Relevancy of Character in Evidence Act

Human nature often inclines towards judging others based on their character. This tendency can influence decisions, including those made in judicial settings. However, the legal system, particularly under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, imposes specific limitations and guidelines on the relevance of character evidence. This article explores the detailed provisions regarding the relevancy of character in both civil and criminal cases under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, analysing its scope and implications.

Definition of ‘Character’

The Indian Evidence Act does not explicitly define ‘character.’ However, general legal understanding, supported by dictionary definitions, describes character as a combination of qualities that distinguish one person from another. Traits such as honesty, good nature, modesty and temper are examples of character attributes.

Reputation vs. Disposition

Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act clarifies that ‘character’ includes both reputation and disposition:

• Reputation: The general opinion about an individual held by others.
• Disposition: The inherent qualities or nature of an individual.

What is Relevancy of Character in the Evidence Act?

The relevancy of character under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, varies between civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, Section 52 states that character evidence is generally irrelevant. This means that the good or bad character of a person cannot be used to infer the probability of their conduct in a case. However, exceptions exist: when the character itself is a fact in issue or under Section 55, where the character of the person claiming damages is relevant to determining the amount of compensation.

In criminal cases, Section 53 allows the good character of the accused to be relevant, supporting the notion that a person of good character is less likely to commit a crime. Conversely, Section 54 states that evidence of the bad character of the accused is generally irrelevant unless the accused has introduced evidence of their good character or when the character itself is a fact in issue. Section 53A specifically excludes character evidence in cases involving sexual offences, emphasising the irrelevance of both the accused’s and the victim’s character in such matters.

Relevance of Character in Civil Cases

Section 52: General Rule of Irrelevance

Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act states that in civil cases, the character of a person is generally irrelevant for determining the probability or improbability of any conduct attributed to them. The underlying principle is that decisions should be based on factual evidence rather than subjective judgments about character.

Illustration

Consider a case where ‘A,’ a businessman, is accused of fraud. Under Section 52, evidence suggesting that ‘A’ is an honest person or has a history of deceit is irrelevant. The focus remains on the factual evidence related to the fraud allegation.

Exceptions to Relevance of Character under Section 52

1. Character as a Fact in Issue: When the character itself is a fact in issue, it becomes relevant. For instance, in defamation cases, the character of the plaintiff may be directly pertinent.
2. Facts Otherwise Relevant: Facts that are otherwise relevant cannot be excluded solely because they incidentally reveal character. For example, if character evidence sheds light on a relevant fact, it may be admitted.

Section 55: Character Affecting Damages

Section 55 provides an exception to the general rule of irrelevance by stating that the character of the person claiming damages is relevant if it affects the amount of damages they should receive. This is particularly significant in cases where the court must determine the quantum of damages.

In a case of seduction or defamation, the character of the plaintiff may influence the damages awarded. If the plaintiff’s character is proven to be such that it aggravates the harm suffered, the damages may be increased.

Bharpur Singh v. Parshotam Dass (2015): The Supreme Court held that evidence of character in civil cases is generally irrelevant unless it is directly in issue or affects damages.

Relevance of Character in Criminal Cases

Section 53: Good Character of the Accused

Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act states that in criminal cases, the good character of the accused is relevant. The rationale is that a person of good character is less likely to commit a crime and this can influence the presumption of innocence.

Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad: The Supreme Court ruled that character evidence could be considered in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, highlighting the importance of good character in criminal proceedings.

Section 53A: Sexual Offences

Section 53A, introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, specifies that in cases involving sexual offences (e.g., assault, harassment, rape), the character of both the accused and the victim is irrelevant. Evidence of the victim’s previous sexual behavior is also irrelevant, emphasising the need to protect the victim’s dignity and prevent victim-blaming.

Section 54: Bad Character of the Accused

Section 54 states that evidence of the bad character of the accused is generally irrelevant, except in two scenarios:

1. Rebuttal of Good Character Evidence: If the accused presents evidence of good character, the prosecution can rebut it with evidence of bad character.
2. Character as a Fact in Issue: When character itself is directly in issue, such as in cases of habitual offenders under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In a defamation case, the character of the plaintiff may be a fact in issue. Similarly, in custody battles (e.g., B. Vasanthi v. Bakthavatchalu), the character of both parties may be relevant to determine the best interest of the child.

Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State Of Maharashtra (1963): This case, also known as the Empire Conspiracy Case, discussed the relevance of character evidence in criminal trials, distinguishing between reputation and disposition. The court emphasised that while good character might tilt the balance in favor of the accused in doubtful cases, it cannot outweigh concrete evidence of guilt.

Character Affecting Damages: Section 55

Section 55 explicitly states that in civil cases, the character of the person entitled to damages is relevant. This is an exception to the general rule under Section 52. The rationale is to ensure fair compensation based on the plaintiff’s character, which might influence the extent of harm suffered.

Explanation of Character

Section 55 includes both reputation and disposition:

• Disposition: Refers to a person’s inherent qualities, often shaped by upbringing and personal experiences.
• Reputation: Refers to the general public opinion about a person.

In popular culture, consider the character Harvey Specter from the TV show ‘Suits.’ He has a reputation for being arrogant and selfish, while his disposition is that of a highly confident, practical thinker. Both aspects combine to define his overall character.

Difference Between Relevancy of Character in Criminal and Civil Cases

Civil Cases

• General Rule (Section 52): Character evidence is irrelevant.
• Exceptions:
  • Character as a fact in issue.
  • Character affecting damages (Section 55).

Criminal Cases

• Good Character (Section 53): Relevant.
• Bad Character (Section 54): Generally irrelevant, except in rebuttal or when character is directly in issue.
• Sexual Offences (Section 53A): Character of both accused and victim irrelevant.

Key Differences

1. Civil Cases: Focus on factual evidence with limited exceptions for character.
2. Criminal Cases: Allow good character evidence to support the presumption of innocence but restrict bad character evidence to prevent prejudicing the accused.

Conclusion

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, carefully delineates the relevance of character evidence in both civil and criminal cases. While character evidence is generally irrelevant in civil cases, exceptions exist when character itself is an issue or affects damages. In criminal cases, the good character of the accused is relevant, supporting the presumption of innocence, whereas bad character evidence is largely restricted to avoid unfair prejudice.

These provisions ensure that judicial decisions are based on relevant and objective evidence, maintaining the integrity and fairness of the legal process. The careful balance struck by the Indian Evidence Act reflects a nuanced understanding of human nature and legal principles, promoting justice and fairness in both civil and criminal proceedings.