1/11/2017

CharacterinEvidenceLaw|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

class="singlesinglepostpostid1428singleformatstandardwpfplugindefaulttitlecharacterinevidencelawcategorylawofevidenceauthor
contributedpapersbrowserchrome">

CharacterinEvidenceLaw
byContributedPapers|December4,20101:24pm
Like SignUptoseewhatyourfriendslike.

Introduction
Commonsensetellsusthatwhenthequestionisastowhetherapersondidordidnotdoaparticularact,hischaracterwhichshowswhetherheisthe
kindofpersonlikelytodoitornotshouldbetakenintoaccount.Ithasbeensaidthatforsuchapurposeinlaw,

thedifferencebetweenthehigh
priestofviceandthepiouspriestofvirtuebetweenthesocialleperandbreakerupofhomesandapersononwhomevenawhiffofscandalhasnever
blownbetweenthecharmingladywhogracesadrawingroomandtheslutwholivesinabrothelandwalksthemidnightstreet
shouldbetakeninto
account.[1]Thishoweveristhefirstthoughtthatcomestomind.Ifoneweretoexaminetheproblemingreaterdetail,onewouldrealizethatitisnot
sosimple,ratherthequestionofcharacterisanextremelycomplexone.

Firstly,theResearcherwilltrytoexplainthemeaningofthewordcharacter.ThemeaningofthewordcharacterasdefinedinWebstersDictionaryis
Thecombinationofqualitiesdistinguishinganypersonorclassofpersonsanydistinctivemarkortraitscollectively,belongingtoanyperson,classor
racetheindividualitywhichistheproductofnature,habitsandenvironment.Italsoequatescharactertoreputation.[2]Inthecaseof
v.
[3],PearsonJgaveamuchclearerunderstandingofwhatismeantbythewordcharacter.Hehadthistosay:

Bottoms
Kents
Isamanhonest,ishegoodnatured,isheofaviolenttemper,ishemodestandretiringorimpudentandforwardtheseallconstitutetraitsof
characterandarefacts.

Forthepurposesofthelawofevidence,theexplanationtoSection55oftheIndianEvidenceAct(henceforththeAct)givesusanunderstandingof
whatismeantbycharacter.TheExplainationreadsasfollows:
InSections52,53,54,and55thewordcharacterincludesbothreputationanddispositionbut[exceptasprovidedbySection54],evidencemaybe
givenonlyofgeneralreputationandgeneraldisposition,andnotofparticularactsbywhichreputationordispositionwereshown.
Thesecondpartoftheaboveexplanationwillbeexaminedinthemainbodyofthepaper.Forthepurposesofthediscussionathand,theexplanation
issomewhatmisleadingasactualcharacterisdistinctfromreputationofit,andthelatterismerelyevidencetoprovetheformeroughttobeatruism.
Itisalmostimpossibletoknowtherealcharacterofaperson.Mostpeopleareontheirbestbehaviorwhileinpublichoweveritisalmostimpossibleto
knowhowapersonbehavesbehindcloseddoors,outoftheviewofthepubliceye.Itishowapersonbehavesinpublicwhichdetermineshis
reputation.Reputationmayfurnishimportantevidenceforascertainingcharacterbutcharactermayoftendifferwidelyfromthereputationconcerning
it.[4]Allpeoplehavebothgoodandbadqualitiesinthem,butoursocializationworksinmostcasestosuppressthebadandenhancethegood.Yetif
wearehonestwithourselveswewillfindthatweveryoftenhavetworeasonsfordoinganyact,onewhichweexpresstothepublic,whichpeoplein
generalattributetous,andanotherwhichonlyweknow.Usuallyitisthelatterwhichtrulymotivatesustodoanything.Ifitwerepossibletogauge
thesethenthetruecharacterofapersonmaybeknown.Thuswhileitmaybepossibletodetermineconduct(howamanbehaves),toknowamans
character(whyhebehavesinacertainway)isaverydifficultproposition.[5]Thisiswhyinlawtheextenttowhichcharacterevidencecanbegivenis
limited.
Inregardtocharacterofapartyitisfirstnecessarytolookatwhetherthecharacterisinissueornot.Whenapartysgeneralcharacterisitselfin
issue,whetherinacivilorcriminalproceeding,proofmustnecessarilybereceivedofwhatgeneralcharacteris,orisnot.Whengeneralcharacteris
notinissue,butistenderedinsupportofsomeotherissueitisgenerallynotadmissibleincivilcaseswhileitmaybeincriminalcases.[6]Thispaper
seekstoexplainandanalyzethelatter.
GoodCharacter
TheEnglishPosition:
TheEnglishruleonthispointisthatThoughgeneralevidenceofbadcharacterisnotadmittedagainsttheprisoner,incriminalcasesgeneralevidence
ofgoodcharacteroftheaccusedisalwaysrelevantandadmissibleinhisfavour.[7]
ThepositionoflawonthispointisdiffersinEnglandandIndiainthatunderEnglishLawCharacterisconfinedtoreputationonly.[8]InEnglandgood
charactershouldbepermittedtooperateasapositiveappropriateandsubstantialdefense.Thoughgoodcharacterisofspecialimportancewhenthe
incriminatingevidenceiswhollycircumstantial,itisnottoberejectedorevendisregarded,whentheevidenceagainsttheaccusedisdirect.Thus,good
characteroftheaccused,whensatisfactorilyestablished,isaningredientwhichalwaysoughttobesubmittedtothejury,togetherwiththefactsand
circumstancesofthecase.Thenatureofthechargeandtheevidencebywhichitissupportedwilloftenrendersuchingredientoflittleornovalue,but
themorecorrectusewouldbetonotwithdrawitfromtheconsiderationofthejurybuttoleaveittothemtodecideupontheevidencewhetheran
individualwhosecharacterwaspreviouslyunblemished,hasorhasnotcommittedtheparticularcrime.[9]Inthecaseof v.
[10],Lord
Ellenborough,CJmadethefollowingremark.

