The term relevancy has been defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and it states:
One fact is said to be relevant to another when one is connected with other in any of the ways referred to in the provision of this Act relating to the relevancy of the fact.[1]

The relevant fact is factum probans.

They are not issues in themselves instead they are the foundations for inferring facts in issue. The concept of relevancy is quite different from the concept of admissibility because the former is based on logic and probability whereas the latter is based upon the law. Relevancy decided upon whether the facts given are relevant to facts in question whereas admissibility decided whether the evidence is admissible or not. [2]

Relevancy according to Thayer had two primary foundations i.e. the court should not receive anything which is not relevant which means that it should be without any exception and second that whatever is relevant as evidence in the court should not come under any exception and has to qualify all the necessary the required tests prescribed by the required law. For him there were no legal rules (of relevancy). Thayer is of the view that relevancy is a logical rather than a legal concept and this connotation is widely accept now.[3]

According to Stephen, the term relevant elucidates that any two facts to which it is applicable are so inter-related that corresponding to the general course of events either taken by itself or in association with other facts either proves or renders apparent the past, present, or future existence or non-existence of the other.[4] Stephen gave the concept of legal relevancy because he states that relevancy of facts is synonym to their legal admissibility. Therefore to sum up it can be said that relevancy of any object (which is an evidence) either increases or decreases the probability of the fact in issue's existence. [5]

Scope and Applicability
Section 3 and Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 defines the term Relevancy. Chapter II covers the Relevancy of facts. Section 6-11 of the Act not only tell about relevancy but also the various situations in which the term relevancy is to be applied. Section 12-55 of the Act give the particular instances of relevant facts. It also gives the procedure which is to be followed in case the facts which are not otherwise relevant become relevant as under Section 11 of the Act.

It also covers the question of relevancy in case of situations where customs or rights are the subject matter as given under Section 13. Section 16 gives the situation where course of business is relevant. Hence, the Indian Evidence Act provides for all the situations in where there is a question of relevancy.

Literature Review
As the researcher of the project, I have relied upon variety of sources for comprehending and exploring the nuances of the issues that I have taken up in this research project.

Firstly, I referred to Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Evidence which was a very helpful reference for understanding the concept of Relevancy under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also it gave me the understanding of a number of concepts like legal relevancy, logical relevancy, admissibility and probative value which were the core behind this research project and their vivid understanding made it somewhat easier for me to make this project.

Secondly, I referred to an article by Hock Lai titled 'The Legal Concept of Evidence" published by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This article gave the difference between the concept of Legal Relevancy and Logical Relevancy as given by Stephen and Thayer. It also deliberates on concept of evidence weight i.e. strength of evidence. It also draws a comparison between admissibility and relevance and how both these concepts find a place in the legal proceedings.

Thirdly, I referred to the SC Sarkar's, "Law of Evidence". This gave me a comprehensive updated decision of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. This gave me a list of case laws which I could refer to and how the various judgements have been analyzed by the courts in India. The information provided in the book is quite lucid and accurate for Indian Evidence Law.

Research Question

1. Whether there is a conflict between logical relevancy and legal relevancy?
2. Whether there has been any evolution in this theory of relevancy as provided by the Indian Case Laws?
    

Hypothesis
"Under Evidence Law, there are two type of facts; relevant and admissible. All admissible evidence is relevant whereas all the relevant facts may not be admissible."

Area to Be Included
The main focus of this research project is to see the difference between logical and legal relevancy along with how relevancy is a concept in the Indian Jurisprudence of the Evidence law.

Research Methodology
The research method used by the researcher is the doctrinal method. In the beginning, the researcher looked up various articles using j-stor and other online sources to understand and comprehend the meaning of relevance. Researcher also read a variety of cases to see how various courts have interpreted the term relevancy over the years. The aim of researcher is to explore the various issues which are underlining this concept and how they have been resolved by the courts over a period of time.

