Explain and illustrate ‘Res gestae’.

Where res gestae is an excep7on to

the principle of hearsay evidence?
1. introduc7on
2. Defini7on of res gestae
3. Sec7on 6 IEA
4. Test for admissibility of evidence of res gestae
5. Judgements
6. Excep7on to hearsay

INTRODUCTION

Facts, not a part of the main issue, which are supplementary and
is so connected to the issue that it forms part of the same
transac7on is called res gestae. In layman’s terms, the facts
which surround the fact in issue and have happened
immediately before or aSer the ‘act’ has been done are
admissible under this doctrine. If any of the facts are remotely
connected to the main act, they wouldn’t be admissible in a
court of law.

DEFINITION OF RES GESTAE

Res Gestae has been derived from Latin words meaning ‘’things
done’’. It is mainly an exception to the hearsay rule of evidence which
refers to ‘’an assertion other than one made by a person while giving
oral evidence is inadmissible’’.

As per the stated words of the Indian Evidence Act, under section 6,
• facts which though not in issue,
 • are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same
transaction, are relevant,
• whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different
times and places.
• This comes under the ambit of res gestae.

TEST FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF RES GESTAE

There are a few questions that the judge of the respective court
needs to take heed of, for making such evidence admissible
under the res gestae doctrine. They also need to comprehend
certain circumstances, whether they were so sudden, surprising,
or startling to affect the immediate thoughts and actions of the
victim, that his/her declaration was an instinctive response to
those circumstances.

Put it in brief, the test to be applied in deciding whether a hearsay

statement made by a third party or the victim indicating the identity
of the attacker is admissible can be framed on the basis of these
aspects:[11]

1. Relevancy of identification
2. The spontaneity of the declaration
3. Possible opportunity for the concoction
4. The real possibility of error

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

R VS BEDINGFIELD
R vs FOSTER
Facts of R v Foster
in R v Foster, a witness observed a vehicle speeding towards the
victim. The witness did not directly witness the accident itself.
Following the accident, the victim, while still in a state of shock, spoke
to the witness about the details of the accident.

The court in R v Foster reasoned that the victim’s statement qualified

as res gestae because:
• Spontaneity: The statement was made shortly after the accident

while the victim was still under the shock of the event. This
spontaneity reduced the likelihood of fabrication or distortion.
• Proximity in Time: The close temporal connection between the

accident and the statement suggested that the victim’s

recollection of the event was likely accurate.
• State of Mind: The victim’s state of shock further bolstered the

statement’s reliability, as the court believed the victim wouldn’t

have had the presence of mind to create a false narrative.

RATTEN VS THE QUEEN

The case of Ratten v. Queen [ii] is an illustration on the point

Here a man was charged with the murder of his wife. He defended
himself in the court saying that the shot went off accidentally.
However, there was evidence to show that the deceased wife
contacted the telephone operator and said, “Get me the police
please†. But before the operator could connect call to the police the
lady who spoke in distress gave her address and then the call ended
suddenly. Thereafter the police went to the address so given and
found the dead body of a woman, that is, the wife of the accused.

Lord Wilberforce delivering the judgement explained:

The act of the deceased of calling the telephone operator and
the words said by her on the call are relevant facts here as they
form part of the same transaction which is in issue before the
court.
IllustraBons under secBon 6:
(i) A is accused of the murder of B by bea7ng him. Whatever was
said or done by A or B or by the by-standers at the bea7ng, or so
shortly before or aSer it, so as to form part of the transac7on, is
a relevant fact.
(ii) A sues B for a libel contained in a leker forming part of a
correspondence. Lekers between the par7es rela7ng to the
subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the
correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts,
though they do not contain the libel itself.

EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY

A killed B, where C was the sole eye witness. C shared this news with
D. If D testified whatever C saw in the court, it would be held
inadmissible because he wasn’t part of the event nor did form part of
the same transaction. He just heard it from C and said it. This is called
hearsay evidence and is held inadmissible.
It’s admissible when a person testifies about what he or she has seen
or heard if it’s relevant to the issue. However, it’s not admissible if the
truth of the statement needs to be weighed down. Hearsay isn’t the
best evidence because of the following reasons i.e., the witness isn’t
available for cross-examination; he isn’t put on oath or affirmation; it
carries an inherent danger of unreliability through repetition of facts
stated in the chain of communication and possibility of
fabrication.[15]
Res gestae is an exception to this doctrine because it includes the
element of contemporaneity and forms part of the same transaction.

Admissions cannot be proved in favour of the persons making them.

What are the excep7ons to this general rule ?
What is the Admission in Evidence Act?
Admissions are defined under Sections 17 to 31 under the Indian
Evidence Act ,1872. Sections 17 to 23 deal with general admission
whereas Sections 24 to 31 deal with Confession. A Confession is an
admission of guilt by the accused in a criminal case which is
acceptable and valid in evidence.[1]
Admission in evidence act can either be self-harming or self-serving
(serve own interest). Self-harming evidence are acceptable evidence
in a court of law. Admission can be done by silence too.
Section 17- An Admission is a statement, oral or documentary [or
contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to fact
in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and
under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.[2]
Basant Singh v. Janki Singh[3]
The Supreme court held:
• Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act ,1872 makes no distinction

between an admission made by a party in a pleading and other

admissions. Under Indian law, an admission made by a party in
a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence
against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot
be regarded as conclusive and is open to the party to show that
it is not true.
 • All the statements made in the plaint are admissible as evidence.
The court is, however, not bound to accept all the statements as
correct. The court may accept some of the statements and reject
the rest.
[The court rejected the statements which were against the plaintiff in
the present case, because of other circumstances.]
Types of Admission in Evidence Act
Formal Admission under Evidence Act
Formal Admissions are judicial admissions, and in such a case, there
is no need to prove the facts admitted. Section 58 of the Indian
Evidence Act says that the facts which are judicially admitted need not
be proved.

Informal Admissions in Evidence Act

Whereas Informal Admissions are usually made in casual
conversation in ignorance of the possibility of it being used in future
litigation. For example, with friends, family, neighbours, and so on.[4]
Admission As A Waiver Of Proof
When parties make an admission of fact, it, in turn, amounts to a
waiver of proof of such a fact. If a party admits any fact on its own
then there is no need to give evidence to prove such a fact.
Admissions When Admissible
1. Admission must relate to the subject matter.
2. Admission must always be in the nature of self-harming form or
statement.
3. Admission must be made by persons and in circumstances
mentioned under Section 18 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Who Can Make Admissions?
Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules regarding as
to who can make an admission. According to this section, there are
five classes of persons whose statements will be considered as an
admission in a suit. These five classes are: –
Party to the proceedings

The statements made by the parties to a proceeding as against himself

are considered as relevant admission in Evidence Act. Under this
Section, the term ‘parties’ not only means the persons who appear on
the record in that capacity but also includes those persons who are
parties to a suit without appearing. Persons who have an interest in
the subject matter of the suit but are not parties on the record are
also considered as parties in the proceedings and their statements
have the same relevancy as the parties on record. Similarly, a person
who although appears as a party on the record but has no real interest
in the subject matter will not have any effect through his admission
against the person he is appearing on behalf of.
By the agent of such party who is authorised
The statements made by an agent in a suit would be admissible against
the person he is representing. The statements made by an agent are,
however, binding only when they are made during the continuance of
his agency. So, when the agent’s right to interference has come to an
end any statement made by him after that will not have any effect on
the principal.
Suitor is a representative character, when he held that character
When a person such as trustees, administrators, executors etc., sue or
are sued in a representative character, any statement made by them
will only be admissible if made in their representative character. Any
declarations made by them in their personal capacity will not be taken
as an admission in Evidence Act.
Party having pecuniary or proprietary interests
In any such suit where several persons are interested jointly in the
subject matter of the suit, then any admission made by anyone of the
parties will be taken as an admission against himself as well as the
other parties jointly interested in the subject matter. It does not
matter whether the persons jointly interested in the subject matter
are suing or being sued jointly or separately. However, for this rule to
apply there has to be a prima facie foundation showing that joint
interest exists between the parties suing or being sued.
Predecessor in the title (who was in the title before me)
Any statement made by the predecessor-in-title from who the party
to the suit derives his title will be admissible. But this will only be held
as an admission in Evidence Act if the predecessor-in-title made the
declaration while still holding the title and not after the title has been
transferred. The statement made by the former owner will not be
considered as an admission as against the parties if it was made title
has been passed.
Section 19- Person Whose Position or Liability in Question Can Make
Admissions.
As general rule statements made by a third party to a suit are not
considered as admissions but Section 19 is an exception to this rule.
It refers to the statements made by a third party as against himself
when it affects his position or liability and when such liability or
position is relevant to be proved as against the party to the suit. The
statements made by the third party, in this case, would only be
relevant if the liability or position of that third party still exists at the
time of the suit.
Section 20- Admissions by persons expressly referred to by the party
to suit
This section refers to when a party to the suit refers to a third party
regarding some information a matter of dispute. Under this section,
any statement made by such party will be taken as an admission
against the person who referred to the third party. This Section is
another exception to the general rule that statements made by
strangers are not considered as an admission.
Admission means conceding something against the person making the
admission. The sections deal only with admissions oral and written.
Admissions by conduct are not covered by the sections. The relevancy
of such admissions by conduct depends upon Section 8 and its
Explanations.
Admission to Its Evidentiary Value
Admission is not conclusive proof of the fact admitted as it is a piece
of prima facia evidence only. But it may operate as an estoppel. The
person can be stopped to The admissions referred to in the section
are known as evidentiary admissions, i.e., admissions of which
evidence can be given. The witness can say in court that he heard such
and such a person make such and such a statement. The Act deals with
another kind of admissions, called formal admissions dealt with in
Section 58. These are deliberately made with respect to the matters
in issue, which are before the court; whereas evidentiary admissions
are not made in contemplation of the particular litigation.
The Supreme Court in Banarasi Das vs. Kanshi Ram, 1963 said, ‘It is a
weak type of evidence, and the court may reject it if the contrary is
proved.’
deny the truth of the statement.

Admission As Estoppel
Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act says that admissions are not
conclusive proof of the matter admitted, but it may operate as an
estoppel. A person can’t deny of the fact he admitted in court. And if
it is treated as estoppel, rules of Section 115-117 of the Indian
Evidence Act will apply.
When Admissions May Be Proved?
According to Section 21, Admission may be used against the party
making the admission but it cannot be used by the party who makes
the admission for his own use. This Section further lays down three
exceptions to this rule. These exceptions are: –
1. Admissions falling under Section 32: This exception enables a
person to prove his own statement where the circumstances are such
that if he were dead, the statement would have been relevant in
dispute between third parties (when veracity is not in doubt it can be
brought).
2. Statement as to the bodily feeling of the state of mind falling
under Section 14: The statement of men’s mind or body is relevant
under Section 14 and the statement narrating such facts which
indicate the state of mind or body made at or about the time when
such state existed and which is accompanied by conduct are relevant.
3. Statement otherwise relevant, then it may be proved as an
otherwise relevant fact and not as admissions.
A statement which is of the nature of an admission in Evidence Act on
a mixed question of fact and law cannot be treated as an admission
under Section 17, because only an admission of fact binds the maker
and not an admission on a question of law.[7]

When does confession become irrelevant?

Introduction
The most satisfactory evidence in a case is the confession made by the
accused. The basic application of it rests on the truth and accuracy of
the said confession. It comes out from a great sense of guilt.
Confession can be the decision-makers in a trial. In the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 the confessions are not explicitly defined but it
comes under the category of admission, the accused admits to his
guilt.
The confession of an accused cannot be taken as the sole reason for
conviction, it should be corroborated with other evidence. However,
in a few instances, a confession made by the accused may result in
mistreatment of the subject, due to its high probative value. Under
the Indian evidence act, Section 24 to Section 30 deals with
“confession”. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 164, 281,
and 463 deals with confessions.
Meaning of confession
The word “confession” appears for the first time in Section 24 of the
Indian Evidence Act. This section comes under the heading of
Admission so it is clear that the confessions are merely one species of
admission. Confession is not defined in the Act. Mr. Justice Stephen in
his Digest of the law of Evidence defines confession as “confession is
an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime
stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.”

In Pakala Narayan Swami v Emperor Lord Atkin observed

“ A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission
of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact
is not in itself a confession”.

