XAVIER LAW SCHOOL,

ST. XAVIER’S UNIVERSITY, KOLKATA

NAME : ADITYA PRIYADARSHI

COURSE : B.A.-LL.B. (Hons.)
SEMESTER : V
SECTION : 1
ROLL NO. : 0020
CIN : 22-001-06-31-0020
SUBJECT : LAW OF EVIDENCE
INTRODUCTION

The legal concepts of relevancy and admissibility are crucial in the context of evidence law,
particularly under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These terms, while often used
interchangeably in casual conversation, have distinct meanings and implications in legal
proceedings. The assertion that "the admissibility is the means and the method of proving the
relevant facts" emphasises the procedural nature of admissibility in contrast to the logical
nature of relevancy. This essay will justify the statement that relevancy and admissibility are
neither synonyms nor co-extensive by exploring their definitions, differences, legal
implications, and relevant case law, particularly focusing on Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of
Bihar [AIR 1998 SC 1850]

MEANING AND PRINCIPLES OF RELEVANCY

Relevant is connectedness. Connected to something. Relevant is "Connected with what is

happening, related to a subject or to something happening" 1. It is "having significant and
demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand" 2. It also means "affording evidence tending to
prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion". Collins Dictionary defines relevant
as "the relevant thing of a particular kind is the one that is appropriate". The synonyms of
relevancy are "applicable, apposite, apropos, germane, material, pertinent, pointed, and
relative". Bentham states "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 fact3".
“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). Relevancy exists as a relation between
an item of evidence and a proposition sought to be proved 4”. Janab’s in his Key to Evidence
states "relevancy refers to the degree of connection and probative value between a fact that is
given in evidence and the issue to be proved". As per Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, "relevant
means any two facts to which it is applied are so related to each other that, according to the

1 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/relevant

2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevant

3 Bentham, Rationale of Evidence (1872)

4 M.Monir, Law of Evidence (15th, Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi 2010) 115
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"5.

As per Indian Law of Evidence, relevancy, in short is, the fact which is coming under any of
the provisions of chapter of relevancy, from section 6 to section 55 (Equivalent to Section 3
to Section 50 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023). And Section 5 states as in relation what
relevancy should be sought for under section 6 to section 55 (Equivalent to Section 3 to
Section 50 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023). It means, the relevancy of a fact should be
to the fact in issue. A fact which is relevant to the fact in issue, if coming under any of the
principles from section 6 to 55 is relevant. And since, section 6 to section 55 (Equivalent to
Section 3 to Section 50 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) are statement of law,
relevancy is question of law. Therefore relevancy is not a statement of logic. Therefore, also
relevancy is not a question of fact. Logically a fact may relevant to fact in issue, still it is not
relevant unless and until it is coming under section 6 to section 55 (Equivalent to Section 3 to
Section 50 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023). Interestingly however, whatever logically
relevant invariably becomes relevant under any of the section from 6 to section 55
(Equivalent to Section 3 to Section 50 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) as law of
evidence has been drafted very meticulously. If a fact is existing or not, the judge decides it
looking to medium of fact adduced by the witness before the court either orally or
documentarily. So, facts are introduced before the court by the witness, orally or
documentarily, and if it is not relevant, objection has to raised by the opposing party, then
and there. However, since the question of relevancy is a question of law, at any stage of the
proceeding it can be agitated. It is advisable for the trial court to record in the order-sheet that
as to what was the irrelevant fact adduced and what objection thereto was given by the
opposite party, and the reason of declaring it relevant, if any, so that it can be scrutinised by
the higher courts.

In an American case of Knapp v. State, the rule of law stated by the court was that “the
determination of the relevancy of a particular item of evidence rests on whether proof of that
evidence would reasonably tend to help resolve the primary issue at trial"6.

5 Stephen, Digest of Law of Evidence

6 Knapp v. State [1907] 522 US 1069

In L. C Bhatia v. State the HC of Bombay, recasting various provisions of law of relevancy
held as to which facts can be said to be relevant. They are, "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"7.

