Rebutting the Notion of "Relevant to the Issue" – A Reevaluation of Section 45 Evidence Act
evidence judiciary intermediate agree_disagreeI strongly disagree with the common misconception that the relevance of evidence is solely determined by its connection to the 'issue' in a case. Section 45 of the Evidence Act stipulates that evidence must be relevant to the fact in issue, but the definition of 'fact' in issue is far broader than just the disputed point in a case.
In my opinion, a fact in issue can encompass any fact that has a bearing on the case, even if it's not directly related to the contested point. For instance, in the case of 'Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani' [1978] 2 SCR 424, the Supreme Court held that the victim's character is a relevant fact in determining consent under Section 375 IPC.
2 Comments
Relevant to the issue" concept under Section 45 Evidence Act, kya hua? This topic is crucial for understanding evidence admissibility in Indian courts. To clarify, 'relevant' evidence is that which has a direct connection with the issue at hand. The question is how to determine 'connection'? Does it need a direct link or a logical inference? The debate around this notion is essential, especially when evidence is being questioned for relevance. The paper attempts a reevaluation, but more clarity is required for a precise approach.
Agree naa to the author, but I think this analysis is a bit narrow. Section 45 Evidence Act is not just about relevancy, it's also about burden of proof. If the court decides that the evidence is relevant, but it's not relevant to the issue at hand, that's a different story altogether. We need to consider the overall implications of Section 45 in Indian legal system.