Logical Relevancy Versus Legal Relevancy
There are two components of Relevancy; Probativeness which means that the tendered evidence must have a quality of either increasing or decreasing the probability of fact's existence and the tendency for the same can either be actual or measurable. The other component is Materiality which is the bone of contention i.e. the issue in the given dispute between the parties.

When these two components come together the fact becomes relevant. It is the job of a lawyer to convince a judge regarding the relevancy and the judges have to utilize their common sense for the same. evidence which is irrelevant cannot be admissible.[6]

Section 5 to Section 55 which are provided in Chapter II of the Indian Evidence Act give the Relevancy of Facts. Even though there is a huge chunk of the Act dedicated to the Relevancy of Facts, there is still an issue when it needs to be decided that which fact is relevant and logical as well because even though a given fact may be logically relevant for the particular case, but this does not guarantee that the given fact would be legally admissible as well.[7]

Supreme Court has also given the distinction that even though there are certain cases where the two terms i.e. logical relevancy and legal relevancy are used as synonyms, these are quite different in their scope because there might be facts which are relevant for the case example for the same can be the conversation between spouses which even though is logically relevant but it cannot be legally relevant for the case.[8]

Res Gestae is the principle provided under Section 6 of the Act and it means a transaction or a thing done. Section 6 to Section 16 provide the facts which have a direct link to the issue such as cause and effect, motive. Confessions are covered under Section 17 to Section 31 of the Act. Section 40 to Section 44 covers when the judgements delivered by the courts are relevant.

Section 45 to Section 51 talk about the situations under which the third- party opinion can be relevant. Character of a person is also relevant in certain situations which are provided for under Section 52 to Section 55 of the Act. [9]

The most crucial fact for deciding whether a fact or evidence provided will be relevant in the given case is the legal relevancy of the facts. It is a question of law and not based on logic. For a fact to be legally relevant or admissible in the court of law, it needs to satisfy the various situations provided under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.[10]

Even if a fact is not logical in nature, it can be admissible in the court of law. If a given fact is both logically and legally relevant, then the situation under which the fact has been recovered becomes irrelevant since judges have to decide whether the given evidence or fact is relevant or admissible in the particular case or not.[11]

There is a higher threshold of evidentiary force for legal relevancy. Logically relevant is not legally relevant but latter is inclusive of the former. Legally relevant is also known as legal admissibility and they are the facts which are eligible for Court's consideration. According to Professor J.H. Wigmore, the quality which lies between the probative value and the reliability of evidence is admissibility.[12]

The Court has also given in various judgements that if there a case where it is practically inevitable to separate the evidence which is admissible or not. In such situations, the evidence cannot be admitted [13]and also there are no differences in admitting evidence in either civil or criminal proceedings. It is the duty of the court to reject the inadmissible evidence.[14]

Illegally obtained evidence can also be relevant[15] and the fact that it has been obtained illegally doesn't affect the admissibility of the given evidence since the interest of the court is only in deciding the relevancy of the evidence. But this doesn't affect the fact that court will check that evidence hasn't been tampered with.[16] One of the major examples of difference between logical relevancy and legal admissibility can be seen in the confessions made before a police officer.

Even though these are logically relevant but these are not admissible in the Court. Hence the major differences between the logical relevancy and legal relevancy is that the former is the question of logic and the latter is based on question of law. The dependence for the admissibility of evidence in the court depends upon legal relevancy as all legal relevant facts are logical but not the other way around.

