Section 3 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts

Section 3 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts

Official Bare Act Text

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

Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.

Explanation. — —This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure.

Illustrations

(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death. At A's trial the following facts are in issue:— A's beating B with the club; A's causing B's death by such beating; A's intention to cause B's death.

(b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce the bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

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

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Evidence Sec 2(1)(c) Fact Sec 2(1)(d) Fact In Issue Sec 2(1)(e)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 3

Section 3 establishes the primary exclusionary gateway of Indian evidence law, mandating that evidence may only be tendered of facts in issue and facts expressly declared relevant under the Adhiniyam, and of no others.

Core Legal Standard: By erecting an absolute statutory barrier against collateral, scandalous, or remote matters, the section enforces judicial focus and shields inquiries from prejudicial digressions.
Statutory Rights & Obligations: The statutory architecture bifurcates provable facts into two categories: 'facts in issue'—the central factual ingredients from which legal rights, civil liabilities, or criminal guilt directly flow under substantive law—and 'relevant facts'—circumstantial or contextual facts declared admissible under Sections 4 to 50 of Chapter II.

Crucially, the provision codifies the cardinal principle that relevancy is the essential prerequisite of admissibility: a fact not declared relevant by statute cannot be received in evidence merely because it seems persuasive or interesting.

The Explanation bridges the law of evidence with civil procedural mandates. Even if a document or fact is legally relevant, a suitor cannot lead evidence if they are procedurally disentitled—such as failing to produce or disclose documents at the first hearing under Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without establishing justifiable cause. Procedural compliance thus operates as a strict condition precedent to evidentiary admissibility.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517: The Supreme Court clarified the crucial distinction between relevancy and admissibility, ruling that while relevancy is governed by logical connectedness defined by statutory rules, admissibility is a strict question of law; all admissible evidence is relevant, but all relevant evidence is not necessarily admissible.
State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428: Reaffirmed that courts cannot admit evidence extraneous to facts in issue or statutory relevant facts, holding that public interest and statutory limits strictly delineate the boundaries of judicial inquiry.

Legal Commentary:

In criminal prosecutions, Section 3 serves as the primary shield protecting an accused against character assassination and uncharged misconduct. Trial judges possess an affirmative duty to reject hearsay or prejudicial collateral facts at the threshold, ensuring that the prosecution case rests strictly upon facts in issue and admissible circumstantial links.