MEANING OF ADMISSIBILITY

Admissibility means the quality of being acceptable or valid, especially as evidence in a court
of law"8.Admissibility involves the process whereby the court determines whether the Law of
Evidence permits that relevant evidence to be received by the court. "Admissibility may refer
to..evidence which may be introduced in a court of law" 9. Admissibility means "n the fact of
being considered satisfactory and acceptable in a law court" 10. Admissibility, "the concept in
the law of evidence that determines whether or not evidence can be received by the court.
The evidence must first be relevant, but even relevant evidence will be tested for its
admissibility"11.The Act specifies rules for admissibility, including those related to relevancy,
hearsay, expert opinions, character evidence, public documents, privileged communication,
admissions, confessions, and the potential exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. Judges
are responsible for assessing the admissibility of evidence in line with the Act, ensuring a just
and equitable legal process.

7 [1968 69 AIR 807 (Bom)

8https://www.google.com/search?q=admissibility&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIN822IN845&oq=admissibility&aqs=
chrome..69i57j0l7.8265j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissibility

10 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/admissibility

11 https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/admissibility
RELEVENCY VS ADMISSIBILITY

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 dependent on rules of law but admissibility is founded on law.
Thus, relevancy is usually known as logical relevance 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.

“The Supreme Court in Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar, observed that "More
often the expressions 'relevancy and admissibility' are used as synonyms but their
legal implications are distinct and different 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 be 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
regard to the facts and circumstances of each case"12.

Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 (Equivalent to Section 15 of Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023) , defines the term “admission”. Admissibility is the
concept in the law of evidence that determines whether or not the evidence can be
received by the court. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when any fact has been
declared to be legally relevant then they become admissible. A judge by using the
power u/s 136 (Equivalent to Section 141 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) of
the Act, can satisfy himself that whether a fact is relevant as well the manner in which
it shall be proved so that it can be relevant and then can admit it. It is the duty of the
court to see all the relevant facts are allowed before the court in a case and also to
exclude all irrelevant facts. The very beginning of the section of relevancy, section 5

12 AIR 1998 SC 1850

(Equivalent to Section 3 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) itself states that
evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings of the existence or non-existence of
every facts in issue and of such other..facts as hereinafter will be declared to be
relevant, and of no others. In fact, the question of relevancy is of great nicety and
sometimes, great difficulty is felt by the Trial Judge in deciding the question of
relevancy. Therefore, it is desired that in doubtful cases, he should admit rather than
excluding the evidence ".

It may be "emphasised that when such evidence is rendered admissible by the

Evidence Act and when it is a well recognized exception to the rule against hear-say,
only because direct evidence would also be available, the evidence does not become
inadmissible"13

In general, a relevant fact given in evidence under Section 5 to 55 (Equivalent to

Section 3 to Section 50 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) is admissible in the
court. However, a relevant fact under Section 5 to 55 (Equivalent to Section 3-50 of
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam ,2023) may not be admissible if the other sections of the
Act do not permit it to be received by the court. These are the main exclusionary rules
in the Act which excluded the admissibility of a relevant fact. Hearsay statement,
confessions, evidence of the defendant character, exclusion of evidentiary facts by
estoppel and exclusion of privileged communication.

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

admissible under Section 24 (Equivalent to Section 22(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023). A confession to the police officer below the rank in Inspector is not
admissible under Section 25 (Equivalent to Section 23(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam ). Confession by accused while in custody of police is also not admissible
under Section 26 (Equivalent to Section 23(2) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)
even though it is relevant. For example a murderer confessed before the police officer
that he had killed the victim, though relevant is not admissible and shall be hit by
Section 25(Equivalent to Section 23(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). In the
same example, suppose the murderer confessed not to the police officer while he was
in the police lockup and confessed the commission of murder to another fellow prison
inmate. He again, even if the confession is not made to the police officer still the

13 Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 November, 2012

confession shall be hit, this time u/s 26, as the confession is made in the custody of a
police officer, be it to a third party.