Relevancy Under Indian Evidence Act 1872

There are two essential components of relevance:

• With respect to the matters required to be proved, nothing which isn't logically verified is to be received.
• Everything which is probative or verified should come in, unless the law or policies explicitly excludes it. Relevancy act as a link between a statement of proof and a statement that needs to be proved.[17]

The Indian Evidence Act doesn't particularly give a meaning of relevancy or relevant fact and the depiction is when one fact becomes applicable on another. Section 6 to Section 55 of the Act depict what idea of relevancy. The fact which is related to the fact in issue is relevant but it might not be admissible. In an American case, Knapp v State, the Court laid down the standard of law and said that:
The assurance of the determination of a particular thing of evidence lays on whether verification of that evidence would sensible in general assistance settle the essential issue at trial. [18]

There are two principles which we need to remember w.r.t to relevancy under Indian Evidence Act, 1872; relevancy isn't completely dependent on law. Second is the determination of relevancy is based upon the common sense/logic, practical and human experience and basic knowledge of affairs. [19]

For the relevancy under Indian Evidence Act 1872, the arrangement is such that section 6-16 is for the things which are linked with the facts in issue as part of similar transaction, cause, occasion, motive, effect and conduct etc, Section 17-31 deal with things which are said about it such as confessions, admission. Section 32 and 33 talk about the statements of the persons who cannot be witnesses.

There are also statements which are given in special circumstance under Section 34-39. The judgements of the court are made relevant in section 40-44 and the opinions of third parties also become relevant for the case under Section 45-51. Section 52-55 make the character as well as the reputation of the person concerned relevant for a particular case. [20]

There are certain facts which though aren't the facts in issue, yet they turn out to be legally relevant for a particular case since without such facts, the case is worthless because these facts give the background of the crime i.e. what led to the crime, the reason, the consequence, the criminal act's commission and the circumstances which followed. These are very much crucial for the Court to comprehend the entirety of the case.

Such situations are covered under Section 6 to Section 16 of the Act. These sections provide for a number of situations which are considered relevant for a particular case and hence the Indian Evidence Act is said have applicability in most of the situations. Due to the various provisions, the confusion of the courts is also advised and the Act is generally quite crystalline in this sense. [21]

Section 6 makes the facts other than the facts in issue relevant because of their close connection to the fact in issue and hence their importance for the proving of the case provided that they occur in the same transaction as the fact in issue. This section makes it clear that even other facts can become relevant other than the facts in issue.[22]

Even hearsay evidence can be brought under the ambit of this section as given in the case of Krishan Kumar Malik v State of Haryana where the Apex Court gave that the statements forming part of res gestae (exception to the hearsay rule) [23]which are said to be admitted should have been made simultaneous with the act or instantly thereafter so as to avoid any tampering of such evidence. [24]

Section 7[25]talks about the evidence which is occasion, cause or effect of the fact in issue. It also includes opportunity as well as state of the things. Under this the facts which give us the pretext of the whole scenario of the case and hence they are relevant facts. Forensic Evidence such as footprints, fingerprints and other scientific evidence is covered under this section.

It also provides for the situation in which the creation of the occasion of the victim itself. Conversations which have been secretly tape-recorded are also relevant under this section as it forms an effect to the relevant fact under Section 7 and 8 and it will be a direct evidence.[26] [27]Under this section, the court has also said that the link between the principle cause of the death and the death shouldn't be too distant and a close connection needs to be established for such evidence to be considered relevant.[28]

Opportunity for the commission of the crime is to be seen as well whether the accused had the chance of committing the particular crime or not since if there was no such chance, he cannot be prosecuted for the same (example: has defence of Alibi which has been proved, was not physically competent etc.). This opportunity needs to be exclusive in nature and not just a general chance. State of things includes the health, relations of the parties and the habits of the person.[29]

Section 8 [30]includes the motive, preparation, subsequent as well as the previous conduct. Motive is the reason behind the action as it triggers a person for the ambition to commit the crime and hence it is a psychological fact. Substantive law is unaffected by it. Relevant intention can be inferred if there is clarity on motive.[31]

Motive is necessary for the prosecution to complete the link in the chain of the events that lead to the commission of the crime. But the conviction cannot be solely based upon it and other legally relevant evidence needs to support the motive for the accused to be prosecuted for the alleged crime.[32]

There are four stages for the commission of a crime; Intention/Motive, Preparation, Attempt and Commission and out of these four, the first two can be used as a relevant evidence in the court but these need to be supported by legally admissible evidence otherwise they cannot be the basis of any punishment whereas the other two are punishable under the law but evidence needs to be provided as well.