R Davison

Evidenceofcharacterisonlyofweightwheretheotherevidenceisinevenbalance,orwherethereisafairandreasonabledoubtoftheprisoners
guilt
Thoughthismayseemcontradictory,itisnot.ThereasonfortheconfusionisthatwhenLordEllenboroughgavethejudgment,thepositionoflawwas
thatcharacterevidencewouldonlybeadmissibleincaseswheretherewasadoubtastoguilthasbeenreplacedbytherulethatevidenceastogood
characterisalwaysadmissible,butwillonlyholdweightwhentheevidenceisinevenbalance.[11]Thepresentpositionisthatevidenceofgood
characterisalwaysadmissibleincriminalcaseshoweverhowmuchweightistobeattachedtosuchevidenceisalongthelinesofthestatementmade
byLordEllenborough.
TheIndianPosition:
Section53[12]oftheIndianEvidenceActdoesnotsayanythingaboutbadcharacterhoweveritveryclearlyallowsfortheintroductionofevidenceto
showgoodcharacterincriminalcasesandisthusinaccordancewiththeEnglishruleonthispoint..Inordertogetaproperunderstandingofthe
IndianpositiononcharacterevidenceoneshouldreadSections53and54together.Evidenceofgoodcharacterisadmittedtoshowthatitwasunlikely
thattheaccusedcommittedtheoffencethathehasbeenchargedwith.

HabeebMohammed StateofHyderabad

Inthecaseof
v.
[13],itwasheldthatIncriminalproceedingsamanscharacterisoftenamatterof
importanceinexplaininghisconductandinjudginghisinnocenceorcriminality.Manyactsofanaccusedpersonwouldbesuspiciousorfreefromall
suspicionwhenwecometoknowthecharacterofthepersonbywhomtheyaredoneItwasalsosuggestedinthiscasethatevidenceofgood
http://legalsutra.com/1428/characterinevidencelaw/print/

