thus the

consideration of relevancy comes first and of admissibility later and the judge will admit the

fact only if it is relevant8.

Admissibility involves the process whereby the court determines whether the Law of

Evidence permits that relevant evidence to be received by the court. The concept of

admissibility is often distinguished from relevancy. Relevancy is determined by logic and

common sense, practical or human experience, and knowledge of affairs. On the other hand,

The admissibility of evidence, depends first on the concept of relevancy of a sufficiently high

degree of probative value, and secondly, on the fact that the evidence tendered does not

infringe any of the exclusionary rules that may be applicable to it. Relevancy is not primarily

dependant on rules of law but admissibility is founded on law. Thus, relevancy usually known

as logical relevancy while admissibility is known as legal relevancy. Relevancy is a question

of fact which is the duty of lawyers to decide whether to tender such evidence in the court.

On the other hand, admissibility is the duty of the court to decide whether an evidence should

be received by the court according to Augustine Paul JC in the case of Public Prosecutor v.

Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim9

Hearsay evidence is generally excluded even though relevant. For example, Siti saw that

Ahmad had killed Vinnie with a knife. Then Siti told what he saw to Amirul. Here, Amirul

cannot become a witness as he did not see the incident himself. The fact that Amirul heard

from Siti that Ahmad had murdered Vinnie with a knife is relevant as it is based on logic and

common sense. However, such evidence generally is not admissible in the court as it is

forbidden by the Law of Evidence. Section 60 stated that oral evidence must be direct.

8
Dr. V. N. Rao, The Indian Evidence Act (1st, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Haryana 2012) 41
9
(1999) 2 MLJ
The witness who testifies in court must be the person who perceived the facts with his own

sense. For instance, a confession obtained by any inducement, threats or promise is not

admissible under Section 24. A confession to the police officer below the rank in Inspector is

not admissible under Section 25. Confession by accused while in custody of police is also not

admissible under Section 26 even though it is logically relevant10.

RULE OF ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY

Part I Chapter II deals with relevancy of facts which consists of Sections 5 to 55 and deals to

a large extent with the facts which are declared as relevant and which can be proved. This

part of the Act deals with a lot of concepts such as res gestae, hearsay evidence, character

evidence, similar fact, confession and etc. In the case of PP v Anwar bin Ibrahim11, it is stated
10
www.primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/relevancy-v-admissibility
11
(1999) 2 MLJ
that the court has powers to exclude evidence which it considers to be irrelevant pursuant to

Section 136 of the Act12.

Relevancy is a question of fact as is based on fact as stated under Section 3, where relevant

evidence is defined as facts that are connected to another in ways described in Chapter II of

the Act. Hence, to determine relevancy it is important to look at the facts itself. The lawyers

will provide reason on why the evidence is regarded as relevant. Subsequently, this is where

admissibility comes into place, where the judge will decide based on the provisions of the Act

or based on its discretion that whether their connections are justified under the provisions of

the Act. If it is relevant, the evidence will be rendered as admissible13.

Admissibility is a question of law. Admissibility of evidence is decided based on the

provisions of the law that is EA or any other relevant written law, not from the deduction of

the facts itself. In the case of Sris Chandra Nandy v Rakhalananda14 Lord Atkin ruled that

even if the fact is relevant in normal perception, but if it does not comply with the way it

should be connected under the EA, it is not relevant and not admissible.

Another obvious difference is the types of law both relevancy and admissibility are.

Relevancy is not a type of law. It is a connection between facts. While admissibility, is a type

of procedural law which governs and determine on whether the connected fact are relevant in

accordance to the laws on relevancy. In the case of Msimanga Lesaly v Public Prosecutor it

was held that “rules governing the admissibility of evidence are procedural and not

substantive. Hence a rule against admissibility of evidence is a procedural safeguard to ensure

that an accused receives a fair trial.”

12
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/distinction-between-relevancy-and-admissibility
13
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/3746.pdf
14
AIR 1941 PC 16
The general relationship between admissibility and relevancy is stated in the general rule

itself. Nonetheless, of course it is not without exceptions. In the case of R v Turner [1975]

where it was held that the exceptions to the rules are hearsay and opinion evidence.