In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab the Supreme Court

approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case
over two scores.
Firstly, that the definition if confession is that it must either admit the
guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the
offence.
Secondly, that a mixed up statement which even though contains
some confessional statement will still lead to acquittal, is no
confession.
Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true
would negate the matter or offence, cannot amount to confession.
Meaning of admission
The word ‘Admission’ expressed in the Evidence Act means “When
any person voluntarily acknowledges the existence of any facts in
issue or facts”. Like in the case of confession we discovered that
confession is not much described in the Evidence Act in the same
manner the Indian Evidence Act also has not done much effective
work on expressing, the term ‘Admission’ in an outspread sense.
Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act, defines admission as any statement
made in either form such as oral, documentary or in electronic form
which has enough probative value to suggest or conclude any
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
In, Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam the Supreme Court of
India explained the effects of admission, that admissions are generally
true and clear of any ambiguity, and they shall be considered as the
best proof for proving any fact in issue or relevant fact by the
admission of certain facts. On the other hand, the informal admission
which is made during the day to day activity just help in bringing the
facts either by an oral or written statement by the admission of either
party.
Difference between Confession and Admission
S.
Confession Admission
No.

The confession is something which is made by When any person voluntar

1.
the person who is charged with any criminal existence of any facts in is
 offences and such statements may infer any
reasoning for concluding or suggesting that he
is guilty of a crime.

The concept of confession usually deals with The concept of admission u

2. the criminal proceedings and there is no such civil proceedings and se
specific section defining confession. deal with the definition of

If the confessions are purposefully and are Admissions may be ope

made on someone’s own will then it may be because they are not conc
3.
accepted as conclusive of the facts confessed admitted by the person w
by the confessor. admit some facts.

Admissions may be used

Confessions are always used or go against the person who has admi
4.
confessor of the statements. statements under the exc
of the Indian Evidence Act

As it is previously obser
Confessions confessed by more than one cannot be used against
person jointly for the same offence can be admitting the facts by an
5. considered against other accused of the same don’t have much probativ
crime under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Hence the admission ma
Act. personalities of the same s
evidence against other pe

Admission gives the co

Confession is the direct admission of matter or
liability of the person who
6. facts of the cases either in the form of a
or matter either in the fo
written or oral statement.
statements.
In, Sahoo v. the State of U.P, newly wedded women joined the new
house of her husband and after some time the accused murdered his
daughter-in-law, and after murdering her daughter-in-law he
screamed “I have finished her” and in the course of his statement
many of his neighbours heard his statement stating “I have finished
her”. In this case, the court observed that the statements made by the
accused should be considered as confession and they shall be
regarded as confessionary in nature.
Forms of confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
A confession may occur in many forms. When it is made to the court
itself then it will be called judicial confession and when it is made to
anybody outside the court, in that case it will be called extra-judicial
confession. It may even consist of conversation to oneself, which may
be produced in evidence if overheard by another. For example, in
Sahoo v. State of U.P. the accused who was charged with the murder
of his daughter-in-law with whom he was always quarreling was seen
on the day of the murder going out of the house, saying words to the
effect : “I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels.” The
statement was held to be a confession relevant in evidence, for it is
not necessary for the relevancy of a confession that it should be
communicated to some other person.
Judicial confession under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Are those which are made before a magistrate or in court in the due
course of legal proceedings. A judicial confession has been defined to
mean “plea of guilty on arrangement (made before a court) if made
freely by a person in a fit state of mind.

Extra-judicial confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Are those which are made by the accused elsewhere than before a
magistrate or in court. It is not necessary that the statements should
have been addressed to any definite individual. It may have taken
place in the form of a prayer. It may be a confession to a private
person. An extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean “ a free
and voluntary confession of guilt by a person accused of a crime in the
course of conversation with persons other than judge or magistrate
seized of the charge against himself.
A man after the commission of a crime may write a letter to his
relation or friend expressing his sorrow over the matter. This may
amount to confession. Extra-judicial confession can be accepted and
can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility. Extra-
judicial confession is generally made before private person which
includes even judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a
magistrate not empowered to record confessions under section 164
of the Cr.P.C. or a magistrate so empowered but receiving the
confession at a stage when section 164 does not apply.

Difference between judicial and extra-judicial confession

Judicial confession Extra-judicial confession

1. Extra-judicial confession are th

1. Judicial confessions are those which are
to any person other than those
made to a judicial magistrate under section
take confession. It may be made
164 of Cr.P.C. or before the court during
police during investigation of an
committal proceeding or during trial.

2. To prove judicial confession the person to 2. Extra-judicial confession are p

whom judicial confession is made need not person as witness before who
be called as witness. confession is made.

3. Judicial confession can be relied as proof of

3. Extra-judicial confession alon
guilt against the accused person if it appears
needs support of other supportin
to the court to be voluntary and true.
 4. A conviction may be based on judicial 4. It is unsafe to base convict
confession. confession.

In, State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh the Supreme Court in this case
held that an extra-judicial confession’s value only increases when it is
clearly consistent and convincing to the conclusion of the case
otherwise the accused cannot be held liable for the conviction solely
on the basis of the confession made by him.
In, Balwinder Singh v. State the Supreme Court has mentioned some
guidelines in the form of deciding the case that in the case of
extrajudicial confession it the court must check for the credibility of
the person making the confession and all of his statements shall be
tested by the court to conclude whether the person who made the
confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise a person who is not so
trustworthy then his statements cannot be used for making any
inference to prove the guilt of the accused.
In, Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu the Supreme Court while
deciding the case has made few principles in the form of guidelines
where the court has to check such principles before admitting the
confession of the accused, The following principles mentioned by the
Supreme Court are:
• Extrajudicial confessions are generally a very weak kind of

evidence by itself and the court must examine such statements

efficiently.
• Extrajudicial confession should be made by the person’s own will

and such statements must be true.

• The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession instantly

increases when it is supported by other such evidence.

• The statements of the confessor must prove his guilt like any

other fact in issue is proven in the judicial proceedings.