The Apex Court in S.C. Bahri v State of Bihar [33]has also said that even though the motive may prove to be a relevant fact for discovering the guilt but if there is absence of motive, it cannot be construed that there is evidence of innocence.

There has been a variety of judgements for the relevancy of motive but the law has remained unchanged but two new aspects were introduced into this:

1. Rape Victims
2. Right to Silence.[34] [35]

The court also differentiated between statement and complaint. The former is an expression of knowledge while latter is expressing of feeling. According to Norton, there is a very important and necessary distinction between the two because a complaint is always relevant whereas a statement can be relevant only under particular instances. Complaint is made with the intention of seeking redressal and for enforcing rights and protection under the law. [36]

There are facts which are though relevant but for them a fact needs to be introduce either to prove their relevancy or to rebut the already relevant facts, and this is provided for in Section 9 of the Act but as said by . Section 10 of the Act has been constructed in such a manner that a wider scope is provide by it for the things done or said by the conspirator in common design and the words used in the section are itself to give it a broader scope when compared to the English law.

The words "with reference to" were construed as "in furtherance to" because the former gives a very wide ambit to the section. This principle was reiterated in a number of judgements included Mirza Akbar[37], Sardar Singh Caveeshar [38]as well as the latest case of State v Nalini[39].

It can also be the situation that even though a fact isn't relevant as such but it becomes relevant under Section 11 but court has held in many cases that this section is to be read with other provisions of the Act as given in Sevugun Chettiar v Raghunatha that there is a requirement of the facts to be relevant under other provisions and there is an applicability of s.32[40] but this was struck down by the latter judgements including C. Narayanan v State of Kerala[41] where court said that there is no suggestion for the connection of s.11 with any other provision instead it is an exception for other provisions of the Act.

Admissions are defined and dealt with under Section 17-21 and S.24 - 30 deal with confessions. Often there is a discrepancy which is created between the two but the Act had laid down clear distinction between them. Confession if the statement is the direct acknowledgement of the guilt of the accused, then it is a confession whereas admission is there in civil cases. Admissions are broader and confessions are also a part of them since all confessions are regarded as admissions but not vice-versa.

The relevancy of both depends upon the factors around them. Admissions by parties need to be proved with the available relevant evidence for such an admission to be relevant for the case. The contents of the documents as well as electronic evidence can also be proved by oral admission i.e. secondary evidence if there is no primary evidence for the same.[42]

Confessions can be made relevant only if they are made in front of the Judicial Magistrate that too after the accused has been made aware of the consequences of such confession and such a statement should be voluntary in nature free from any kind of threat and inducement.

Due to this, the confessions made before a police officer are not relevant in the court of law for the accused to be prosecuted and such confessions can only be used for the findings of the case which further lead to an evidence which is relevant. Confessions are of three types; judicial, extra-judicial and retracted. Not all confessions are relevant and these need to be supported by evidence[43].

The court can also take the opinion of experts under Section 45-51 and according to the various judicial precedents, an expert is the one who has special knowledge and has studied on that particular subject matter and he also has a special experience for the same. he is not a witness of fact but he has to furnish the court with the required scientific criteria. The expert's opinion is should be corroborative and if such an opinion is contradictory to other factors of the case then it's value diminishes.[44]

It is not a substantive piece of an evidence for the case and therefore not conclusive. It is upon the discretion of the court whether to consider it or not and once the opinion is considered then it becomes the opinion of the court as well but it should have independent as well as reliable corroborative evidence to have certain value in the eyes of law. [45]

According to s.52-55, , the evidence concerning to character is not relevant subject to certain exceptions in civil cases whereas in criminal cases, the evidence concerned to good character is relevant but not depicting the bad character subject to certain exceptions. The term character hasn't been defined by Indian law but is inclusive of reputation and disposition.[46]

Indian Case Laws
In Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection[47], the court has given that the position of relevancy as given under the Indian Evidence Act 1871 cannot be challenged as violative of the constitution and same goes for all the provisions of the said Act as it is a criteria for the admissibility of evidence and even the illegal obtained evidence cannot be excluded as evidence if it is relevant for the case.

In Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v State of Bombay[48], the Apex Court clarified in the point that a part of admission cannot be used against the maker of such an admission and it should either be whole or none therefore if a part of the admission is relevant and other is not, then the whole admission becomes irrelevant for the purpose of the case.

In State of Bombay v Katnikalu Odhad[49] is a landmark judgement given by a constitutional bench for Self-Incrimination. The issue for the case was whether section 20 clause (3) was violative of the constitution as given by the law laid down in MP Sharma v Satish Chandra.[50]

Issues were whether the method of the collection of evidence such as samples of fingerprint, DNA, handwriting etc were valid as per the Constitution. The court held that there was no violation of the Constitution as per the given section if the accused is compelled to give the above mentioned evidences as they are for the purpose of comparison as per the order of the court.

In Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam,[51]the Supreme Court gave clarification on the point of distinction between the formal and non-formal admissions and their weightage. The Court said that the Admissions which are presented in the pleadings are judicial admissions made by the party itself or through their agent and this stands at a higher footing than the evidentiary admission.

The judicial admissions are binding upon the party in its full sense and the evidentiary admissions are presented at the time post the trial commencement. For the latter admissions, evidence can be provided by the party to show that it is wrong unlike the former admissions. Hence both the admissions are relevant in nature but the judicial admissions have more weightage as an evidence.

The Bombay HC in the judgement of Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia v. State [52]gave the things which are inclusive in the relevant facts.

These are the facts which are:

• Indispensable for explanation or introduction of a fact in issue or relevant fact;
• Either supporting or rebutting the inference which has been suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact;
• Ascertaining the identity of a person or anything whose identity is significant for a particular case;
• Fixing the place and time at which any fact in issue or relevant fact occured;
• Showing the relationship of the parties by whom any fact in issue or relevant fact was concluded.

In Sris Chandra Nandy v Rakhalananda[53] it was ruled that the exercising of dispensing power is not open for any judge, and therefore admitting the evidence which is though not admissible by the statute appears to him to be necessary as the irregular evidence would throw light upon the issue. The Gujarat HC ruled in State of Gujarat vs Ashulal Nanji Bisnol[54], that the Indian Evidence Act does not lay down any mandate expressly or impliedly with respect to the relevancy as well as admissibility.

"Admissible and relevant" as a phrase explicitly purports that it is for the consideration of the judge in the pronouncing of the judgment. The documents or evidence which are both not relevant or admissible cannot be considered by the court and they are useless for the decision making process of the judges. But if a judge thinks that a particular evidence is not relevant or inadmissible, it doesn't mean that such an evidence cannot be brought on record unlike the evidence which is not relevant or inadmissible as it can be precluded from the record.

Conclusion
Relevancy is a term which is used in the common parlance as the tendency of approving or disapproving a certain legal element which is crucial for a particular case and also has a direct nexus for effecting the merits of the case.

Relevancy seeks the truth and this needs to be seen along with other legal requirements of the case and there should be a balance between legal as well as logical relevancy but between these two, legal relevancy plays the primary role and all the evidence which is legally relevant is admissible in the court but same does not apply to the logically relevant evidence.

The relevancy comes into play when an given fact has such power that without this given fact, the value of the evidence would diminish and it is also pertinent for the determination of action.

