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.

(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.

It is 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 a 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.

Explanatory Video on -136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

Notes on – 136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

Questions on – 136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

 

Juris Crack provide free law notes , free video lecture , relevant mock questions , past MCQ question and legal news on Indian Evidence Act 1872. One stop destination for llb students , judicial service examination preparation , civil judge preparation , law officer courses , apo preparation , clat ug and pg test preparation. We provide notes on all legal topics , past years questions and preparation strategy. Our Bilingual teaching materials helps all law students to plan better for their examination. Juris Crack resource are mostly free to use and download , so that community of law students get quality materials. Become member of Juris Crack Law Community

Section 136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.. Bare Act of Indian Evidence Act 1872 on JurisCrack

No comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.