When does confession become irrelevant?
Sec7ons 24, 25, and 26 and relevant part of sec7on 26 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 deals with condi7ons that when can confession be
irrelevant .
Under sec7on 24 confession can be ;
• The confession must be out of inducement, threat, or promise,
etc
• Such confession should proceed from a person in authority
• It should relate to the charge in ques7on
• It should benefit of temporal nature or disadvantage
Thus when these condi7ons are fulfilled then the confession
becomes irrelevant.

Sec7on 25 provides that no statement made to police officer

shall be considered as a confession for the purpose of proving
that confession against that person who is accused to that case.

Sec7on 26 prohibits the judicial bodies to prove the guilt of

accused by his confession which is made to police in police
custody.
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of
any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.(
understand this section ipleaders later )
 Discuss the essential elements of the dying declaration and its
evidentiary value?
A dying declaration is a statement made by a person while they are
dying, explaining the reason for their death. This statement can be
either indirect or direct, revealing the cause of their death. Therefore,
the only statement given shortly before a person’s death is called a
dying declaration.
If a person is mentally sound and aware that they are about to die,
they can make a declaration stating the cause of their death. This
statement will be accepted as evidence in a court of law. The
declaration can be made orally, in writing, or through actions. The
term “dying declaration” is self-explanatory, as it describes the
statement given by someone who is dying.
Definition of Dying Declaration
According to Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, when a person
makes a statement regarding the cause of their death or any
circumstances related to the incident that led to their death, it is
considered relevant in cases where the cause of their death is
questioned. These statements remain relevant even if the person who
made them is no longer alive at the time of their statement and
regardless of the nature of the legal proceeding.
The statements made by the deceased person are treated as evidence
and can be presented in a court of law. This is supported by the Latin
maxim “Nemo Mariturus Presumuntur Mentri,” which means that a
person who is about to die is presumed to speak the truth. In other
words, a dying person is believed to not lie, and truth is expected from
them. Therefore, a dying declaration is admissible as evidence in court
and can be used to bring the culprit to justice.
Indian law differs from that of EnglAND
 In India dying declara7on is admissible in all proceedings even if the
death is suicide or homicide. It is not confined to murder a statement
as dying declara7on in India. But in England it is an essen7al
ingredient.

Read more at: hkps://www.lawyersclubindia.com/ar7cles/explained-

dying-declara7on-under-the-indian-evidence-act-11134.asp
Essentials of dd
1. Cause of death
2. Circumstances
3. The cause of death of the deceased must be in question sec
145/157
4. Expectency of death not necessary
Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration in India
A dying declaration carries significant weight in legal proceedings and
can serve as the sole basis for a conviction without the need for
additional corroborating evidence. It is considered a piece of evidence
and can be relied upon if found to be genuine and reliable. However,
the court must be satisfied that the dying declaration instils complete
confidence in its accuracy.
The court must ensure that the statement of the deceased was not
influenced, coached, or a result of imagination. It must also ascertain
that the deceased was of sound mind and had a clear opportunity to
observe and identify the assailants. Once the court is convinced that
the statement is truthful and voluntary, it can base a conviction solely
on the dying declaration without requiring further corroboration.
Hence, this adds up an evidentiary value of a dying declaration.
Cases on Evidentiary Value of a Dying Declaration
The evidentiary value of a dying declaration depends on the nature of
the case and its specific facts. In the case of Sham Shankar Kankaria
v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court recognized a person’s
solemn and serene nature on their deathbed, considering it a
sufficient reason in the law to accept the truthfulness of their
declaration. Therefore, the usual requirements of oath and cross-
examination are not necessary. Excluding a dying declaration from
evidence could lead to a miscarriage of justice as the victim is often
the only eyewitness in serious crimes, leaving the court without any
other evidence.
In the case of Munnu Raja v. State of MP, a First Information
Report (FIR) recorded by the police was considered a dying
declaration. However, in the case of State of Punjab v. Kikar Singh, it
was held that an FIR could not be treated as a dying declaration when
the victim remained in the hospital for a considerable time (8 days). In
the case of State v. Maregowda, it was established that a suicide note
found in the deceased’s clothes could be considered a dying
declaration and is admissible as evidence.

When a Dying Declaration is Not Admissible?

These factors need to be considered when evaluating the evidentiary
value of dying declaration in court.
• If the deceased made a statement before their death about

something other than the cause of their death, it may not be

considered a dying declaration.
• If there are doubts about the decision, inconsistencies,

substantial incompleteness, proof of falsehood, or signs of

coercion influencing the statement, its reliability may be
questioned.
• The credibility of the declarant as a competent witness is

essential. For example, in the case of Amar Singh v. State of

Madhya Pradesh, it was determined that without evidence of
 mental or physical fitness, the dying declaration could not be
considered reliable.
• If the statement made by the deceased does not pertain to their
own death but to the death of another person, it is not relevant
as a dying declaration.
No prescribed format exists
There is no specific format for recording a dying declara7on. It
neither need to be recorded in ques7on answer form always, nor
is it required by law to be recorded only by a Magistrate. But a
declara7on recorded by the Magistrate in narra7ve form in his
own words alone is not a ground for discarding it, it was held.
Also dying decleraBon can be given by the declarant in either
Oral
Wricen or
By conduct (queen emperor vs Abdullah )
Becer if Magistrate takes and a doctor cerBfies it
A dying declara7on should as far as possible be taken in the
exact words of the declarant. It is usually taken down either by
or in the presence of a Magistrate. But the presence of the
Magistrate is not always essen7al. But when it is recorded by the
Magistrate it should have a higher value. A dying declara7on, as
far as prac7cal, should have an endorsement of a doctor that the
decarant was conscious and in a fit condi7on to make the
declara7on. But absence of such an endorsement does not
render one wholly unacceptable always. But it is beker to have
such a cer7ficate. In fact, a dying declara7on recorded by a
competent Magistrate, in a proper manner, in the form of
ques7on and answers, and in the words of the maker as far as
prac7cable, stands on a higher foo7ng than the dying declara7on
that depends on oral tes7mony of a witness which suffers from
infirmi7es of human memory.
 It can form the sole basis of convicBon
When a dying declara7on is voluntary, not tainted by tutoring or
animosity and is not a product of imagina7on, the accused can
be convicted solely on the basis of it. When the court relies on
dying declara7on alone for convic7on it must exercise due care
and cau7on so as to ensure its genuineness. The law does not
insist upon the need to corroborate a dying declara7on;
corrobora7on is only a rule of prudence. Even an oral dying
declara7on which is trustworthy and free from every blemish
and inspires confidence can form the basis of convic7on. But
when it is impregnant with so many suspicious circumstances it
is not at all safe to base convic7on on it.
Before admixng a dying declara7on it must be proved that it has
been made by the deceased himself.
R Ramchandra vs public prosecuter ( facts from theory of
abroga7on )

If he survives it is not dying declaraBon

If the person making a dying declara7on happens to recover
from the possibility of death by chance, his statement is
inadmissible as dying declara7on. It can be relied on for
corrobora7on under Sec7on 157 of the evidence act. A dying
declara7on cannot be contradicted by reference to extraneous
evidence of witness. It has to stand by itself or not at all. Once a
dying declara7on is admiked by the defence then the
prosecu7on need not produce any formal proof of execu7on at
all.