1/4

1/11/2017

CharacterinEvidenceLaw|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

suspicionwhenwecometoknowthecharacterofthepersonbywhomtheyaredoneItwasalsosuggestedinthiscasethatevidenceofgood
characterwouldbeofimportanceincaseswheretheactamountstoanoffenceonlybyreasonofitbeingdonewithaviciousintentiontoshowthe
improbabilityoftheexistenceofsuchintent.Incaseswhereintentionisnottheessenceoftheact,evidenceofgoodcharacterwouldonlybeofuseif
thereexistssomedoubtastowhethertheaccusedwasthepersonwhocommittedtheact.
UnlikeinEngland,inIndia,characterincludesbothreputationanddisposition.Dispositionmeanstheinherentqualitiesofapersonreputationmeans
thegeneralcreditofthepersonamongstthepublic.Thereisarealdistinctionbetweenreputationanddisposition.Amanmaybereputedtobeagood
manbutinrealitymayhaveabaddisposition.Thevalueofevidenceasregardsthedispositionofapersondependsnotonlyonthewitnesss
perspicacitybutalsoontheiropportunitiestoobserveapersonaswellasthepersonsclevernesstohidehisrealtraits.However,adispositionofa
manmaybemadeupofmanytraitssomegoodsomebad,andonlyevidenceinregardtoaparticulartraitwithwhichthewitnessisfamiliarwouldbe
ofsomeuse.Inanycasecharacterevidenceisaveryweakevidenceanditcannotoutweighpositiveevidenceastotheguiltofaperson.Theabove
washeldinthecaseof
v.
Thuseffectively,evidenceofgoodcharacterisofnohelpindecidingthecase
unlessthereissomelegitimatedoubtastotheguiltoftheperson.[15]

BhagwanSwarup StateofMaharashtra[14]

Therearehowevertwoclassesofcaseswhereevidenceofgoodcharacterisveryimportant.Firstly,incaseswhereconductisequivocaloreven
presumablycriminal.Inthesecasesevidenceofcharactermayexplainconductandrebutthepresumptionswhichitmightraiseintheabsenceofsuch
evidence.[16]Forexampleifamanisfoundinpossessionofstolengoodsandhetakesthedefensethathefoundthegoodsandtookchargetoreturn
themtotheowner.Thiswouldbebelievableifthemanwasoneofhighcharacter.Theotherkindofcaseswherecharacterevidenceisveryimportant
iswhenachargerestsonthedirecttestimonyofasinglewitnessandonthebaredenialofitbythepersoncharged.[17]Forexampleifamanis
accusedofindecentassaultonawomanwithwhomhewasaccidentallyleftalonewithandhedeniesit,hereahighcharacterformoralityonthepart
oftheaccusedpersonwouldbeofparamountimportance.
Ifthereexistsconcreteproofthatapersoncommittedanoffence,evidenceofhispreviousgoodcharacterwillnotinfluencethedecisionofthecourt
inanywaythoughitmaybebroughtupagainatthetimeofsentencingtothebenefitoftheconvictedperson.Thecaseof
v.
[18]
isonewhichwasdecidedprimarilyonthebasisofcharacterevidence.TheappellantMangatRaiwhohadbeenconvictedofbriberyundersection161
IPCwasacquittedonthebasisthattheevidencegivenbytheprinciplewitnessestothetakingofthebribewasnotofthetypeonwhichimlicit
reliancecanbeplacedwithoutindependentcorroborationandonthebasisthatfouroftheappellantssuperiorofficers,allofhighstatus,statedthat
theybelievedhimtobeamanofcharacterandimpeccablehonestyandtwoofthemhadprovidedconcreteproofoftheirbeliefbyrecommendinghim
foratitleandbymentioninghiminfielddispatchesrespectively.TheLahoreHighCourtheldthatbeforeamanofthetypeandwiththeantecedentsof
theaccusedcouldbeadjudgedguilty,theevidenceagainsthimmustbeofunimpeachablecharacter.

MangatRai Emperor

Emperorv.KhurshidHussain[19].Itwouldberelevantheretoquoteapieceof

ThesameHighCourthoweverdissentedfromthisviewinthecaseof
thejudgement.

Actsofbriberyarealwaysattendedbyavoidanceofpublicity,ifnotabsolutesecrecyandconsequentlythedirectevidenceisusuallyconfinedtothe
statementofthebribegiverwhois
amanofdoubtfulcharacteranditseemstomethataruleagainstacceptanceofanybutimmaculate
evidencefortheconvictionofactsofbriberyofofficialswhoarebackedbythegoodopinionsoftheirsuperiorofficers,canonlyhavetheeffectof
suggestingtoallofficialsacomparativelysimplewayofgainingimmunityfromthepenaltyprovidedbythelawofbribery.

exfacie

Thelearnedjudgethenwentontoexplainthatgoodcharactershouldhoweverbetakenintoaccountwhiledecidingthecase,butnottotheextentthat
itwouldelevatethestandardofprooftothelevelthatthe
casedid. TheResearcheragreeswiththisopinion.

