Indian Evidence Act- Relevancy of Character (Section 52 to 55)

Relevancy of Character

Introduction

Section 5 to 55 of Indian Evidence act tells us when facts become relevant. It include when character play role in relevancy. The relevancy of character is discussed from section 52 to section 55.

For example, if you prove and tell the court that accused had already convicted in similar crime (Theft) on earlier also, will this weigh against accused? Is this even admitted by court? Section 52 to 55 answers some of these questions.

It provides when character becomes relevant in criminal case and when it becomes relevant in civil case. 

Also remember here, character of parties are discussed and not of witness.

Section 52- In civil character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant

“Character” is defined in section 55 which includes reputation and disposition.  Reputation includes what other people think about you.  Disposition means how you conduct yourself.

This section provides that in civil cases character is irrelevant.

One of jurist said business of court is to try the case and not the man.

For example if there is dispute as to title of land, court’s duty is to decide dispute and not the character.

Party to suit cannot say that he is person of good character and hence it’s not possible that he could have commit the tort or any civil wrong. Similarly it holds true for opposite party also which cannot say the accused is of bad character and it increases the possibility of guilt of accused.

There are certain exceptions which we will see later.

Section 53-In criminal cases previous good character relevant

In criminal cases accused person is at liberty to give evidence of the fact that he is man of good character. Such evidence will be relevant in court.

However in offences like rape and offences under section 354 are not covered by this section.

Supreme Court said this evidence is weak kind of evidence (Bhagawan Swarup Vs State of Maharashtra)

Section 54- Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply

Man’s guilt should be established by fact, and not by character. This section states previous bad character of accused is not relevant. However it has one proviso.

It is relevant in below cases

<![if !supportLists]>1.   <![endif]>When the accused had adduced that he is person of good character, the prosecution can prove opposite of it

<![if !supportLists]>2.   <![endif]>When character of person itself is fact in issue

<![if !supportLists]>3.   <![endif]>Accused had been convicted previously

Bad Character is defined in one Australian case, Attwood case. The expression bad character in relation to a witness has no technical or legal meaning. Bad character simply a contrary of good character.

Section 55- Character as affecting damages

In civil cases the fact the character of any person is such as to affect the amount damages which he ought to receive is relevant.

There is this case where journalist brought case against drama artists. In this case journalist is powerful and hence it becomes relevant.

This is in a sense exception to section 52 which says character is irrelevant in civil cases.