Opinions of third persons when relevant ( sec – 39-45)

INTRODUCTION

According to the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the law says that
only direct evidence ‘things you see or experience by yourself’ should
be used in court. But there are times when in some cases the expert’s
opinions are needed, mostly in cases that require special knowledge
or skills The Act acknowledges that some issues are too complicated
for the Judges or Jurors to understand on their own.

Section 34 of Bhartiya Sakskya Sdhiniyam, 2023 covers the expert’s

opinions, it says that the court needs to decide or to form an opinion
on things like foreign law, science, art, finger impression, or
handwriting they can rely on the opinions of experts who are
especially skilled in the areas.

WHY IS EXPERT OPINION IMPORTANT IN COURTS[1]?

• Some cases involve technical, difficult, or scientific matters or

issues that regular persons might not understand. In such cases,
experts help explain these issues.
• Judges and Jurors count on professional experts to help them
understand complicated information. For example, Forensic
experts can explain DNA[2] Evidence in criminal cases makes
things easier for the court to make decisions.
• Experts’ opinions are highly valued because they come from
people with special skills and deep knowledge. Their judgment
can make a big difference in how a case turns out, guiding
decisions with their expertise and wisdom.
• Experts provide an impartial and unbiased analysis based on
their knowledge helping to present a fair view of the facts.
 • Many past cases have shown that expert opinions are really
important for solving complicated problems, that’s why experts
are often called upon in court to help make the right decision.

WHO IS AN EXPERT?

Section 39 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023(Sec 45 of the

Indian Evidence Act) defines the Definition of an expert as ‘A person
who has special skills in a specific field like Trade, Sales, Art, Science
or identifying handwriting or fingerprints.[3].’

This means an expert is someone who has deep knowledge in a

particular area thoroughly:

• An expert is someone who practices the same type of work

regularly.
• They observe everything and learn from what they see
• They do a thorough study about that particular subject.

WHERE EXPERT’S OPINIONS ARE IMPORTANT:

Expert opinions are something judges rely on for those topics for
which they need to understand such as,

• Laws of the foreign country

• To understand different branches like medicine, chemistry, or
physics
• For the field of art which includes things like paintings, music, or
literature
• Checking whether the written document the handwriting is real
or false
• Identification of fingerprints to identify the identity of someone

For example, Death of Someone by Poison[4]:

If someone dies and poison is suspected, in such cases the court needs
a medical expert. The expert can explain the symptoms caused by
different poisons and help the court to understand if the given poison
or the amount of poison identified in the body of the dead person is
enough to cause death.

WHY EXPERT TESTIMONY IS IMPORTANT: EXPERTS HELP IN

COURT FOR A FEW REASONS-

• They are specialized in their field; they have the knowledge that
the court does not have
• They provide fair and unbiased opinions which are based on
their skills
• In cases involving complex technical topics, experts make the
information clear and make it easier for others to understand

WHAT MAKES EXPERT TESTIMONY ADMISSIBLE?

For Admissibility of expert words in courts, some criteria can be used

to conclude the admissibility they are, [5]First, the Expert must have a
deep and thorough knowledge of that particular specialized skill
subject matter, which is usually shown through higher education,
professional work experience, and recognition in their field. Second,
that topic must be something that requires special learning or
experience, something which requires special learning or long-time
experience, and something difficult to understand by ordinary people,
in such cases there is a need for an expert for advice or opinion
suggestions. Lastly, the expert’s opinions must be based on reliable
facts and methods, which means the identification results must
provide enough evidence and proper techniques connected to the
case. These conditions ensure that the expert testimony is
trustworthy and helpful in court proceedings.
THE ROLE OF EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN COURT CASES[6]

Experts’ Opinions are considered less strong or weak as evidence in

legal cases because they don’t provide definite proof always, in the
case of S. Gopala Reddy VS State of A.P., in this case, the court
illustrates that the expert advice needs to be supported by solid proof
to be trustworthy. While experts can help explain complicated
matters, their opinions should not take the place of direct evidence.
This cautious approach helps prevent mistakes in expert testimony
and ensures that the court’s decisions are based on a thorough review
of all the evidence available.

VIEWS ON RELATIONSHIPS AND CUSTOMS (SECTIONS 44 AND

45BSA/50 AND 51IEA)

• Opinions on Relationships (Section 44)

Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the relevance of

opinions regarding relationships when the court needs to determine
the nature of the relationship between two individuals. This section
allows for the admission of opinions expressed by individuals who
hold special knowledge about the relationship, especially by their
actions. The opinions in section 44 must be based on how people
behave, not just what they say, for example, if the court is deciding if
Aad B are married, the way their family and friends treat them as a
married couple can be used as evidence. However, in cases like
divorce, bigamy, or adultery, these opinions alone are not enough to
prove marriage stronger evidence is required.

OPINIONS ON CUSTOMS AND HABITS (SECTION 45 OF

BSA/SECTION 51 OF IEA)
 • Section 45/Section 51 addresses the relevance of opinions
regarding the customs and habits of a specific class of people.
These provisions allow individuals to express their views on
customs or practices that are at issues in the hands of legal
proceedings. These opinions help the court understand a group’s
social behaviours, which may affect the outcome. For example,
if villagers claim a customary right to use a well, their opinions
on the well’s usage within the community can help determine
whether such rights exist. This section highlights that customs
and social norms play a big role in determining legal rights.
• In short, Sections 44 and 45 help the court to understand the
relationships and social customs in legal cases while making sure
that the evidence provided is reliable and trustworthy.