Relevancy is not inherent in nature instead it varied from case to case. Even though relevancy of an evidence is generally a necessary evidence but this alone is not a sufficient one for evidence to become admissible. There can be exceptions where even the relevant fact becomes excludable; where there is creation of confusion, if there is time wastage due to undue delay etc and hence here it can become excludable since time is the most important factor. The probative force of the evidence is considered by reliability (the legal relevance), rather than the ability of the evidence to influence the probability of the existence of a fact in issue (the logical relevance).

In the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the word relevant is used in a dual sense i.e. to mean both as (i) admissible, and (ii) connected with the case. When a fact is connected to another in the ways as provided by the provisions of the Act which are in connection with the relevancy of facts. For relevancy, if nexus as well as admissibility are the two conditions, a submission may be disallowed for its irrelevance if - the correlation between primary facts and evidentiary facts is too remote - Due to an admission by the opposite party - the evidence is rendered unnecessary or redundant - It's rendered to be superfluous by the admissions of the parties.

Bibliography

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• 69th Report of the Fifth Law Commission India

Articles:

1. Venancio D'Costa , Astha Ojha and Gauri Goel's, "India: Relevancy and Admissibility: Two Sides of a Coin" (28 April 2020) L&L Partners
2. Eleanor Swift's, One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer's Triumph California Law Review, vol. 88, no. 6, 2000, pp. 2437-2476
3. Roach, John. "James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-94)." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, no. 1/2, 1956, pp. 1-16
4. Terence Anderson, David Schum and William Twining's, "Analysis of Evidence" Edn 2 Cambridge University Press (2005)
5. Arya Mishra's, "Relevancy and Admissibility" (23 July 2019) iPleaders
6. Herman L Trautman, "Logical or Legal Relevancy - A Conflict in Theory (1951) HeinOnline

Books

1. SC Sarkar's Law of Evidence Vol 1 (1993) Edn 17
2. Batuk Lal's, "The Law of Evidence" (Edn 20) 2013 pp128
3. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's, "The Law of Evidence" (January 2019) Edn 27 LexisNexis

Cases

1. State of UP v Raj Narain Air 1975 SC 865
2. Ram Bihari Yadav v State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1850
3. Bibhatbati Devi v Ramendra Narayan AIR 1947 PC 19
4. Gurmukhh Singh v Commisioner of Incme Tax AIR 1944 LAH 353
5. R v Mallory (1884) 13 QDB 33
6. Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection 1974 AIR 348 SCR (2) 704
7. Magraj v R.K. Biral AIR 1971 SC 1295
8. Knapp v State 168 Ind.153-79 N.E. 1076 (1907)
9. Krishan Kumar Malik v State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 2877
10. Yusuffali Esmail v State of Maharshtra AIR 1968 SC 147
11. R.M. Malkani v State AIR 1973 SC 157
12. Moti Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 900
13. Sidik Sumar v Emperor AIR 1942 SIND 1126
14. Sheo Shankar Singh v State of Jharkhand AIR 2011 SC 1403
15. S.C. Bahri v State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420
16. Parvati v Thirumalai 10 Mad 334
17. Mirza Akbar v King Emperor AIR 1940 PC 176
18. Sardar Singh Caveeshar v State of Bombar AIR 1957 SC 747
19. State v Nalini AIR 1999 (5) SCC 253
20. Sevugun Chettiar v Raghunatha AIR 1940 Mad 273
21. C. Narayanan v State of Kerala 1992 Cr.LJ 2868
22. State of Himachal Pradesh v Jai Lal and Ors AIR 1999 Supp(2) SCR 318
23. Diganth Raj Sehgal's, "Character when relevant under the Indian Evidence Act" March 28, 2020
24. Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v State of Bombay 1959 AIR 359
25. State of Bombay v Kathikalu Odhad AIR 1961 SC 1808
26. MP Sharma v Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300
27. Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam AIR 1974 1 SCC 242
28. Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia v. State 1968 69 AIR 807 (Bom)
29. State of Gujarat vs Ashulal Nanji Bisnol AIR 2002 (4) Crimes 47
30. Sris Chandra Nandy v Rakhalananda [AIR 1941 PC 16]

