Section 136 Evidence Act: Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

Section 136: Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

Repealed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024.

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.

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.

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 32.

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.

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 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.

Now in the BSA

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.

BSA 141

Questions on this section

2 questions in 7 of our papers cite Section 136. Try these from the free papers:

1. Consider the following statements under Section 141 of the BSA: 1. When a party proposes to give evidence of a fact, the Judge may ask him in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant. 2. Where a statement of a person alleged to be dead is to be proved under Section 26, the fact of his death must be proved before evidence is given of the statement. 3. If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends on another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge must in every case require the second fact to be proved first. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
2. Under Section 141(2) of the BSA, if a fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, that other fact: