HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

A PROJECT WORK

On

Relationship between Relevancy and Admissibility

SUBMITTED TO

Ms. Adya Pandey (Faculty member of Law of Evidence)

SUBMITTED BY

Neelam Thakur

ROLL NO. 88

SEMESTER VII-C

SUBMISSION DATE: 21-08-2017

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Acknowledgements…………………………………………….….…..3
 Objectives of the project………………………………………….…….4
 Research methodology…………………………………………………4
 Introduction…………………………………………………………….5
 Conclusion…………………………………………………...………...16
 References……………………………………………………………..17

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, Ms. Adya
Pandey mam for giving me a project topic such as this and for having the faith in me to
deliver. Thank you Mam, for giving me an opportunity to grow.

My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in
the form of our library and IT Lab that was a source of great help for the completion of this
project.

Neelam Thakur

Sem. - VII

3
OBJECTIVES
 To study firstly the definition of Relevant Fact which get admissible by the court.
 To study briefly that what type of facts can be called as Relevant Evidence.
 To know what is Admissibility
 To discuss the relation between relevancy and admissibility by the help of cases.
 To also discuss the relevant provisions of the Act giving reference in this project.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1. This project has been pursued on the basis secondary sources of information. This
includes books, textbooks, and articles from newspapers and downloaded from
WebPages.
2. The project is based on analytical and descriptive study.

4
 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.

5
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-

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

b) 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.

6
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

1
primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/2012/11/relevancy-v-admissibility

7
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.

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

2
www.wcl.american.edu/sba/outline_databank/outlines
3
primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/relevancy-v-admissibility

8
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.

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 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 it 4 . 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.

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

9
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.

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 Nair 6 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
evidencejournalist.weebly.com/relevancy-admissibility

10
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 relevant.8

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. 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.

8 Dr. V. N. Rao, The Indian Evidence Act (1st, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Haryana 2012) 41.
9 (1999) 2 MLJ
10
www.primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/relevancy-v-admissibility

11
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 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”

11 (1999) 2 MLJ
12 http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/distinction-between-relevancy-and-admissibility
13 http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/3746.pdf
14 AIR 1941 PC 16

12
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.”

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 improbable17.

15 [1998] AIR 1859 (SC).

16 [1968] 69 AIR 807 (Bom).
17 www.primafaciejourney.blogspot.in/2012/11/relevancy-v-admissibility

13
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.

18 [1904] 6 AIR 983 (BLR)

19 [1874] 11 AIR 90 (BHCR)
20 [1912] 34 AIR 341 (SC).

14
 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.

15
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

16
17