MangatRai

Itisveryimportanttorememberthat,wherecharacterevidenceisadmissiblethereisalimittothesortofevidencewhichwillbereceived.Apersons
characterismadeupofmanydifferenttraits.Onetraitforexample,thatheisapassionate,quicktemperedperson,mayproperlyleadtoaninference
thathemighthavecommittedsomecrimeofviolencechargedagainsthim,whileitwouldhavenobearinguponthequestionofwhetherhehadbeen
guiltyofalarcenyorforgery.Henceitisthatproofofcharacter,whereitisallowed,shouldbe,andisgenerallyconfinedtothoseparticulartraits
whichhavesomelogicalconclusionwiththenatureoftheoffencecharged.Theadministrativereasonforexcludingirrelevantevidenceofthissortis
baseduponthenecessityforavoidingprotractedtrials.[20]
Incasesofadulteryforinstance,previousgoodcharacterofthedefendantforchastitywouldbeadmissibleinhisfavour.Inaprosecutionforassault,
thedefendantsgoodcharacterasapeaceablelawabidingcitizenwouldbeadmissibleinhisfavour,butthingslikehisgoodcharacterforindustry,
truthorveracitywouldbeinadmissibleastheywouldbeirrelevant.Evidencepertainingtothehonestyofapersonmaybeintroducedtoshowgood
characterinwhereheischargedwithlarceny.Similarlyincaseswheretheoffenceisperjuryorreceivingstolenproperty,evidencemaybeintroduced
toshowthehonestnatureoftheaccused.
BadCharacter

R Tuberfield

Inthecaseof v.
[21],itwaslaiddownthattheguiltoftheaccusedmustbeestablishedbyproofoffactswithwhichheischargedandnot
bypresumptionstoberaisedfromthecharacterwhichhebears.ThustheruleinEngland,firmlyanduniversallyestablishedinpolicyandtradition,is
thattheprosecutioncannotinstantlyattackthedefendantscharacter.[22]
Section54oftheIndianEvidenceAct[23]makesitclearthatthebadcharacteroftheaccusedisirrelevantunlessevidencehasbeenintroducedto
showthattheaccusedhasgoodcharacter.Thiseffectivelymeansthatnoevidencecanbeleadbytheprosecutiontoshowthattheaccusedisofbad
characterunlesstheaccusedfirstleadsevidencetoshowthatheisofgoodcharacter.Itwasheldinthecaseof
v.
thatevidence
ofbadcharactermightcreateaprejudicebutnotleadaasteptowardsubstantiationofguiltandhenceshouldnotbeadmissible.Inthecaseof
v.
[24],theSupremeCourtclearlyheldthatInoursystemoflawanaccusedstartswithapresumptionof
innocence.Hisbadcharacterisnotrelevantunlessshegivesevidenceofgoodcharacterinwhichcasebyrebuttal,evidenceofbadcharactermaybe
adduced(Section54oftheEvidenceAct).Further,inthecaseof
v.
[25],itwasheldthatevidenceofbadcharacterisnot
admissibleeventocorroboratethecasemadeoutbytheprosecution.Itishoweverimportanttorememberherethatifevidenceisotherwise
admissible(i.e.inrelationtosomeotherfact)itwouldnotberenderedinadmissiblesimplybecauseitshowsbadcharacteronthepartoftheaccused
orthecommissionofsomecrimeotherthantheoneheispresentlychargedof.Thiswaslaiddowninthecaseof
v.
[26]

LakhanSingh StateofUttarPradesh

Bhurasingh Emperor

Ram

PhekanSingh Emperor

Parekh Emperor[27]
RaikhonBoro Emperor

SarojKumar Emperor

In
v.
,itwasheldthatapoliceofficergivingevidencethatanaccusedwasunderpolicesurveillancewouldbeinadmissible.
However,incaseswhereitisthoughtdesirablebytheprosecutiontobringevidenceofpreviousconductofsimilarcharactertothesuggestedcrime,
beforethejury,theintentionofSection54isnotinfringedandevidencepointingtodirectlysimilarconductisadmissible.Itwasheldinthecaseof
v.
[28] Section54referstospecificevidenceofbadcharacternotconfinedtoactssimilartothecrimewhichwasbeing
investigated,whichmayinfluencethejury[29]onthequestionofmotivemustbethesamekindofmotivethatinallprobabilityactuatedthemindof
theaccusedormayhaveactuatedhismindincommittingthecrimeforwhichheisbeingtried.

