admissibilty and relevancy
Guest
(Querist) 15 November 2010
This query is : Resolved
1. What is the difference between admissiblity and relevancy of a document ? What are the legal consequences thereof ?
2. Whether is it true that once the document is relevant it has to be admitted ? (Section 136 of the Evidence Act as it appears to me on a bare reading gives me such an impression) Please kindly correct my impression, if need be.
3. All admissible documents are relvant but not vice-versa. How far this is true.
4. Whether once the documents are admitted the contents thereof are deemed to be proved or that they have to be proved as per the law of evidence. According to me the latter is correct? please kindly tell me the correct position.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 16 November 2010
Your queries are purely academic in nature. The replies are as follows:-
1. Admissibility is matter depending upon the nature of the document that you seek to exhibit. Whether they are the originals or copies. If they are copies,are there valid reasons for the non production of the originals. It is purely a formal affair. But relevancy is a matter depending upon the contents of the document. Does the document relate to the issues involved in the matter pending for decision before the court. If it is related only the court should allow the document to be exhibited. Otherwise the same has to be rejected as irrelevant.
2. Yes. Only relevant documents would be allowed to be exhibited by the court.
3. It is not corect. All revelvant documents are also admissble.
4. No. it is not correct. Admission of any document in evidence will not amount to proof. All admitted documents are exhibited subject to relevance and proof only. The party adducing such documentary evidence has to prove it in a manner known to law by examining necessary persons related to the same.Exhibition itself does not take the place of proof.
Guest
(Expert) 16 November 2010
no need to add further after well explained reply of Mr Subramanian
Chanchal Nag Chowdhury
(Expert) 16 November 2010
1.Without relevancy Why should any document be sought to be put into evidence? Admissibility of such a document is irrelevant.
2.What gave U the impression that the court is a dumping ground of irrelevant documents?
3.No. The converse is true.
4.U R right.Mr Subramanian has Explained in great detail the position in law.I only give U an example:-
I give U a notice claiming that U owe me Rs. 1 Lakh.U receive the notice but choose to ignore it knowing fully well that it is false. I file a claim in court on the basis of the notice. I produce the notice in court along with your signed receipt.The document gets exhibited.
The fact remains is that the contents of the document has not been proved though the document,the sending & acceptance part, has been proved. The document on its own has no evidential value unless I can prove the contents, viz.,my dues.I hope I have made the position clear as otherwise every notice will become proof of its contents.
Sri Vijayan.A
(Expert) 16 November 2010
Mr.Subramanian has explained well and Mr.Chanchal detailed it with example situation.
What to add?
Ramakrishnan.V
(Expert) 17 November 2010
Mr Harish,
All admissible documents are relevant and vice-versa is not correct. The simple reason is that any document for the purpose of requiring stamp duty and registration unless it is done it is not admissible unless registered. Yet certain enactments may permit these documents are also admissible like the one found in Family Court Act and Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, in this regard my humble submission is Mr. Subramaniam is not correct. It is my opinion and if I am wrong I may be corrected.
Once a document is admitted without objection, then it also means that the contents are also admitted for which no further proof is required.
Thus, all documents have certain elements like, admissibility, relevancy, & actionability.
The word admissibility is whether the document can be marked through the witness. For example according to the Madras High Court, in respect of Photographs even if the witness admit a photograph the same cannot be marked through the witness in spite of the fact the witness may admit the document. Hence, in respect of photographs as per this judgment as delivered by Banumathi.J it is admissible only through the person who ordered to Photograph or who Photographed. Then comes the relevancy and the admissibility of any document is spoken by the law of evidence which specifically say all documents are admissible if they are relevant as per the following sections of the act as spoken by the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which is almost similar to all prevailing legislated Law of evidence of most of the countries. Thus, when the document becomes admissible, when admitted then the court finds that the document can be acted upon which gives the right of actionability of the document is my humble opinion.
Ramakrishnan.V
Ramakrishnan.V
(Expert) 17 November 2010
Mr. Chanchal,
the following provisions of Indian Evidence Act will clarify the right approach.
3. Interpretation clause - In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context:-
"Court" - "Court" includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all person, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence.
"Fact" - "Fact" means and includes -
1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
"Relevant" - One fact is said to be relevant to another 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.
"Fact in issue" - The expression "facts in issue" means and includes-any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other fact, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.
Explanation - Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to the such issue, is a fact in issue.
A is accused of the murder of B.
At his trail the following facts may be in issue:
that A caused B's death;
that A intended to cause B's death;
that A had had received grave and sudden provocation from B;
that A at the time of doing the act, which caused B's death,
was by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its nature.
"Document" - "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letter, figures or makes, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
A writing is a document;
Words printed, lithographed or photographed are document;
A map or plan is a document;
An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document;
A caricature is a document.
"Evidence" - "Evidence" means and includes -
(1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence.
(2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.
5. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts - Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.
Explanation - This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure.
Illustrations
(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death.
At A's trial the following facts are in issue -
A's beating B with the club;
A's causing B's death by such beating;
A's intention to cause B's death.
(b) A suitor does not bring with him and have in readiness for production at the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to product the bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings otherwise than in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
22. When oral admission as to contents of documents are relevant - Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant unless and until the party proposing them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.