End-Notes:

1. Section 3 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Venancio D'Costa , Astha Ojha and Gauri Goel's, "India: Relevancy and Admissibility: Two Sides of a Coin" (28 April 2020) L&L Partners
3. Eleanor Swift's, One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer's Triumph California Law Review, vol. 88, no. 6, 2000, pp. 2437-2476
4. Roach, John. "James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-94)." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, no. 1/2, 1956, pp. 1-16.
5. SC Sarkar's Law of Evidence Vol 1 (1993) Edn 17
6. Batuk Lal's, "The Law of Evidence" (Edn 20) 2013 pp128
7. State of UP v Raj Narain Air 1975 SC 865
8. Ram Bihari Yadav v State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1850
9. Indian Evidence Act 1872
10. Bibhatbati Devi v Ramendra Narayan AIR 1947 PC 19
11. Section 136 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
12. Terence Anderson, David Schum and William Twining's, "Analysis of Evidence" Edn 2 Cambridge University Press (2005)
13. Gurmukhh Singh v Commisioner of Incme Tax AIR 1944 LAH 353
14. R v Mallory (1884) 13 QDB 33
15. Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection 1974 AIR 348 SCR (2) 704
16. Magraj v R.K. Biral AIR 1971 SC 1295
17. Arya Mishra's, "Relevancy and Admissibility" (23 July 2019) iPleaders
18. Knapp v State 168 Ind.153-79 N.E. 1076 (1907)
19. Herman L Trautman, "Logical or Legal Relevancy - A Conflict in Theory (1951) HeinOnline
20. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
21. Batuk Lal's, "The Law of Evidence" (2018) Central Law Agency
22. Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
23. 69th Report of the Fifth Law Commission India
24. Krishan Kumar Malik v State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 2877
25. Section 7 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
26. Yusuffali Esmail v State of Maharshtra AIR 1968 SC 147
27. R.M. Malkani v State AIR 1973 SC 157
28. Moti Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 900
29. Sidik Sumar v Emperor AIR 1942 SIND 1126
30. Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
31. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's, "The Law of Evidence" (January 2019) Edn 27 LexisNexis
32. Sheo Shankar Singh v State of Jharkhand AIR 2011 SC 1403
33. S.C. Bahri v State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420
34. 69th Report of the Fifth Law Commission India
35. Batuk Lal's, "The Law of Evidence" (2018) Central Law Agency
36. Parvati v Thirumalai 10 Mad 334
37. Mirza Akbar v King Emperor AIR 1940 PC 176
38. Sardar Singh Caveeshar v State of Bombar AIR 1957 SC 747
39. State v Nalini AIR 1999 (5) SCC 253
40. Sevugun Chettiar v Raghunatha AIR 1940 Mad 273
41. C. Narayanan v State of Kerala 1992 Cr.LJ 2868
42. SC Sarkar's Law of Evidence Vol 1 (1993) Edn 17
43. Ibid
44. State of Himachal Pradesh v Jai Lal and Ors AIR 1999 Supp(2) SCR 318
45. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's, "The Law of Evidence" (January 2019) Edn 27 LexisNexis
46. Diganth Raj Sehgal's, "Character when relevant under the Indian Evidence Act" March 28, 2020
47. Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection of Incom Tax Mayu AIR 1973 SC 348
48. Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v State of Bombay 1959 AIR 359
49. State of Bombay v Kathikalu Odhad AIR 1961 SC 1808
50. MP Sharma v Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300
51. Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam AIR 1974 1 SCC 242
52. Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia v. State 1968 69 AIR 807 (Bom
53. Sris Chandra Nandy v Rakhalananda [AIR 1941 PC 16]
54. State of Gujarat vs Ashulal Nanji Bisnol AIR 2002 (4) Crimes 47