NimooPal State

goonda

In
v.
,theCourtheldthatwhenthebadcharacteroftheaccusedisnotinissue,theconstantreferencetotheaccusedasa
wouldamounttoevidencingbadcharacterandhenceshouldnotbedone.Lastlyitwaslaiddowninthecaseof
v.
thatadmissionof
inadmissibleevidenceofbadcharacterwouldnotvitiatetheverdict.

Babulal State

TheResearcherstronglydisagreeswiththelastpoint.Evidenceofapersonsbadcharacterhasthepotentialgreatlyaffectthemindsofthejudgeor
juryasthecasemaybe.Weashumanbeingshaveanaturaltendencyto,ifweareconvincedthatamanisofbadcharacter,evenifthecasehasnot
beenprovedbytheprosecutionbeyondareasonabledoubtonthemeritstothinkthatsincethemanisofbadcharacterandisawartonthefaceof
civilizedsocietysoitwouldbebetterforhimtobeputaway.Forthisreasontheresearcherfeelshatifevidenceofapersonsbadcharacterhasbeen
admittedwhichshouldnothavebeen,thecaseshouldberetriedbeforeanewjudgeorjuryasthecasemaybe.
UnlessEvidenceHasBeenGiventhattheAccusedHasaGoodCharacter
http://legalsutra.com/1428/characterinevidencelaw/print/

2/4

1/11/2017

CharacterinEvidenceLaw|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

UnlessEvidenceHasBeenGiventhattheAccusedHasaGoodCharacter
Theaccused,bygoingintohisowncharactergivesachallengetotheprosecution.Theprosecution,therefore,isatlibertytorefutehisclaimthathe
hasagoodcharacterotherwisethecourtwouldbemisledbyit.[30]
ThisphraseisfoundbothinEnglishLawandIndianLawandthereisnodifferenceonthispointoflaw.Thisphraseisnotrestrictedtoinstanceswhere
evidenceofgoodcharacterhasbeengivenbytheaccusedsorhiswitnessindependenttestimony.Itwashaldinthecasesof v.
[31]and
v.
thattheprosecutionmayproduceevidenceofthebadcharacteroftheaccusedevenincaseswhereevidenceofgoodcharacterofthe
accusedhasbeenobtainedbycrossexaminationoftheprosecutionwitnesses.

R Shrimpton
R
Gadbury[32]
InthecaseofRv.Redd[33],awitnessnamedWilliamswascalledbytheaccusedsolelyforthereasonofproducingsomedocuments.Thewitness
howeverwithoutanyquestionbeingputtohimmadeastatementpertainingtothegoodcharacteroftheaccused.Itwasheldthatevidenceofbad
charactercouldnotbeintroducedbytheprosecutionsincethiscouldonlybedoneasperthejudgmentinRv.Gadburywhentheaccusedendeavorsto
establishhisgoodcharacter,eitherbycallingwitnesses,himselforbycrossexaminingthewitnessesfortheprosecutionandinthiscasetheaccused
wasclearlynotendeavoringtointroduceevidenceofisgoodcharacter.Thusifawitnesscalledbytheaccusedforsomeotherpurposemakesa
statementaboutthegoodcharacteroftheaccusedofhisownaccordthiswouldnotallowtheprosecutiontostartintroducingevidenceofthebad
characteroftheaccused.

