CONCEPT OF ADMISSIBILITY & RELEVANCY: EVIDENCE AFFECTING COURT PROCEEDINGS

“All relevant facts may not be admissible but all admissible facts are relevant. “ – Why does law say so?

When one side of a case tries to introduce evidence that isn't relevant, material or competent, the other side can ask, before or during trial, to have the evidence suppressed on admissibility grounds. One area where a motion to suppress is commonly raised is with chain of custody issues where a piece of evidence isn't properly secured from its collection to trial.

Let’s take an example -

If one side can show that a blood sample was not properly labelled or a weapon wasn't properly locked in an evidence room, there's no way to trust the results of any subsequent blood test or a fingerprint analysis. While this evidence may be relevant and material, it would not be competent because of intervening custody problems that could have led to inaccurate test results.

This was a typical example of suppressing inadmissible evidence. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with such provisions.

Does Relevancy of Admissible Facts matter?

Like hearsay evidence, other evidences also show reliability problems, as it does not directly show whether the person actually did or said something. But there are times when certain evidence is so complicated, like DNA evidence, that it requires an expert to interpret and explain it to the court. This type of expert testimony is only admissible once the expertise of the witness is established and their testimony is found to be based on reliable methods and acknowledged within the scientific community.

Is Relevancy is a Test for Admissibility?

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. For example, police confessions, hearsay statements, privileged communications, etc. are relevant, but not admissible. Relevancy must be established before admissibility can be dealt with.

Is Relevancy is totally dependent on law?

Relevant Evidence is evidence that makes a fact more or less likely to be true than it would be without the evidence. Relevant evidence is generally admissible and irrelevant evidence is never admissible. This will be more precise by the two leading principles on relevance:

• That nothing is to be received which is not logically probative of some matter requiring to be proved; and

• That everything which is thus probative should come in, unless a clear ground of policy or law excludes it.

So, what is Logically Relevant? Is Logical Relevancy wider than Legal Relevancy?

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 of the latter. 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 the section 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Facts legally relevant means, simply, the facts declared to be relevant under the given sections 6 to 55 and this is part of the legislative and not judicial determination.

“Every fact which is legally relevant is logically relevant, but every fact which is logically relevant is not necessarily legally relevant.”

You all must have heard that –

“Confessions made to Police Officer in a Police Station are not admissible in the Court of Law.” Thus, a confession made to a police officer may appear to be logically relevant, but such a confession is not legally relevant, as section. 25 of the Act states that it cannot be used as evidence against the person making it. But the mere fact of logical relevancy does not ensure the admissibility of a fact. That is why, all evidence that is admissible is relevant, but all that is relevant is not necessarily admissible. And so, the oral statements which are hearsay may be relevant, but not being direct evidence, are not admissible.

How can one determine relevancy? Relevancy is determined on the basis of practical experience, logic, common sense, human experience and basic knowledge of affairs. It is found on the basis of the rationale and human experience. The court has the power to apply discretion in relevancy.

Can Admissible Facts be Relevant?

On the basis of the case- Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia v. State, the court laid down some of the following relevant facts:

• Facts are important to clarify or present reality in issue or relevant fact.

• Certainties that support or counter an induction proposed by a fact or truth in issue or a relevant fact. Substances which fix the time and spot at which any reality in issue or noteworthy assurance occurred.

• Evidence is considered as more important in deciding cases over many years. The power vested on the managing official in choosing whether a proof is permissible or not is immense and must be limited through rules.

This is why – “All the relevant facts which are admissible by the court are called admissibility."

Is Admissible Evidence Relevant?

There is a saying as per law-

“All admissible evidence is relevant but all relevant evidence is not admissible.”

Admissibility means that the facts which are relevant are only admissible by the Court. As per the section 136 of the Act, it is the judge who decides the questions of relevancy and admissibility.

Let’s take an example - 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. 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 the Act. This is the reason why the consideration of relevancy comes first and of admissibility later and the judge will admit the fact only if it is relevant.

In one of the recent case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court observed that- More often the expressions ‘relevancy and admissibility’ are used as synonyms, but their legal implications are distinct and different for the facts which are relevant are not admissible; Also facts which are admissible may not be relevant.

You all must have seen the cross examination in a trial –

The questions permitted to put in cross examination to test the veracity or impeach the credit of witnesses, though not relevant are admissible.

So how is that so and why? 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. Facts which may be connected to each other or so remotely that they cannot be considered to have high probative value, and so are kept outside the purview of the provisions of the said Act. The discretion cannot be applied by the court in admissibility.

So, “Relevant facts are not admissible Legal relevant facts are admissible. “

The law is incomparable and no man should be given the optional capacity to twist it to his desire. But some men do, and sometimes it is seemed as legal, as it is very nicely manipulated and portrayed through legal aspects before the court of law. Each bit of proof which concerns the case must be admissible whether it is found through illicit hunt or some other methods. Yet, there are many people among us who evade the eyes of law forever because of inadmissible evidence.

So with this I sign off here. Fight for Justice and Relevancy of Admissible Facts. The fight may be long but worth it. Save the innocent and not the culprit.