Important Blogs

European Union Institutional body

Section 5 of Indian Evidence Act 1872

Section 5 of Indian Evidence Act read as Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.

We have already discussed previously, Fact-in-issue is very technical if will not pay attention, honestly it disturb you to understand the entire Evidence Act.

Explanation of Fact-in-Issue

Fact-in-Issue means matter in dispute, for example, Suppose “X” lodged a complaint against “Y” for theft of his Mobile, if “Y” accepts then there is no issue but If “Y” refuses then it becomes a matter in dispute or fact-in-issue.

Here you have understood “Fact-in-issue”, Now what is the existence of Fact-in-issue, so in the above illustration “X” and “Y” are two parties, X’s allegation is Y has stolen his mobile, and he has to give the evidence against “Y” so whatever “X” will give evidence that would be “Non-existence of fact-in-issue” , When “Y” will give evidence in his defence that would be “Existence of Fact-in-issue”.

So the interpretation of section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, any fact which inference either existence of fact-in-issue or non-existence of fact in issue are relevant.

Relevant and Admissibility

Relevant means that which is logical probative. Admissibility is not based on logic but on law and strict rule. The term relevancy and admissibility are not co-extensive or interchangeable terms. All admissible evidence is usually relevant but all relevant is not admissible. So only relevant facts are admissible in the court,

According to Section 5 of Indian Evidence Act, Evidence May be given of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of relevant facts and of no others. This section shall not enable any person to provide evidence of the fact that he is disentitled to prove any provision of law for time being in force relating to civil procedure.

Evidence can be given without any fact unless it is either a fact in issue or one is declared relevant under the following sections. Thus, evidence of all collateral facts, which does not inference with the matter in dispute, is excluded to save the public time.

Meaning of this, If any evidence which does not inference or which does not connect directly or indirectly with the matter in dispute, such evidence is baseless and it should be excluded to save courts time, and the reason is that such evidence tends to consume time, to deviate the mind of juros from the points in issue, and to excite prejudice and mislead moreover the adverse parties, having had no notice of such evidence is not prepared to rebut it.

So Section 5 of Indian Evidence Act deals with a relevant fact, according to this section, Evidence may be given of facts which in connection with other facts, make the existence of a relevant fact

Case Law

Balaji Gunthu Dhule v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 685.

While the entire evidence of eyewitnesses was not accepted by the High Court, it was held by the Supreme Court that the accused cannot be convicted for the offense under Section 302 IPC on the basis of post mortem report only. Post mortem reports must be filed with the evidence of eye witnesses and there may not be enough evidence to reach the conclusion to convict the accused.

Stokes' Anglo Indian Codes, Vol II, p 854, fn 1.

In this The words "and of no others" has been cleared, Impliedly impose a duty on the court to exclude evidence of irrelevant facts, Irrespective of objections by the parties. In criminal proceedings this duty is expressly imposed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, section 298 (omitted by the Code of 1973). In civil proceedings, see the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O XIII, rule 3.6

Dinesh Borthakur v State of Assam, (2008) 5 SCC 697 .

While the services of a sniffer dog may be taken for the purpose of an investigation, its faculties cannot be taken as evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt of an accused

Ram Bihari Yadav vs State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1850,

Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through Mohd. Quadari J and Said that more than often the expression relevancy and admissibility are used as a synonym but their legal implication is different because more often than not facts which are relevant not be admissible.

For example the communication made by a spouse during the marriage, the communication between an advocate and his client though relevant but is not admissible.

so also the facts which are admissible may not be relevant. For example, Question permitted to be cross-examined to test the veracity or to impeach credit of witness though not relevant are admissible