TheResearcherfindsthispositionslightlyproblematicsincetheaccusedmaysimplyinstructthewitnesseswhoareappearingforhimtowithoutany
questionbeingputtothemmakestrongremarksabouthisgoodcharacter.Theprosecutionunderthepresentpositionoflawwouldnotbeallowedto
rebutthesestatements.
Astatementnotvoluntarilymadebytheaccusedbutextortedbyrepeatedquestioningincrossexaminationcannotbetreatedasevidencegivenbythe
accusedofhisgoodcharacter.Inthecaseof v.
[34],theaccusedwasaskedrepeatedlyincrossexaminationwhetherhehadboughtthe
motorcarbecauseitwascapableofdrivingatahighspeed.TheaccusedonhisbeingcompelledtoanswerstatedItdidnotappealtomeforthat
reason,becauseIdonotcarefordrivingatahighrateofspeed,myself.Theprosecutionthentreatingthisasevidencegivenbytheaccusedofhis
characterasagooddriver,putittotheaccusethathehadbeenrepeatedlyconvictedofdrivingtothedangerofthepublicwhichtheaccusedinturn
hadnochoicebuttoconfirm.Onappeal,itwasheldthattheprosecutionwasnotallowedtointroduceevidenceofhisbadcharactersincethefromthe
natureofthecrossquestioningitisclearthattheaccusedwasnotreallytryingtoestablishhisgoodcharacter,ratherhewascompelledtogivethe
answerhedid.

R Beecham

PreviousConvictions
ThepositioninEnglandinthisregardhasalwaysbeenthatevidenceofpreviousconvictionswouldamounttoevidenceofbadcharacterandhencenot
beadmissible.ThepositioninIndiahoweverwasdifferent.Theoldsection[35]madeevidenceastopreviousconvictionsadmissible.Thereasoningfor
departingfromtheestablishedruleofEnglishLawasgivenintheFirstReportoftheSelectCommitteewasthatpreviousconvictionwouldmakebad
characteralegalcertaintyandtheauthorsoftheactfeltthattherewasnoreasonastowhytheaccusedshouldnotbeprejudicedbythisifitwere
true.[36]

RoshunDosad R

Inthecaseof
v. [37],howeverevidenceofapreviousconvictionwasnotadmittedanditwasheldthatexceptunderveryspecial
circumstances,theproperobjectofusingpreviousconvictionistodeterminetheamountofpunishmenttobeawardedshouldtheprisonerbe
convictedoftheoffencecharged.TheJudgesoftheHighCourtofCalcuttahoweverinthesubsequentcaseof v.
[38]heldthat
evidenceofpreviousconvictionoftheaccusedwasinallcasesadmissibletoproveguiltoftheaccusedsolongasthesectionremainedunaltered.Asa
consequenceofthisdecisiontheEvidenceActwasamendedbyActIIIof1891tobringitinaccordancewiththeBritishLawontheposition.Thisisalso
thepresentpointoflawonthesubject.[39]

R KartickSundarDas

Presently,wheneverbadcharacteroftheaccusedisadmissibleunderthesection,hispreviousconvictionwouldalsoberelevantasproofofbad
character.Itwasheldinthecaseof
v.
[40] thatevidenceofapreviousconvictionoftheaccusedamountstoevidenceofbad
character.

TekaAhir Emperor

Uponconvictionoftheaccused,theCourthastodecidewhatpunishmenttoaward,andtodothis,shouldtakeintoconsideration,notonlythenature
andgravityoftheoffencebutalsothecharacteroftheaccused.Thebadcharacteroftheaccusedthenbecomesafactinissue.Evidenceofbad
characterbeingadmissibleasaffectingthesentence,evidencemaybegivenonlyofgeneralreputationanddispositionandnotofparticularactsby
whichreputationanddispositionareshown.Evidenceofapreviousconvictionwouldbeanexceptiontothisrule.Inthecaseof
v.
[41],itwasheldthattheobjectofthissectionistolaydownthatbadcharacterincludingapreviousconvictionis,asarule,irrelevanttohelp
establishanaccusedpersonsguiltbutnottolaydownthatitmaynotbetakenintoaccountinpassingsentence.

SubanSahib

Emperor

Whenbadcharacterofaccusedisafactinissue
Explanation2toSection54makesitclearthatthesectiondoesnotapplytocaseswherebadcharacteritselfisafactinissue.Thebadcharacterofa
manbecomesafactinissueincertainsituationslikeinsecurityproceedingsunderChapterVIIIoftheCriminalProcedureCode.[42]Inproceedings
undersubsection(f)ofSection110oftheCriminalProcedureCodeevidenceofgeneralreputemaybetenderedbytheStatetoprovethatapersonis
sodangerousastorenderhisbeingatlargewithoutsecurityhazardoustothecommunity.Evidenceofassociationwithprovenrevolutionariesisalso
evidenceofreputation.Thiswasallheldinthecaseof
v.
[43].

