INTRODUCTION :  The term “admissibility” means the state or quality of being admissible or permissible. In the legal sense, the term “evidence” means anything admitted by a Court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial. Thus, the concept  of Admissibility of Evidence literally means a document, testimony, or tangible evidence used in a Court of Law. Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 explains which all evidence is admissible. The above said section states that it is the discretion of the Judge to decide whether an evidence is admissible or not. The presiding officer may ask the party to clarify how the fact or evidence is relevant under the provisions Section 6 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. if he is not convinced of its relevance. So, technically the question of relevance comes first and then the question of admissibility.

Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that “Only the judge can decide whether evidence is admissible or relevant or permissible in Court. The judge may ask an individual to explain in what way or manner the individual person proposes to show proof or establish a fact. The judge would allow the proof only if it is relevant enough to the matters in dispute and if the judge is satisfied with the reaction of the individual. The aspect of relevance supersedes the aspect of admissibility in the Court proceedings.”


Admissibility means that only the facts which are relevant are admissible in the court of Law. Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 explains which all evidence are admissible.

“When either party proposes to give evidence of any reality, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what way the supposed certainty, whenever demonstrated, would be pertinent; and the Judge will concede the evidence if he believes that the reality, whenever demonstrated, would be important, and not something else. If the reality, which is proposed to be demonstrated is among one of which evidence is allowable just upon additional confirmation of some other truth, such last-referenced certainty should be demonstrated before evidence is given of the reality first-referenced, except if the party embraces to give confirmation of such reality, and the Court is happy with such endeavour. When the pertinence of a supposed certainty completely relies on another supposed actuality being demonstrated first, the Judge may, in his watchfulness, either grant evidence of the principal truth to be given before the second certainty is demonstrated or expect evidence to be allowed of the second reality before evidence is given of the principal truth.”

The Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act says that it depends upon the discretion of the judge to decide whether an evidence is admissible or not. The presiding officer may ask the party to clarify how the fact or evidence is relevant under the provisions Section 6 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. if he is not convinced of its relevance. So, technically the question of relevance comes first and then the question of admissibility. In the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court was of the view that “The probative value of the evidence is the weight to be given to it which has to be judged having regards to the fact and circumstances of each case.”

Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872, lays down some facts which can be treated as relevant. In the case of Lakshman Das Chagan lal Bhatia v. State, the court laid down the following to be “relevant facts:

“ Facts, which are necessary to explain or introduce a fact, which is in issue or relevant, Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact, Facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, Facts which fix the time and place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, Facts which show the relation of parties by whom any fact in issue or relevant fact was translated.

Section 11 also deals with admissibility. In the case of Bibi Khaver v. BibiRukha, the court held that “in order that a collateral fact can be admitted as relevant under this section, the prerequisites of the law are that The collateral fact must itself be established by conclusive evidence; and It must, when established, afford a reasonable presumption or inference as to the matter in disputes.

It is true that all the facts which are evidence may not be the evidence that the court looks like an evidence. The burden of proof is on the defendant to disprove the evidence provided by the other party as inadmissible. However, the burden of proof may be reversed for some reasons. The discretion is solely in the hands of the judge to decide whether a evidence is admissible or not. Improper admission of evidence is not a ground for retrial and a decision cannot merely be reversed on the grounds of improper evidence. The power vested on a judge by section 136 is vast and It must be handled properly. Thus, it is important that certain guidelines are given for a presiding officer to decide whether an evidence is admissible or not.

The Judges, like all other Human beings are internecine and discretionary powers should not be given to them to decide whether an evidence is admissible or not. The Law or the Judge, both should not be given the power to decide whether an evidence is admissible or inadmissible. Every piece of Evidence which concerns the case must be mad admissible whether it is found through illegal search or any other means. There are many people among us who evade the eyes of Law forever because of inadmissible evidence. Thus, a new mechanism must be developed to admit or not admit a particular evidence.