In the recent case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar15, the Supreme Court 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.”

Section 9 of the Law of Evidence Act, 1872, lays down some facts which can be treated as

relevant. In the case of Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia v. State16, the court 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.”

15
[1998] AIR 1859 (SC).
16
[1968] 69 AIR 807 (Bom).
Another section of the Evidence Act which deals with admissibility is the Section 11. Section

11 deals with those facts which are not otherwise relevant but become relevant if they are

inconsistent with any relevant fact or they make the existence or non-existence of any

relevant fact highly probably or improbable.17

In the case of Bibi Khaver v. Bibi Rukha18 the court held that “in order that a collateral fact

may be admissible as relevant under this section, the requirements of the law are that:

 The collateral fact must itself be established by normally conclusive evidence and

 It must, when established, afford a reasonable presumption or inference as to the

matter in dispute.”

However, there are limitations to Section 11. According to R. v. Prabhudas19, “the court must

use exercise a sound discretion and see that the connection between the fact to be proved and

the fact sought to be given under S.11 to prove it, must be so immediate as to render the co-

existence of the two highly probable. The section makes admissible only those facts which

are of great weight in bringing the court to a conclusion as regards the existence or the non-

existence of the fact in question. The admissibility under this section must, in each case,

depend on how near is the connection of the facts sought to be proved with facts in issue and

to what degree do they render facts in issue probable or improbable when taken with the other

facts in case.

Another limitation mentioned in the case Bela Rani v. Mahabir20 is that “sec .11 is also

controlled by sec .17 to 39. And as to the admissibility of depositions made by a person since

deceased, it has been held that unless they are admissible under Sec.32 and 33, Sec.11 will

not avail to make them evidence.

17
www.primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/2012/11/relevancy-v-admissibility
18
[1904] 6 AIR 983 (BLR)
19
[1874] 11 AIR 90 (BHCR)
20
[1912] 34 AIR 341 (SC).
 CONCLUSION

In this project, I have dealt with the terms logically relevant and legally relevant. To

summarize: logically relevant: the dictionary meaning of the term ‘relevancy’ is given as ‘the

relation of something to the matter at hand’, ‘pertinence’, ‘connection’, ‘materiality’ etc. If

one fact is connected to the other logically, it is called logical relevancy and it may be based

on several factors. For instance if a severed dead body is found on a railway track, it can be

inferred that the death occurred because of the train running over the person. On a closer

observation, it is found that there is no haemorrhage near the body, the first inference is then
replaced by another inference that the person was killed elsewhere and the dead body was

thrown on the railway track to create the misleading impression that he was run over by the

train. Here the inferences are drawn on the basis of logic based on cause and effect. If two or

more persons have committed the offence at the same time and place, it can be inferred that

they were acting with common intention.

While logical relevance is certainly an important factor in determining the probative value of

facts, it so happens that the facts may be connected to each other by varying degrees of

logical proximity and immediate causes and effects, and remote, indirect and even conjectural

causes and effects. Hence, the courts should let in only those facts which have a high degree

of probative value that would help the courts to decide one way or the other with relatively

greater certainty.

Consequently, the Evidence Act adopted the device of declaring as relevant in section 6 to 55

only those logically connected facts which are considered to have a high probative value.

Thus, facts which may be connected to each other so remotely that they cannot be considered

to have high probative value are kept outside the purview of the provisions of ss. 6 to 55.

Facts legally relevant under the Evidence Act means, simply, facts declared to be relevant

under section 6 to 55 and this is part of the legislative and not judicial determination. Hence,

all logically relevant facts are not legally relevant and all legally relevant facts may not be

logically relevant.

Relevancy is a test for admissibility. The question of admissibility is one of law and is

determined by the Court. In Section 136 of Evidence Act 1950, a distinction is made between

relevancy and admissibility, if it can be shown that the evidence would be relevant if proved,

the court shall admit evidence of it.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERENCE

1. Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence

2. Ratan lal and Dhiraj Lal, Law of Evidence

WEBLIOGRAPHY

 www.firm3ukm.blogspot.in
 www.evidencejournalist.weebly.com

 www.lawctopus.com

 www.Jstor.com