SatgurDayal Emperor

aliunde

Ifevidenceofabadcharacterisintroducedinordertoestablisharelevantfactwhichcannotbeproved
theevidenceofbadcharacteris
admissible.Inthecaseof
v.
[44],itwasheldthatwhereevidenceisgiveninacaseofmurdertoprovethattheaccusedhad
committedtheftthoughitmaybeexcludedasbeingevidenceofbadcharacter,itisadmissibletoprovemotive.

Khilawan Emperor

LawofEvidence,(4thEdition,Lucknow:EasternBookCompany),P.172.

[1]VepaPSarathi,

[2]TheNewWebstersComprehensiveDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage,(EncyclopedicEdition,Florida:TridentPressInternational,1998),P.223.

cfP.MBakshi,BasusLawofEvidence,(7thEdition,Volume2,NewDelhi:IndiaLawHouse,2003),P.1956.

[3]3Jones.L.160

[4]P.MBakshiP.1957.
[5]VepaSarathP.172

LawofEvidence,(16thEdition,GopiNathed.,Volume2,Allahbad:TheLawBookCo.,1996),P.1554.

[6]SirJohnWoodroofe&SyedAmirAli,
[7]JohnP.1560
[8]SarkarP.858.
[9]P.MBakshi1974

cf.

[10]1803,31HowST99,P.217 SarkarP.857
http://legalsutra.com/1428/characterinevidencelaw/print/

3/4

1/11/2017

CharacterinEvidenceLaw|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

cf.SarkarP.857

[10]1803,31HowST99,P.217
[11]Field2691.

[12]Incriminalcasespreviousgoodcharacterrelevant.Incriminalproceedings,thefactthatthepersonaccusedisofagoodcharacter,is
relevant
[13]AIR1954SC51.
[14]AIR1965SC682.
[15]SarkarP.857
[16]John1554.
[17]JohnP.1554
[18]AIR1928Lah.647.
[19]AIR1947Lah.410.
[20]Basu,P.19721976.

cfJohnP.1559

[21](1864)10Cox1,
[22]John,P.1562.

[23]Previousbadcharacternotrelevant,exceptinreply.Incriminalproceedingsthefactthattheaccusedpersonhasabadcharacteris
irrelevant,unlessevidencehasbeengiventhathehasagoodcharacter,inwhichcaseitbecomesrelevant.

Explanation2.Apreviousconvictionisrelevantasevidenceofbadcharacter.

Explanation 1.Thissectiondoesnotapplytocasesinwhichthebadcharacterofanypersonisitselfafactinissue.

[24]AIR1977SC1936.
[25]AIR1931Pat.345.
[26]AIR1932Cal.474.
[27]AIR1931Pat.345.
[28]AIR1936Cal.469.
[29]ThecasewhichdealtwiththispointwasdecidedbeforejurytrialswereremovedfromtheIndianCriminalJusticesystem.

Ratanlal&DhirajlalsLawofEvidence,(19thEdition,Nagpur:Wadhwa&Co.,2002(Rep.)),P.212.

[30]Y.VChandrachud&V.RManohar,

cfSarkarP.865
[32]8C&P.676,cfBasuP.19861987
[33]1923KB104,cfBasuP.1987
[34](1921)3K.B.464cfBasuP.1986
[31]2DenCC396,

[35]Incriminalproceedings,thefactthattheaccusedpersonhasbeenpreviouslyconvictedofanyoffenceisrelevantbutthefactthathehasabad
characterisirrelevantunlessevidencehasbeengiventhathehasagoodcharacterinwhichcaseitbecomesrelevant
[36]SarkarP.864.

cfFieldP.2693.

[37]I.L.R5Cal.768,

cf.SarkarP.864.

[38]14C721

[39]John1564.

cfBasu1990.

[40]22Cr.L.J219

[41]AIR1929Mad.806
[42]Monir664
[43]AIR1933All674.
[44]AIR1928Oudh430.
Relatedposts:
1.AccompliceEvidence
SourceURL:http://legalsutra.com/1428/characterinevidencelaw/

Copyright2017Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotes
andmore!unlessotherwisenoted.
http://legalsutra.com/1428/characterinevidencelaw/print/

4/4