Section 140: Witnesses to Character

Overview

Section 140 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, deals with when you can bring witnesses to court to talk about someone’s character – their general reputation for honesty, fairness, or other traits. This isn’t about proving *what* someone did, but about influencing how the court views them, especially their credibility as a witness or when deciding a sentence in a criminal case.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section primarily covers oral evidence – testimony given by witnesses. While character can *be* reflected in documents (like letters of recommendation), the section focuses on live testimony.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: Evidence of character is only allowed if it’s relevant to the case. Relevancy means it makes a fact more or less probable. For example, in a fraud case, evidence that the accused has a reputation for honesty might be relevant to argue they didn’t commit the fraud. The court decides if it’s relevant.
• Burden of Proof Implications: This section doesn’t directly shift the burden of proof. The prosecution (in criminal cases) or the plaintiff (in civil cases) still has to prove their case. However, character evidence can influence how the court weighs the other evidence presented.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges carefully control character evidence. They will only allow it if they believe it genuinely helps to understand the case or the witness’s credibility. The judge can stop a witness from giving character evidence if it’s considered irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial (meaning it could unfairly sway the jury), or a waste of time. The opposing side can object to character evidence being presented.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1 – Simple Situation: In a theft trial, the defense wants to call a neighbor who will testify that the accused is known in the community as an honest and hardworking person. This is relevant to suggest the accused wouldn’t commit theft.
• Example 2 – More Complex Situation: In a defamation case, the plaintiff (the person claiming defamation) tries to introduce evidence of the defendant’s past dishonest dealings, even though those dealings aren’t directly related to the defamatory statement. The judge might rule this inadmissible because it’s not directly relevant to whether the statement was false and damaging.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, doesn’t include specific provisos or explanations attached to Section 140. The interpretation relies heavily on the general principles of relevancy and admissibility outlined throughout the Bill.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely retains the principles of character evidence from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the new Bill emphasizes a more principle-based approach to relevancy, giving judges greater discretion to determine what evidence is admissible based on its logical connection to the facts in issue.

Key Takeaways

• Character evidence is admissible only if it’s relevant.
• Judges have significant control over what character evidence is allowed.
• It doesn’t shift the burden of proof, but can influence how evidence is weighed.
• The focus is on influencing credibility or understanding the case, not proving facts directly.