An irrelevant fact is not admissible in the court. However, in certain cases, evidence,
which is not relevant under Section 5 to 55 (Equivalent to Section 3-50 of Bhartiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) may nonetheless be admissible. Examples include:
Statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found: Section 32.
Impeaching credit of witness: Section 155 (Equivalent to Section 152 of Bhartiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam ,2023).Former statements of witness may be proved to
corroborate later testimony as to the same fact: Section 157 (Equivalent to Section
154 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ).
"Whether a document is relevant and admissible in evidence or not is a question
governed by the Evidence Act and how it should be produced in Court and how it
should be dealt with by the Court are questions of procedure governed by the Code of
Civil Procedure. The Evidence Act does not deal with the procedure relating to
documents offered in evidence"14.

15

Relevancy is a subspecies of admissibility. Whereas admissibility is the genre.

14 Jageshar Naik vs Collector Of Jaunpur on 9 December, 1965

https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1153879/?formInput=%22relevancy%20and%20admissibility%22

15 https://www.writinglaw.com/difference-between-relevancy-and-admissibility/
 ● Key Differences Between Relevancy and Admissibility

Aspect Relevancy Admissibility

Basis of Logical connections and human

Legal standards and rules
Determination experience

Narrower; focuses on which

Scope Broader; includes many facts
relevant facts can be admitted

Judicial Courts have discretion in Limited discretion; judges must

Discretion determining relevance follow established rules

Sections 5 to 55 (Equivalent to Sections 136 onwards (Equivalent

Legal
Section 3-50 of Bhartiya Sakshya to Section 141 of Bhartiya Sakshya
Framework
Adhiniyam 2023) Adhiniyam 2023)

Nature of Relevant facts may not always Only legally relevant facts can be
Evidence meet admissibility criteria admitted

Case Analysis: Ram Bihari Jadav vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1998 SC 1850]

In Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the
relationship between relevancy and admissibility. The court emphasised that while these
terms are often used interchangeably, they possess distinct meanings within legal contexts ,
the court found that the dying declaration in this case was true and acceptable , there was
sufficient circumstantial evidence to corroborate it due to which in this case the appellant was
found guilty of intentionally causing burn injuries to his wife , resulting in her death and
conviction was upheld.

● Relevant facts may not always meet admissibility criteria due to procedural
exclusions or statutory provisions.
● All admissible evidence is inherently relevant; however, not all relevant evidence
qualifies for admission in court.
● Though dying declaration is indirect evidence being a species of hearsay, yet it is an
exception to the rule against admissibility of hearsay evidence. Indeed, it is
substantive evidence and like any other substantive evidence requires no
corroboration for forming the basis of conviction of an accused. But then the question
as to how much weight can be attached to a dying declaration is a question of fact and
has to be determined on the facts of each case.

This case illustrates how courts navigate these concepts when adjudicating matters involving
complex evidentiary issues. The ruling reinforces that while relevance serves as a foundation
for establishing connections between facts, admissibility determines whether those
connections can be legally recognized in court.

CONCLUSION

Relevancy and admissibility are two sides of the coin. It is the duty of the court to
include the relevant evidence as well as to exclude the irrelevant evidence.Hence,
evidence is significant and crucial in both civil and criminal proceedings. It is the most
integral and indispensable element of any proceedings. The evidence should always be
admissible in court if the facts are relevant and reliable. The evidence shall satisfy all
the specific provisions under the code. Both logical and legal relevance should be
considered during admission. Hence, the courts should let in only those facts which
have a high degree of probative value that would help the courts.

The law relating to evidence is not suitable for the present age and it must be amended for
better functioning. The law is supreme and no man should be given the discretionary power
to bend it. There must be a distinction between the law and the discretionary power of the
judge. However, a new mechanism must be developed to admit or not admit a particular
evidence.