• Brain Booster Articles


Author: Aanya Agarwal, III year of B.B.A., LL.B.(Hons.) from Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida


Admissibility means that only the relevant facts are admissible in the court of law. Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 explains which all shreds of evidence are admissible.

“When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise. If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last-mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking. If their relevance of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact.”

The above area expresses that it is the attentiveness of the Judge to choose whether the evidence is permissible or not. The managing official may request that the gathering explain how the specific truth or proof is pertinent under the provisions Section 6 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. if he isn't persuaded of its importance. Along these lines, the subject of pertinence starts things out and afterwards the topic of acceptability.

The presiding officer has the full force in choosing whether evidence is acceptable or not in a specific case. Along these lines, with this force comes the extreme obligation to the Judge to ensure that each applicable proof which is legitimately made is allowable, so the gatherings can get equity without unnecessary preferences aside. The fundamental point of the investigation is to examine whether the Law of Evidence is reasonable for the current age.


The lawful idea of Evidence is neither static nor all-inclusive. The previous techniques followed like the preliminary of a trial would be strange to the current strategies followed today[1]. Nothing which isn't significant might be illustrated as proof according to the law Evidence helps in setting up blame or guiltlessness of a person. The proof law has advanced as of late and even logical confirmations are being made permissible in courts The difficulties looked at by proof law are ageless. Regardless of what the proof is, the normal technique for finding reality assumes a significant part in the modernisation of proof. The Indian Evidence Act is special, it has not been altered for quite a while. In the Due Process, the weight of confirmation lies in the gatherings to demonstrate their case. In this way, having a rule for the acceptability of proof is significant. The Act not just sets down the methodology for acceptability of proof yet also clarifies which proof is applicable and which isn't. The caution of the Judge is exceptionally high in the fair treatment model. Some arrangements of rules for pertinence and acceptability are set up to ensure that the Judge doesn't utilize his capacity discretionarily since defilement has taken another shape everywhere in the world. The two significant terms in the Indian Evidence Act are tolerability and importance.

Relevancy of Fact

Truth has been clarified in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. reality implies a thing that exists. In the Evidence Act, it isn't limited to the unmistakable nature, even the sentiments, perspective, and individual inclinations go under the expansive term truth. Sections 5 to 55 deal with the relevancy of fact. The primary inquiry emerges regarding which truth is lawfully pertinent and intelligent. A legitimately pertinent certainty may not be lawfully applicable in court. All realities that are to be created in court must be consistently important just as lawfully acceptable. In State of UP v. Raj Narain ("AIR 1975 SC 865")[2] where it was indicated that not all applicable realities are acceptable. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. Province of Bihar[3], the contrast between importance and tolerability is clarified. Section 6 of The Indian Evidence Act, is significant as it clarifies the realities that structure an aspect of a similar exchange.

Admissibility of Fact

The admissibility of facts helps in deciding whether a particular piece of evidence will help in concluding a case. The admissibility of evidence is a question of law and it is decided by the Judge as per section 136 of the evidence act. Admissibility is based on Law and not Logic. Facts which may have no logical relevance may sometimes be admissible in courts. After a shred of evidence has been declared logically relevant and legally admissible, how it was obtained becomes irrelevant. In situations where it is practically impossible to differentiate between a shred of admissible evidence and non-admissible one, if the admissible and non-admissible evidence are given together to the point they cannot be segregated, then the whole evidence becomes inadmissible.

Relevancy and Admissibility

It is very important to differentiate between relevancy and admissibility. Admissibility of evidence is strictly based on law whereas relevancy is based on logic and probability. The next fundamental difference is the basic feature of the two. Admissibility declares whether a shred of evidence is admissible or not whereas relevancy declares whether the given facts are relevant to the facts in question.