SAFEGUARDS AND RESTRICTIONS ON EXPERT OPINION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

1. Cross-examination: Experts can be questioned by the other side

to check if their opinions are valid, including their qualifications
and methods. This will help to uncover any fouls and biases.
2. Evaluating Importance: the court will evaluate how valuable an
expert’s opinion is based on their expertise, the reliability of
their data, and how relevant their opinion is to the case. If an
expert opinion could unfairly bias or confuse the court, it may be
excluded.
3. Limits in Some Cases: the opinions of the experts alone are not
enough to prove certain facts, such as marriage in divorce or
bigamy cases, where stronger evidence is needed.
4. Need for Additional Evidence: The opinion or thoughts
presented by an expert are considered weak on their own and
should be supported by other evidence. Before going to the
 judgment or decision about the case in court, the court will look
at not only the expert testimony but also view it with other
pieces of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The opinions of experts are important in courts because they help to

understand the complicated issues requiring special knowledge or
expertise. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam/ Indian Evidence Act
recognizes the value of expert testimony to make the evidence more
accurate and reliable, this will allow experts of different fields to share
their opinions and understanding so that the decisions are well-
informed.

However, the opinions given by the experts are checked. The court
needs to evaluate the expert’s qualifications, the reliability of their
data and methods, and how their opinions are relevant to the case.
Cross-examination is an important way for the other side to question
the expert’s conclusions and find any weaknesses or biases.

There are also rules to ensure that the expert’s opinions are reliable,
such as the requirement of strong evidence in cases like divorce or
bigamy and making sure that the expert testimony is supported by
other pieces of evidence. The S. Gopala Reddy vs State of A.P. case
highlights the importance of these safeguards.

“While Expert’s Opinions are very useful, they must be used carefully
along with other evidence to keep the legal process fair and
trustworthy.”

Section 39 of BSA - Opinions of Third Persons When Relevant:

This section establishes that when the court needs to form an opinion
on matters like foreign law, science, art, identity verification, or
handwriting and finger impressions, the opinions of individuals
specially skilled in those respective fields are considered relevant.

Section 40 of BSA- Facts Supporting or Inconsistent with Expert

Opinions:

Section 40 asserts that facts, not otherwise relevant, gain relevance if

they support or contradict expert opinions. For instance, in cases of
poisoning, the symptoms exhibited by other individuals poisoned by
the same substance become relevant, which would be the helpful in
affirming or denying those symptoms.

Section 41 of BSA - Opinion as to Handwriting and Signature:

This section specifies that when the court needs to form an opinion on
the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion
of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the supposed writer
or signer is relevant. Acquaintance, as defined in the explanation,
includes having seen the person write, receiving documents written
by them, or being exposed to documents purportedly written by them
in the ordinary course of business.

Section 42 of BSA - Opinion on Electronic Signature:

In situations where the court has to form an opinion on the electronic
signature of any person, Section 42 deems the opinion of the
Certifying Authority, which issued the Electronic Signature Certificate,
as a relevant fact. An Examiner of Electronic Evidence, considered an
expert can provide opinions on matters related to information
transmitted or stored in electronic or digital form.

Sections 43 and 44 of BSA - Opinions on Usages, Tenets,

Relationships, and Rights:

These sections emphasize the relevance of opinions from individuals

with special means of knowledge on matters like usages, tenets,
constitution of foundations, and relationships.

Section 45 of BSA- Grounds for Relevant Opinions:

Whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, Section 45

stipulates that the grounds on which such opinions are based become
relevant as well. For example, there can be certain old cases or books
which the expert referred to in order to frame his opinion in the given
case.

Let us examine some case laws related to expert opinions:

1. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors.:

In this landmark case, the court laid down the prerequisites for expert
opinions. It emphasized that an expert's opinion must be within a
recognized field of expertise and must adhere to standard principles.

2. Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju v/s. State Of Andhra Pradesh:

This case specifically addresses the issue that the absence of finger
impressions do not conclusively indicate the absence of a particular
person at the scene.

3. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and Others:

In this case, the court emphasized the need for cross-examining

experts in addition to their duty of providing opinions.

4. Prahlad Saran Gupta v Bar Council of India:

This case emphasised that there is no need for additional confirmation

once an opinion from a handwriting expert is provided. This case
discussed about the weight and importance attributed to expert
opinions, particularly in matters related to signatures and
handwriting.

FAQs on Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) and Expert

Opinions:

1. What does Section 39 of BSA cover?

- Section 39 addresses the relevance of opinions from individuals with

specialized skills, such as foreign law, science, art, identity verification,
handwriting, and finger impressions.

2. How are facts treated under Section 40 in relation to expert

opinions?

- Section 40 states that facts gain relevance if they support or

contradict expert opinions. For example, symptoms exhibited by
individuals poisoned by the same substance become relevant in
poisoning cases.

3. What does Section 41 specify regarding handwriting and

signatures?
- Section 41 deems the opinion of a person acquainted with the
handwriting of the supposed writer or signer as relevant for the
court's opinion on document authorship or signatures.

4. How is the electronic signature addressed in BSA under Section

42?

- Section 42 considers the opinion of the Certifying Authority, which

issued the Electronic Signature Certificate, as a relevant fact. An
Examiner of Electronic Evidence can also provide expert opinions on
electronic information.

5. What is the significance of Sections 43 and 44 in BSA?

- These sections highlight the relevance of opinions from individuals

with special knowledge on matters like usages, tenets, constitution of
foundations, and relationships.

6. What does Section 45 of BSA stipulate

regarding relevant opinions?

- Section 45 specifies that the grounds on which relevant opinions are

based become relevant when the opinion of any living person is
considered.
 Relevancy of Character ( sec 46-50)

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), India’s central legislation

governing evidence in judicial proceedings, dedicates Sections 46 to
50 to the complex and often contentious issue of character evidence.
These sections establish a framework for determining when and how
a person’s past behavior or reputation can be introduced in court,
striking a delicate balance between protecting the accused and
ensuring a fair trial.

