Limits admissible evidence to facts in issue and legally relevant facts.
Introduction
Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down the foundational rule governing admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings. It provides that evidence may be given only of facts in issue and such other facts as are declared relevant under the Act. This provision establishes the boundary within which courts evaluate evidentiary material during criminal trials and related proceedings.
It reflects the core evidentiary principle that only legally relevant material should influence judicial determination.
Objective of the Provision
The objective of Section 3 is to ensure that judicial proceedings remain focused, fair, and efficient by restricting admissible evidence to legally recognized categories. Specifically, the provision aims to:
- prevent introduction of irrelevant or prejudicial material
- maintain procedural discipline in trials
- ensure decisions are based on legally relevant facts
- protect parties from unnecessary evidentiary burden
- promote accuracy and fairness in adjudication
This section forms the gateway provision for all rules relating to relevancy under the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Meaning / Concept
Section 3 operates on two central evidentiary concepts that determine admissibility.
Facts in issue
Facts in issue are those facts which directly determine the existence, nature, extent, or non-existence of a legal right, liability, or disability asserted in a proceeding.
For example:
- whether the accused committed the alleged act
- whether intention existed
- whether injury resulted from the act
These facts must be proved or disproved during trial.
Relevant facts
Relevant facts are those facts that are not directly in issue but are connected with facts in issue in a manner recognized by the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Examples include:
- motive
- preparation
- conduct
- previous or subsequent acts
- admissions and confessions
Such facts become admissible because they logically assist in proving or disproving facts in issue.
Doctrine of exclusion of irrelevant facts
The provision embodies the principle that evidence outside the scope of facts in issue and relevant facts is inadmissible unless specifically permitted by law.
Join Lexibal’s WhatsApp Community for latest updates
Detailed Explanation of the Section
Section 3 establishes the general rule of admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings.
It provides that:
- evidence may be given only of facts in issue
- evidence may also be given of relevant facts declared admissible under the Act
- evidence of irrelevant facts is not admissible unless expressly permitted elsewhere in the statute
Key features of the provision include:
- restriction on admissibility of unrelated material
- recognition of statutory relevancy as the basis of admissibility
- prevention of speculative or prejudicial evidence
- structuring of trial around legally significant issues
- foundation for subsequent provisions dealing with relevancy of facts
Thus, Section 3 acts as the entry point for applying the entire scheme of relevancy under the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Procedure or Legal Framework
In practical operation, Section 3 functions through the following steps:
The court identifies the facts in issue based on pleadings, charges, or allegations.
The parties attempt to produce evidence supporting or disproving those facts.
The court examines whether additional surrounding facts qualify as relevant under the Act.
If a fact is neither a fact in issue nor declared relevant under the statute, it is excluded.
The court admits only legally permissible evidence for adjudication.
This structured process ensures that trials remain confined to material issues.
Also Read: Section 2 – Definitions – BSA 2023
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial interpretation of the corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 continues to guide application of Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Supreme Court held that admissibility of evidence depends strictly on relevancy under the statute. Courts cannot admit evidence merely because it appears useful unless it is legally relevant.
Keshavlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1988)
The Court clarified that only those facts which have a direct or indirect connection with facts in issue are admissible, reinforcing the statutory restriction on irrelevant material.
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973)
The Supreme Court observed that even unconventional forms of evidence, such as recorded conversations, are admissible if they relate to relevant facts and are properly authenticated.
These rulings affirm that relevancy under statutory provisions is the controlling principle governing admissibility.
Importance of the Provision
Section 3 is one of the most important provisions of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 because it:
- defines the permissible scope of evidence in trials
- protects proceedings from unnecessary factual distractions
- ensures fairness between parties
- prevents misuse of irrelevant or prejudicial information
- forms the basis for all subsequent rules on relevancy of facts
- strengthens evidentiary discipline in criminal adjudication
Without this provision, evidentiary proceedings would become unstructured and unreliable.
Connection with Other Sections
Section 3 serves as the foundational provision governing admissibility and operates together with provisions relating to relevancy contained in subsequent sections of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023, including:
- provisions relating to relevancy of connected facts
- admissions and confessions
- statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses
- expert opinions
- character evidence
- documentary and electronic evidence
Corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 corresponds to Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which similarly restricted admissibility of evidence to facts in issue and relevant facts.
Illustrative Example
Suppose an accused person is charged with causing grievous injury using a weapon.
The fact that the accused struck the victim with the weapon is a fact in issue.
Evidence showing prior threats made by the accused against the victim becomes relevant as proof of motive.
However, evidence regarding the accused’s unrelated personal disputes with another individual would be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
Thus, only facts in issue and legally relevant facts may be considered by the court under Section 3.
Conclusion
Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes the central rule governing admissibility of evidence by limiting proof to facts in issue and relevant facts recognized under the statute. It ensures procedural clarity, prevents introduction of extraneous material, and forms the structural foundation for the entire evidentiary framework applicable in criminal proceedings.