Importance of electronic evidence:

Expanding dependence on electronic methods for correspondences, web-based business, and capacity of data in digital shape has unquestionably made a need change the law identifying with data innovation and tenets of suitability of electronic evidence both in common and criminal issues in India. This expanded utilization of innovation, be that as it may, postures challenges pleasing and mirroring the new age advancements in laws crosswise over purviews, which thus has given the much-expected impulse to the development and energy about digital evidence.

With the adjustment in law, Indian courts have created case law in regard to dependence on electronic evidence. Judges have likewise shown perceptiveness towards the inborn ‘electronic’ nature of evidence, which incorporates knowledge with respect to the suitability of such evidence, and the translation of the law in connection to the way in which electronic evidence can be brought and recorded under the watchful eye of the court. While the acceptability of electronic evidence in legitimate procedures isn’t new in India, with the progression of time, the protections utilized for empowering the generation of records have changed generously, particularly since the capacity and utilization of electronic data has expanded and turned out to be more mind boggling. As of late, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Anvar P. K. v. P.K Basheer & Others, overruled the before choice the instance of the State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu, likewise prevalently known as the ‘Parliament Assaults’ case. The Supreme Court re-imagined the evidentiary acceptability of electronic records to accurately mirror the arrangements of the Evidence Act by reinterpreting the utilization of segments 63, 65 and 65B. A short foundation of the Evidence Act and the fundamental standards of evidence will assist the peruse with understanding and welcome the genuine imply and ratifications of the choice of Supreme Court in its actual soul and the way in which digital records can be shown as evidence in Indian courts.

Traditionally, the basic idea of evidence is that immediate oral evidence might be showed to demonstrate all actualities, except for reports. The prattle decide recommends that any oral evidence that isn’t immediate can’t be depended upon except if it is spared by one of the special cases.



Law of Evidence has a very vital role in any judgement of the court. The power which the presiding officer has in his hands should not be misused. For this there should be some guidelines.The law relating to evidence is not suitable for the present age and it must be amended for the better functioning of the legal system. It is mandatory for all to be learned that the law is supreme, and it cannot be bended for anyone’s wish. Thus, a clear distinction must be drawn between the law and discretionary power of the judge.

The Law or the Judge, both should not be allowed to choose whether an evidence is admissible or inadmissible. Each piece of Evidence which is connected to the case should be accepted whether it is found through any unlawful inquiry or any other means. Because at the end Evidence is Evidence. And at last evidence is the only thing which the court wants. Many criminals rescues from  the eyes of Law many timesjust because ofthe inadmissible evidence according to the law or insufficient evidences.Thus, another mechanism should be created to decide to concede or not to concede a specific evidence.








Leave a Reply


Equilibria CBD Gummies (Pros and Cons) Is It Scam Or Trusted?

Basically, Equilibria CBD Gummies have been shown the way that strain, especially consistent tension, can hurt the immune structure, making it less prepared to battle off sicknesses and contaminations. Stress can be truly perfect for you. The valuable thing about pressure, eustress, is that the very thing you want is an opposite thing to the horrendous thing, […]

Read More

Equilibria CBD Gummies (Scam Exposed) Ingredients and Side Effects

Equilibria CBD Gummies are a reasonable extraordinary and hearty course of activity.They incorporate present day and standard adornments to address or fix logicalissues. You need to kill the cannabinoids from the plant with exorbitant mindfulness. It very well might bejoined with first rate trimmings to make it extra enormous and taste better.The creator besides makes sense […]

Read More

Bio Lyfe Keto Gummies Reviews (Scam Or Trusted) Beware Before Buying

Bio Lyfe Keto Gummies are metabolites of DHEA, a fundamental substance known to invigorate the effects of making on many body limits. Since keto gummies don’t separate into estrogen or testosterone, it is a 100% safe choice rather than its parent compound. Ketogenic gum has been shown to help the body with getting in shape by […]

Read More