This article delves into the intricacies of Sections 46 to 50 of the BSA,

analyzing the bare act provisions and exploring the underlying
principles that guide the admissibility of character evidence.

SEC – 46 of BSA

Section 46 of the BSA establishes a clear principle regarding character

evidence in civil proceedings:

Bare Provision:

Section 46: In civil cases, the character of any party involved in the
proceedings is irrelevant, except as provided in this Act.

Interpretation:

This section dictates that a person’s past behavior or reputation, good

or bad, generally cannot be used in a civil lawsuit to infer their likely
behavior in the case at hand. The focus in civil disputes should be on
the specific facts and evidence directly related to the legal issue being
contested.

Reasoning:

The rationale behind this principle is to ensure fairness and prevent

prejudice. Introducing irrelevant character evidence can cloud the
central issues and unfairly portray a party in a negative light.

Exceptions:

While Section 46 establishes a general rule, it acknowledges some

exceptions:

• Character Inferred from Relevant Facts: If a party’s character

becomes demonstrably intertwined with the specific facts of the
case, it might become relevant. Here, the character evidence
needs a clear and direct connection to the disputed facts.

Illustration:

Consider a breach of contract case where the plaintiff claims the

defendant failed to deliver goods as promised. If the defendant’s past
history of consistently fulfilling similar contracts is demonstrably
relevant to the present case, it might be admissible as evidence of
their usual course of conduct. However, simply introducing evidence
that the defendant volunteers at a local charity would be irrelevant,
as it doesn’t directly address the alleged breach of contract.

Case Citation:
For further understanding of how courts interpret character evidence
exceptions, one can refer to the case of Mohd. Yasin & Ors. vs. Mohd.
Ibrahim & Ors. (AIR 1972 All 280). In this case, the court held that
evidence of a party’s general reputation for honesty was inadmissible
in a civil dispute concerning property rights.

SEC – 47 of BSA

Section 47 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 1872, plays a

crucial role in criminal proceedings by allowing the accused to
introduce evidence that portrays their good character. This article
delves into the relevancy of good character evidence under Section
47, analyzing the bare provision, its interpretation by courts, and
relevant citations.

Bare Provision:

Section 47 states:

“In order to prove the good character of the accused, evidence may
be given that he has not previously been convicted of any offence, or
that he has borne a good character.” (Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sec
47 [invalid URL removed])

Interpretation:

This section allows the defense to present evidence that establishes

the accused possesses a good character, potentially casting doubt on
the prosecution’s case. The rationale behind this provision is that a
person with a demonstrably good character is statistically less likely to
engage in criminal behavior.

Key Points and Considerations:

• Admissibility: Section 47 doesn’t guarantee the automatic

acceptance of all good character evidence. The court retains
discretion to assess the relevance and probative value of such
evidence. Frivolous attempts to portray the accused as a
paragon of virtue will likely be disregarded.
• Nature of Evidence: The type of evidence presented as proof of
good character can vary.
• Character Witnesses: Testimony from individuals who

know the accused well and can speak to their positive

reputation within the community is a common
approach.
• Documentary Evidence: Documents such as awards,

certificates for volunteer work, or positive performance

reviews within a workplace can also be presented.
• Lack of Prior Convictions: While Section 47 doesn’t

explicitly mention it, the absence of a criminal record

can be considered evidence of good character.
However, the absence of convictions shouldn’t be
overstated, as it merely demonstrates the lack of past
convictions, not necessarily a history of good behavior.
• Relevance to the Offense: The court will evaluate the
connection between the character evidence and the specific
offense charged. If the accused’s good character seems wholly
irrelevant to the crime in question, the evidence might be
deemed inadmissible.
 • For example, in a case involving a violent assault,
evidence of the accused’s volunteer work with children
might hold less weight than evidence of their peaceful
nature within their community.

Judicial Interpretation:

Several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation of Section 47:

• Queen Empress v. Amir Khan (1882): This case established the

principle that the prosecution cannot challenge the character of
the accused unless they introduce evidence portraying the
accused in a negative light. Once the prosecution opens the
door, the defense can then introduce good character evidence.
(Queen Empress v. Amir Khan, 1882 ILR 5 All. 172 [invalid URL
removed])
• State of Rajasthan v. Mamta Devi & Ors. (2013): This case
highlighted that the court has discretion to decide the
admissibility of good character evidence based on its relevance
and probative value. (State of Rajasthan v. Mamta Devi & Ors.,
2013 SCC Online SC 420

SEC – 48 of BSA

Section 48 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) occupies a

crucial position in Indian law, specifically addressing the admissibility
of character evidence in sexual offense prosecutions. This section aims
to strike a balance between protecting the accused’s right to a fair trial
and safeguarding the dignity and privacy of victims.
Bare Provision:

Section 48 states:

“In a prosecution for an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
alleged to have been committed by a man with a woman, the past
sexual conduct of the woman with any person except the accused is
irrelevant to the issue of consent or to the question whether the
offence was committed with or without her consent.”

Interpretation:

This provision establishes a strong presumption against the

admissibility of evidence regarding a victim’s past sexual history in
cases of sexual offenses. The rationale behind this rule is multifaceted:

• Victim Blaming: Introducing a victim’s past sexual behavior

often serves as a tactic to shift blame or cast doubt on their
credibility.
• Irrelevance to Consent: A victim’s sexual history has no bearing
on whether they consented to a particular sexual encounter.
• Preserving Dignity: Sexual assault is a traumatic experience, and
scrutinizing a victim’s past sexual behavior can be humiliating
and contribute to their reluctance to report such crimes.

Exceptions:

Section 48 recognizes a limited exception:

“Provided that when the accused alleges that the woman has
consented to the sexual intercourse alleged to constitute the offence,
evidence of such conduct of the woman is relevant if such evidence is
directly connected to the fact that the woman has a habit of
consenting to sexual intercourse under circumstances which would
not amount to consent in the case of a woman of decent character.”

This exception allows the defense to introduce evidence about the

victim’s past sexual behavior only when it directly addresses the issue
of consent and falls under very specific circumstances. Here, the focus
shifts to a claimed “habit” of consenting under circumstances not
considered typical. The court must rigorously assess such evidence,
ensuring it genuinely relates to the specific question of consent in the
case at hand and doesn’t simply serve to victim-blame.

Citations:

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): This landmark judgment

by the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of
Section 48, highlighting its role in protecting victims’ dignity and
fostering a climate where sexual offenses are more readily
reported.
• State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar
(2013): The court reiterated the narrow scope of the exception
in Section 48, emphasizing that a victim’s past sexual conduct
can only be introduced if it directly connects to a claimed “habit”
relevant to the issue of consent.

SEC – 49 of BSA
Section 49 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) deals with the
relevance of character evidence in legal proceedings. It specifically
focuses on the character of third parties, those individuals not directly
involved in the lawsuit itself.

Bare Provision:

Section 49: The fact that the character of any person is such as to
make it probable or improbable that he has acted in a particular way
is irrelevant unless evidence of that character is admissible under the
provisions of this Act for any of the purposes hereinafter mentioned

Interpretation:

This section establishes a clear principle: the character (past behavior

or reputation) of a third party, regardless of its nature (good or bad),
is generally irrelevant to the determination of guilt or innocence in a
lawsuit.

Rationale:

The exclusion of third-party character evidence prevents a trial from

becoming a character assassination contest focused on individuals not
directly involved in the case. The focus should remain on the specific
facts and evidence related to the parties directly involved in the
dispute.
Exceptions:

While Section 49 establishes a general rule, there are situations where

third-party character evidence might become relevant under other
provisions of the BSA. These exceptions are not explicitly mentioned
in Section 49, but rather arise from other sections within the Act:

• Res gestae: If the third party’s actions are directly connected to

the main event in dispute and form part of the “whole story” (res
gestae), their character might become relevant. For example, if
a witness claims a third party witnessed the crime and pressured
them into remaining silent, the witness’s relationship and trust
with the third party could be relevant to assess the witness’s
credibility. (Section 6)
• Agency: If the case involves the actions of an agent, the
principal’s knowledge of the agent’s character might be relevant
to establish liability. For instance, a company sued for a product
defect might argue they were unaware of potential safety issues
because they relied on a reputable manufacturer with a history
of producing safe products. (Section 115)
• Expert opinion: In certain situations, an expert witness might
need to consider the character of a third party as part of their
professional assessment. For example, a psychologist might be
called upon to explain the behavior of a victim of abuse, and the
perpetrator’s character traits might be relevant to the expert’s
analysis. (Section 45)

Citations:

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA

Citations:

• State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, AIR 1994

SC 2108: This landmark Supreme Court case reaffirmed the
principle enshrined in Section 49. The court held that the
character of the deceased in a murder trial is generally irrelevant
unless it directly relates to the issue of self-defense.
• Mohanlal v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 2729: In this case, the
court reiterated the inadmissibility of evidence regarding the
character of a witness unless it directly attacks their credibility
(e.g., prior convictions for perjury).

SEC – 50 of BSA

Section 50 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) carves out

exceptions to the general principles established in Sections 46 to 49
regarding the admissibility of character evidence. Here, we delve into
the specific situations where character evidence, otherwise
considered irrelevant, becomes relevant under Section 50, analyzing
the bare provision, its interpretation, and relevant case law.

Bare Provision:

Section 50 states:

“When evidence of a person’s character is relevant, the court may,

subject to the provisions of this Act, receive evidence of the character
of such person.”
This seemingly straightforward statement conceals a nuanced
interplay between general principles and specific exceptions. Let’s
explore these exceptions:

1. Prosecution Opens the Door:

The most common scenario where Section 50 comes into play is when
the prosecution itself introduces character evidence to undermine the
accused. This can take several forms:

• Past Criminal Record: The prosecution might introduce

evidence of the accused’s prior convictions to establish a
propensity for criminal behavior.
• Witness Credibility: When the prosecution relies on a witness
with a questionable reputation for honesty, the defense can
introduce evidence suggesting the accused’s good character to
counterbalance the witness’s potentially tainted testimony.

Interpretation & Case Law with citations :

Courts have interpreted this exception to ensure a level playing field.

Once the prosecution opens the door by introducing negative
character evidence, the defense is entitled to present evidence of
good character to mitigate the potential prejudice.

• State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Hanmant Jadhav [AIR 2014 SC

1994]: The Supreme Court held that the defense can introduce
evidence of the accused’s good character to rebut evidence of
past criminal convictions if those convictions are relevant to the
case at hand.

2. Nature of the Offense:

The nature of the offense itself can sometimes render character
evidence relevant under Section 50. Here, the character evidence
needs to have a direct bearing on the specific offense in question.

• Fraud Cases: In a case involving fraud, evidence of the accused’s

past history of deceptive behavior might be admissible under
Section 50 to establish a pattern of dishonesty relevant to the
current charge.
• Offenses Involving Trust: In a case where the offense hinges on
a breach of trust (e.g., embezzlement), evidence of the accused’s
past conduct showcasing trustworthiness might be relevant
under Section 50 to counter the prosecution’s case.

Interpretation & Case Law with citations :

Courts maintain strict scrutiny when considering character evidence

under this exception. The connection between the character evidence
and the specific offense must be clear and substantial.

• Union of India v. Sukh Dev Singh [AIR 1976 SC 2118]: The

Supreme Court held that in a case of murder, evidence of the
accused’s prior peaceful behavior wouldn’t be admissible under
Section 50 because it doesn’t directly address the specific
allegation of violence.

3. Accused Puts Character in Issue:

Section 50 also allows for character evidence when the accused

themself puts their own character in issue. Here, two scenarios can
arise:
 • Claim of Exceptional Character: If the accused claims
exceptional honesty, good character, or a specific positive trait
relevant to the case (e.g., alibi witness claiming a spotless
memory), the prosecution can then introduce evidence to
challenge this claim under Section 50.
• Accused Attacks Character of Others: If the accused attempts to
discredit a witness by impugning their character, the
prosecution can use Section 50 to introduce evidence supporting
the witness’s character.

Interpretation & Case Law with citations :

Courts ensure a fair trial by allowing the prosecution to respond when

the accused attempts to gain an advantage through character-based
arguments.

• Puran Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1973 SC 472]: The Supreme

Court held that when the accused claims exemplary character to
support an alibi defense, the prosecution can introduce evidence
showing a history of lying to counter this claim under Section 50.