Unit I — Introduction, Relevancy & Admissions

“All admissible evidence is relevant, but not all relevant evidence is admissible — relevancy is logic, admissibility is law.” — the relevancy / admissibility distinction


Evidence, Facts & Relevancy

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) defines “evidence” to include oral evidence (statements of witnesses), documentary evidence (documents, including electronic records), and now expressly electronic and digital records. The Act turns on two ideas: a “fact in issue” (a fact the existence of which is in dispute and on which the right or liability depends) and a “relevant fact” (a fact connected to a fact in issue in one of the ways the Act lays down). A fact is legally relevant only if it falls within Ss.3–50; relevancy is a question of logic and connection, while admissibility is the legal rule about whether a relevant fact may actually be received.

flowchart TD
    A["A fact is RELEVANT if it is…"]:::root
    A --> B["Part of the same transaction —<br/>RES GESTAE (S.4)"]:::leaf
    A --> C["Occasion, cause, effect,<br/>motive, preparation, conduct (Ss.5-6)"]:::leaf
    A --> D["Statements by conspirators (S.8)"]:::leaf
    A --> E["Facts showing state of mind /<br/>similar facts (Ss.9-14)"]:::leaf
    A --> F["ADMISSIONS (Ss.15-21)"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

The doctrine of res gestae (S.4, ← IEA S.6) makes relevant facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction — they must be contemporaneous and spontaneous, made without opportunity to fabricate. Motive, preparation and conduct (S.6), facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts, and similar-fact evidence (to show intention, knowledge or system, Ss.9–14) are all separately made relevant.


Admissions

An admission (S.15) is a statement, oral or documentary or electronic, which suggests an inference as to a fact in issue or a relevant fact, made by a party or certain connected persons. Admissions are not conclusive (S.21) but operate as strong evidence against the maker and shift the practical burden of explanation.

Whose admissions are relevant (S.16)
Parties to the proceeding (or their agents) The core rule
Persons with a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject Where they make the statement in that character
Persons from whom the parties derive interest (predecessors-in-title) If made during the continuance of interest
Persons expressly referred to by a party (referee admission, S.19) “Go and ask C — C knows” → C’s statement binds

Admissions are generally proved against the maker, not by him (a party cannot manufacture evidence for himself), subject to exceptions (e.g. dying-declaration-type statements, statements admissible under other sections).


✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: A hears that C has been murdered, reaches the spot, and four persons carrying C’s body tell him “B murdered C and ran away.” Does their statement form part of the res gestae?

I — Issue

Whether a statement made after the incident, to a person who arrived later, forms part of the res gestae and is therefore relevant.

R — Rule

Section 4 (← IEA S.6) — only facts/statements contemporaneous with the transaction, made spontaneously and without opportunity to fabricate, form part of the res gestae (Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P.).

A — Analysis

The decoy is that the statement names the killer and sounds like an eyewitness account, so it feels compelling. But res gestae is about timing and spontaneity, not content. By the time the four persons spoke, the transaction (the murder) was over, A had arrived afterwards, and the speakers had time and opportunity to reflect, discuss and fabricate. The statement is therefore a narrative of a past event, not a spontaneous exclamation forming part of the transaction — it is hearsay and falls outside S.4. Contrast the variant where a victim, immediately on being struck, blurts out the cause of the accident: that is contemporaneous and within res gestae.

C — Conclusion

The statement is not part of the res gestae and is inadmissible under S.4 — it was made after the transaction had ended, with time to fabricate, and is mere hearsay.


📄 The full bundle (₹199) has the complete Unit I — evidence and its kinds, facts in issue vs relevant facts, res gestae, motive/preparation/conduct, conspiracy, similar facts and the whole law of admissions — plus the Question Bank’s model answers to 9 solved problems (res gestae, alibi, referee admission, conduct, similar facts). Get Notes + Question Bank — ₹199

Info

download our exam preparation kit for your exam