Section 136 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Loading case document...

Please wait

136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.

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 facts, 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 proposed to prove that he denied to 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.

Section 136 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.

(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.

AI Summary

I am sorry, but the case information provided is incomplete. "Section 136 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872" is not a case title, but rather refers to a specific section within the Indian Evidence Act. To provide a case summary, I need the actual case name (e.g., State of Maharashtra v. XYZ) and ideally, the court that decided it and the citation. I can then provide the summary as requested.

However, I can explain what Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with:

Explanation of Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Short Summary Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act outlines the judge's power to decide on the admissibility of evidence. It dictates that the judge must determine whether a fact, if proved, would be relevant. If relevance depends on proving another fact first, the judge may require that fact to be proved before admitting evidence of the fact in question.

Content of Section 136

Section 136 states: "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 such that, if proved, it would be relevant 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."

Explanation

This section essentially gives the judge the power to control the order in which evidence is presented. The judge can demand an explanation of how a piece of evidence is relevant. If the relevance depends on another fact being proven first, the judge can insist on that prior proof or accept an undertaking from the party to prove it later. The judge has discretion to decide the order of proof.

Example

Imagine a case where the prosecution wants to introduce evidence that the accused purchased a weapon. The relevance of this evidence depends on proving that the weapon was used in the crime. Under Section 136, the judge could ask the prosecution how the purchase of the weapon is relevant. The prosecution would need to explain that they intend to prove the weapon was used in the crime. The judge could then either require the prosecution to first prove the weapon was used in the crime before admitting evidence of the purchase, or accept the prosecution's undertaking to prove it later.