Importance of electronic evidence

Expanding dependence on electronic methods for correspondences, web-based business and capacity of data in digital shape have unquestionably made a need to change the law identifying with data innovation and tenets of the suitability of electronic evidence both in common and criminal issues in India. This expanded utilization of innovation, be that as it may, postures challenges pleasing and mirroring the new age advancements in-laws crosswise over purviews, which thus has given the much-expected impulse to the development and energy about digital evidence. Staying aware of the circumstances, essential changes were likewise made to Indian laws in the year 2000 with presentation of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('IT Act'), which acquired comparing alterations to existing Indian statutes to make digital evidence acceptable. The IT Act, which depends on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, prompted changes in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act'), the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891. With the adjustment in law, Indian courts have created case law in regards to dependence on electronic evidence. Judges have likewise shown perceptiveness towards the inborn 'electronic' nature of evidence, which incorporates knowledge concerning the suitability of such evidence, and the translation of the law in connection to how electronic evidence can be brought and recorded under the watchful eye of the court.

Admissibility of Evidence

Admissibility means that only the relevant facts are admissible in the court of law. Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 explains which all evidence is admissible. The above section states that it is the discretion of the Judge to decide whether a shred of evidence is admissible or not. The presiding officer may ask the party to clarify how the particular fact or evidence is relevant under the provisions of section 6 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872, lays down some facts which can be treated as relevant. In the case of Lakshman Das Chagan Lal Bhatia v. State[4], the court laid down the following to be “relevant facts”:

Facts, which are necessary to explain or introduce a fact, which is in issue or relevant, facts which uphold or refute an induction proposed by reality in issue or a significant fact, facts which build up the personality of anything or individual whose character is relevant, facts which fix the time and spot at which any reality in issue or pertinent truth occurred, facts which show the connection of gatherings by whom any reality in issue or applicable certainty was executed.

Section 11 also deals with admissibility.

In Bibi Khaver v. Bibi Rukha(Gurnani)[5]the court held that “so that a collateral fact can be admitted as relevant under this section, the prerequisites of the law are that The collateral fact must itself be established by conclusive evidence; and It must when established, afford a reasonable presumption or inference as to the matter in dispute (National Conference on Evidence Law: Contemporary Development)[6].

All facts that are viewed as proof may not be proved according to law. The carefulness is exclusively in the possession of the adjudicator to choose whether a proof is permissible or not. Ill-advised confirmation of proof isn't a ground for retrial and a choice can't just be turned around on the grounds of inappropriate proof. The force vested on an adjudicator by section 136 is tremendous and It must be taken care of appropriately. The Judges, similar to all other Human creatures are questionable and optional forces ought to not be given to them to choose whether a proof is allowable or not. The Law or the Judge, both ought to not be enabled to choose whether a proof is acceptable or prohibited.


The Law identifying evidence has advanced throughout the years as one of the most significant in choosing cases. The force vested on the directing official in choosing whether a proof is acceptable or not is tremendous and must be limited through rules. The law identifying with proof isn't appropriate for the current age and it must be changed for the better working of the legitimate framework. A reasonable line must be drawn between the intensity of the adjudicator and the intensity of the appointed authority as such a colossal force vested on an individual would just bring about the defilement of intensity. The law is incomparable and no man ought to be given the optional capacity to twist it to his desire. In this manner, an unmistakable differentiation must be drawn between the law and the optional intensity of the appointed authority. Along these lines, the law is in critical need of an amendment.

The Judges, similar to all other Human creatures are error-prone and optional forces ought not to be given to them to choose whether a proof is permissible or not. Ted Bundy, one of the most infamous enemies within recent memory figured out how to accomplish more violations and dodged the eyes of the law as he was let out on unacceptable proof. The Law or the Judge, both ought not to be enabled to choose whether a proof is permissible or unacceptable. Each bit of Evidence which concerns the case must be frantically permissible whether it is found through unlawful inquiry or some other methods. There are numerous individuals among us who avoid the eyes of Law perpetually in light of unacceptable confirmations. Along these lines, another component must be created to concede or not concede particular evidence.

[1] The Legal Concept of Evidence (Stanford ...." Accessed May 31, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/.

[2] AIR 1975 SC 865

[3] AIR 1998 SC 1850

[4] AIR 1968 Bom 400, (1967) 69 BOMLR 808, 1968 CriLJ 1584

[5][1904] 6 AIR 983 (BLR)

[6] (2016, April 23). Evidence Law: Contemporary Development - Galgotias University. Retrieved May 31, 2018, from http://law.galgotiasuniversity.edu.in/pdf/hyperlink.pdf


Want to connect?


Follow us

Brain Booster Articles


  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube