Section 3: Evidence May Be Given of Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts

Overview

Section 3 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, is a fundamental rule about what information a court can consider during a trial. Simply put, it says that courts can hear evidence about the facts that are directly in dispute (the ‘facts in issue’) and also about other facts that help to prove or disprove those disputed facts (called ‘relevant facts’). This ensures courts only focus on information that actually matters to the case.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• What type of evidence is covered: This section applies to all types of evidence – what people say in court (oral evidence), documents (documentary evidence), electronic records, and even things the court assumes to be true based on certain circumstances (presumptions).
• Conditions for admissibility or relevancy: Evidence must be either about a ‘fact in issue’ or ‘relevant’ to a fact in issue to be allowed in court. ‘Relevant’ means the fact makes another fact more or less likely to be true. A fact is not relevant if it’s completely unrelated to the dispute.
• Burden of proof implications: While Section 3 doesn’t *directly* assign the burden of proof, it dictates what evidence is admissible to *meet* that burden. The party with the burden of proof must present relevant evidence to support their claim.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges use Section 3 as a gatekeeper for evidence. Before allowing any piece of evidence to be presented, they must first determine if it relates to a fact that is actually in dispute or if it’s relevant to a fact in dispute. If the evidence isn’t relevant, the judge will exclude it, preventing the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) from considering it. This ensures trials stay focused and efficient.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1 – a simple situation: In a theft case, the ‘fact in issue’ is whether the accused stole the item. Evidence that the accused was seen near the scene of the crime at the time of the theft is ‘relevant’ and admissible.
• Example 2 – a more complex situation: In a car accident case, the ‘fact in issue’ is who was at fault. Evidence of the driver’s prior traffic violations (like speeding tickets) might be considered ‘relevant’ to show a pattern of reckless driving, but the judge would need to decide if its probative value (how much it helps prove the case) outweighs any unfair prejudice.

Important Provisos / Explanations

Section 3 doesn’t have any specific provisos or explanations attached to it. However, the Bill defines ‘fact in issue’ and ‘relevant fact’ elsewhere, and those definitions are crucial for understanding how this section operates. The Bill also clarifies that evidence must be presented in its most original form whenever possible (primary evidence), but allows for secondary evidence under certain conditions.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely retains the core principle of Section 3 from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the new Bill aims for greater clarity and precision in defining ‘relevant facts’ and streamlining the admissibility process. The new Bill also places a greater emphasis on electronic evidence and its admissibility.

Key Takeaways

• Section 3 defines what evidence is admissible in court.
• Evidence must relate to a ‘fact in issue’ or be ‘relevant’ to one.
• Judges act as gatekeepers, ensuring only relevant evidence is considered.
• All forms of evidence (oral, documentary, electronic) are covered.