Relevancy of character under the INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 Vaishali Bahubalendra BASICS OF LAW Sat, Aug 15, 2020, at ,09:58 PM In general, the term "character" means, qualities of an individual which may be moral or psychological. According to Webster, the character is a combination of peculiar qualities impressed by nature or habit of a person which distinguishes him from others. One's character is unique to oneself, which is why the character of persons varies from one another. One kind of classification can be done as to a person's character, i.e. he/she is of a good or bad character. When a person commits a crime or enters into litigation his character somehow triggers or stimulates his actions. But this assumes that the character of the person will be always given primacy is somewhat against the justice delivery system in India and abroad as well. In India, criminal cases are to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt whereas the balance of probabilities is the criterion in those of civil cases. In such a system if the character of a person were given primacy then every person with a bad character would be considered as criminal on the first hand, which shall erode our justice delivery system in tot. So it becomes essential to analyse as to how and up to what extent our legislative regime vide Indian Evidence Act, 1872 given importance evidence as to the character of a person. In the legal arena, character means reputation or general estimate of character. So, in common parlance evidence of character is not admissible when the character of a party is not at issue, but when the character of a party is in issue there are exceptions as contemplated below:- Evidence of good character may be given of an accused person under section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA for brevity) and The amount of damages which the person is ought to receive and the character affects such amount as under section 55 of IEA. Now let us discuss each of the mentioned exceptions : Firstly, In criminal cases evidence as to previous good character is relevant. This is done only for the purpose of raising a presumption of innocence, as grounds of humanity. Evidence of good character is also allowed because of the principle of the benefit of the doubt. This exception has also been given nod by the Supreme Court in case of Habeeb Mohamad v. State Of Hyderabad[1] contemplating that under section 53 of IEA evidence as to the good character of the accused is always relevant for the purpose of showing the state of mind. In criminal cases, a man's character is always essential and plays a vital role in explaining his conduct and for scrutinizing his innocence or culpability. All acts done by the accused which does not seem suspicious comes into the scanner when the character of the accused comes into the picture. Even on the question of punishment, an accused must be allowed to prove his general good character. But such evidence of good character must relate to the period of supposed offence, and it also must be kept in consideration as well that a man's guilt is to be proved by proof of facts and not by proof of his character.[2] Good character is relevant when the conduct is questionable, i.e. capable of being construed as both with the innocence as well as the guilt of the accused or in a case where the evidence depends upon the sole testimony of the complainant, e.g., as in case of rape. So the status quo of the position of character evidence, in words of Stephen is:- character may explain conduct but cannot alter facts. Under section 54 of IEA previous bad character is not relevant, unless in reply. The section contemplates that bad character of the accused is irrelevant, and also gives two exceptions within itself, i.e. when a good character is given by the accused as mentioned hereinbefore under section 53 and secondly when a bad character is itself a fact in issue. When the accused gives evidence of good character, evidence of his bad character can be led by the prosecution. By offering good conduct evidence, the accused challenges or invites enquiry, which enables the prosecution to give evidence of his bad character. In the security proceedings under chapter VIII of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) evidence of bad character becomes admissible. Similarly in the context of providing enhanced punishment under section 75 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), the previous conviction of the accused is provable as a fact in issue. In the case of Mangal Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat[3] objections were raised with respect to the admission of evidence as to the bad character of the accused as the evidence disclosed some unpleasant things about the accused, however, the apex court examined the evidence in order to ascertain the motive of the murder and not proving the guilt of the accused. The character of the Prosecutor:- The prosecutor also is to be weighed on the same scale as that of any ordinary witness in a criminal case, so his credit may be impeached similar to the credit of any other witness. To exemplify, in a prosecution for rape the Act especially makes the character of the prosecutrix relevant under section 154(4) of IEA. Under section 53 A which has been instituted vide Act 13 of 2013, evidence of character or previous sexual experience has been held to be not relevant under the sections of IPC mentioned therein wherein the question of consent is in the issue. Secondly, Section52 of IEA envisages the rule of exclusion of character evidence in civil cases. In civil cases, evidence of the character of the party to the suit is irrelevant for proving the possibility or impossibility of the conduct imputed to him. In the stellar case of Queen v. Rowton[4], it was contemplated that, it is generally, only with respect to public policy and fairness vide which character evidence is excluded as its admission would be astonishing and biased by considering the whole of their careers, as they could not have come to court to defend such an allegation. The business of the court is to try the case and not the man and it is possible that a bad man may have a very righteous cause.[5] Vide section 52 of IEA the character of a party to a civil suit is irrelevant, but section 55 of IEA the character of a plaintiff is relevant in certain kind of civil actions. Under this section, the character of a plaintiff is relevant so as to determine the quantum of damages, which the plaintiff has to receive. Though the character of the plaintiff is not relevant in every case of tort, e.g. for damages in lieu of an accident. But in the case of defamation, the general reputation of the plaintiff in cases of defamation may be proved. Under section 55 of the IEA character of the person who is to receive the damages .i.e. the plaintiff is relevant. In suits for damages for adultery or seduction evidence of the character of the wife of the person seduced is not relevant under this section of IEA, as it is limited in application to the evidence of the character of the plaintiff alone. The cases wherein the bad character of the plaintiff impacts the amount of damages are:- in suits for damages for defamation and in prosecution for defamation, wherein evidence of the bad character of the plaintiff or the prosecutor is admissible, in moderation of damages and fine, evidence of rumours and suspicions of bad character cannot be received; in actions where there is a breach of promise to marry, the defendant is entitled to prove that a plaintiff is a person either of a bad character or of coarse and brutal manners; in the claim for damages, against an alleged adulterer, wherein the defendant may prove that the plaintiff had been guilty of notorious infidelity or otherwise has been guilty of dissolute conduct, Character, as has been inclusively defined vide explanation inscribed under section 55 of IEA takes in its sweep both reputation and disposition Reputation means what others think about a person's character and is constituted as public opinion and disposition refers to writer individual opinion about a person's character. It has to be considered that reputation and rumour are different from each other. Rumour is basically hearsay evidence; whereas evidence as to general repute of a person does not qualify as hearsay evidence and is direct evidence as to the character of that person.[6] So to conclude it can be stated that with respect to the character of a party, two differentiation can be drawn, namely, cases where the character is in issue and cases wherein the character is not in issue and whether the case is a civil or a criminal one. Be it civil or a criminal case when the party's general character is itself in issue, proof must necessarily be received of what that general character is or is not. [1] 1954 CrLJ 338: AIR 1954 SC 51 [2] Amrita Lal Hazra v. Khagendra Nath Chaudhari, 42 C 957: 16 Cr LJ 497 [3] AIR 1957 SC 199 [4] 1865 34 LJ (MC) 57 [5] Thompson v. Church, 1 Root 312 (American case) [6] Raghubar Dayal v. Emperor, AIR 1934 All 735