Class 48-49.pptx evidence asasasasasasasss

evidence

1. Character When Relevant (Sec. 52 to 55)

2. The character evidence is very weak evidence. It may be useful in doubtful cases, to tilt the balance in favour of the accused, or it may also afford a background for appreciating his reactions in a given situation.

3. Good or bad virtues of a person form a character. How to prove a character:- Conduct (Section 8) Opinion of third persons about his reputation or his disposition (temperament).

4. Explanation to Section 55 gives some clarity on the term ‘character’ Explanation.—In sections 52, 53, 54 and 55, the word “character” includes both reputation and disposition ; but [except as provided in section 54], evidence may be given only of general reputation and general disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or disposition were shown.

5. SO character can be proved by evidence of reputation or disposition. But as the explanation makes it clear the evidence has to be given of ‘general’ reputation or disposition not of particular acts by which such reputation or disposition were shown.

6. Reputation" means what is thought of a person by others, and is constituted by public opinion; it is the general credit which a man has obtained in that opinion. "Disposition", on the other hand, means the witness's individual opinion of a person's character it also means the ‘temperament’ of a person or his nature. Under this section, evidence can be given of general reputation and general disposition only, and not of particular facts, since isolated incident afford no presumption of a man's general character

7. Reputation of a person means the estimation in which the public hold him. This is not based upon personal knowledge of a person. Disposition of a person means his nature, and this can be spoken of only by persons having personal knowledge.

8. For example, a husband and wife may have a reputation of being a loving couple, but a good friend of the family knows the truth. In spite of their good behaviour in his presence, there will be odd actions and statements which give rand the real nature of must flash out now and then in spite of a carefully assumed a person mask.

9. Reputation must be distinguished from rumour. Evidence of rumour is mere hearsay evidence of a particular fact; evidence of repute is a different thing. A man's general reputation is the reputation which he bears in the place in which he lives amongst all the townsmen, and if it is proved that a man who lives in a particular place is looked upon by his fellow townsmen, whether they happen to a know him or not, as a man of good repute, that is strong evidence that he is a man of good character.

10. On the other hand, if the state of things is that the body of his fellow townsmen who know him look upon him as a dangerous man and a man of bad habits, that is strong evidence that he is a man of bad character. "It is possible for a man to have a fair reputation who has not in reality a good character although man of really good character are not likely to have a bad reputation.” Evidence of general repute does not offend against the rule against hearsay, but is direct evidence of a man's character

11. Character of Parties Civil Suits- Sec. 52 and Sec. 55 Criminal cases- Sec. 53 and Sec. 54

12. Character of Witnesses Section 146(3) Section 155 (4)

13. Sec. 52 In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him, is irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant .

14. Analysis Character (good or bad) per say is irrelevant in a civil cases. (Refer Sec. 5) However, the section also mentions that the character will be relevant if it is manifest from facts from otherwise relevant. Ex. Sec. 8- previous or subsequent conduct If from these facts which are otherwise relevant character of either of the parties is manifest then it shall be relevant and admissible.

15. Another situation where character relevant is relevant in civil case is where the character itself is in issue. Example if bad character is directly fact in issue. A makes certain statement against B, B files suits for defamation claiming that A has ruined his reputation in public. A argues whatever he said is the truth, in this situation the character of B itself comes in issue (FII). Here the evidence of ‘bad character’ can be given by A.

16. Section 55 Character as affecting damages.—In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages which he ought to receive, is relevant. Explanation.—In sections 52, 53, 54 and 55, the word “character” includes both reputation and disposition; but 1[except as provided in section 54], evidence may be given only of general reputation and general disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or disposition were shown

17. Whose character is being talked about here? So character in one situation is relevant as far as civil suits are concerned.

18. The character of plaintiff is therefore relevant for the purpose of calculation of damages. Usually good character will not get the damages increased but a bad character may get the damages reduced.

19. Sec. 53 In criminal cases, previous good character relevant. In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is relevant.

20. So good character of accused is relevant, evidence of his reputation/disposition will be allowed.

21. What about bad character of the accused? Sec. 54 answers this question.

22. Sec. 54 Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.

23. Explanation 1.—This section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue. Explanation 2.—A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.

24. So, good character is relevant and bad character is irrelevant unless evidence of good character is given, in that situation only the bad character itself becomes relevant. In other words evidence of good character can be given straightaway but evidence of bad character has to be obviously given in ‘reply’ (to evidence of good character)

25. Explanation 1 Explanation 1 This section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue. That means if the bad character of a person is directly in issue, evidence of bad character can be directly be given (this section will not apply)

26. Explanation 2 A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.

27. Sec. 75 IPC Enhanced punishment for certain offences under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII after previous conviction. Whoever, having been convicted,— (a)  by a Court in [India], of an offence punishable under Chap­ter XII or Chapter XVII of this Code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to [imprisonment for life], or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.]

28. X is convicted of theft today, punishment is maximum 3 years, court has to decide sentence now. While sentencing prosecution proves that he was convicted before also under chapter XII (offence relating to coin) or XVII (offences against property) and last time he was sentenced to >=3 years. Here since he was convicted before he will now be punished under Sec. 75 with enhanced sentence. Here Sec. 75 will apply, and since previous conviction is evidence of bad character here the prosecution can directly prove previous conviction (bad character) even if evidence of good character is not given by the accused.

29. Another situation relating to explanation 2. Probation- The court has to decide whether the convicted person should be released on probation for good conduct. Here a crucial issue is whether the person is a first time offender or a repeat offender. Since previous conviction itself becomes an issue here, the evidence of previous conviction can be given. And since previous conviction is an evidence of bad character one can say that the prosecution is giving evidence of bad character, here also the prosecution does not have to wait for the evidence of good character Since Sec. 54 is not going to apply.