Section 141 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

Section 141 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(1) When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise.

(2) If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking.

(3) If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact.

Illustrations

(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section 26. The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is given of the statement.

(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to be lost. The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is produced.

(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the property to be identified before the denial of the possession is proved, or permit the denial of the possession to be proved before the property is identified.

(d) It is proposed to prove a fact A which is said to have been the cause or effect of a fact in issue. There are several intermediate facts B, C and D which must be shown to exist before the fact A can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Document Sec 2(1)(b)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 141

Section 141 provides that the Judge shall decide as to the admissibility of evidence, empowering the court to determine relevancy before allowing questions or admitting documents.

Judicial Gatekeeping Duty: When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the judge may ask the party in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant.
Threshold Relevancy Test: The judge shall admit the evidence only if they consider that it would be relevant under the provisions of the Adhiniyam.
Conditional Admissibility: If a fact's relevancy depends on another fact, the court may permit evidence of either fact first upon an undertaking of proof.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that except for objections regarding deficiency of stamp duty, trial courts should tentatively mark disputed documents as exhibits and decide admissibility at final judgment to avoid trial delay.
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517: Reiterated that admissibility is a strict question of law for the judge under Section 136 IEA (Section 141 BSA).

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If opposing counsel asks an irrelevant or prejudicial question, object immediately and call upon the judge to exercise their gatekeeping duty under Section 141 BSA, compelling counsel to state on the record how the question is relevant.