CHARACTER WHEN RELEVANT

Adv. Usha Andewar

SECTIONS 46 TO 50

Introduction

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 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023, imposes specific limitations and guidelines on the relevance of character
evidence. The habit of judging people based on their character as normal human
nature.

BSA 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.

Character evidence plays a very important role in almost every jurisdiction. For
centuries, the character of a person is used in order to determine his guilt. The
application of Character evidence to civil and criminal cases has become limited
because of the evolution in the law over the years. The character of a person
depicts his past actions. In our day-to-day life a person’s character plays a very
important role because the action and reaction of a person depends upon his
behaviour and his behaviour defines his character.

Section 50 of the Adhiniyam clarifies that ‘character’ includes both reputation

and disposition.
• Reputation – The general opinion about an individual held by others.
According to Webster, “Reputation can be called as a good name or it is the
 common or general estimation of a person with respect to his character and
other qualities. According to Woodroffe “Reputation is what others think
about a person and it is constituted by public opinion. It is that credit score
which a man has obtained in that opinion.”

Reputation and character are not synonyms. Where character is what the
morals of a person, Reputation on the other hand is the estimation of a
person’s character by the community.

• Disposition – The inherent qualities or nature of an individual. A person’s

inherent qualities, often shaped by upbringing and personal experiences.
Disposition can be defined as a natural tendency and a person’s
temperament. The examples of disposition are the Character certificates
given by the employer or by the head of the institutions.

It is a general principle of law that evidence of character is not admissible as a

relevant fact. This rule provides a protection to the accused. However, there are
some exceptions to this general rule and in the following cases, the evidence of
character may be admitted ;

(A) Relevancy of character in civil cases, (sections 46 & 50).

(B) Relevancy of character in criminal cases, (sections 47, 48 & 49).

Relevance of Character in Civil Cases

Section 46 – General Rule of Irrelevance

Section 46 of the Adhiniyam 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

46, 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.

The reasons behind the irrelevance are that a case has to be decided based on
the facts of the case and not the character of the parties. Evidence of conduct
doesn’t just delay the proceedings but also hampers and impairs the mind of the
judge.

Exceptions to Relevance of Character under Section 46

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 50 – Character Affecting Damages

Section 50 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.

Section 50 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
46. 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 50 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.

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 Vs. Parshotam Dass (2015) – The Hon’ble 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 47 – Previous Good Character of the Accused

Section 47 of the Adhiniyam 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.

The reason behind this is the basic human psychology that a person of good
character will not generally resort to a criminal act. If goodness is proved it helps
in a presumption of non-commission of the offence by that individual.

Habeeb Mohammad Vs. State of Hyderabad – The Hon’ble 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.

Pappu Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) – The Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that bad character is irrelevant except in reply i.e. unless evidence has been
given of a good character in which case it becomes relevant.

Section 48 – Sexual Offences

Section 48, introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, specifies
that in cases involving sexual offences (e.g., assault, harassment, rape etc.), the
character of both the accused and the victim is irrelevant. Evidence of the
victim’s previous sexual behavior is also irrelevant, emphasizing the need to
protect the victim’s dignity and prevent victim-blaming.

Even when the consent or quality of consent is in question, then neither the
character of the accused nor the victim is relevant. Evidence pertaining to
previous sexual acts of the victim is also irrelevant.

State of Jharkhand Vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai (2022) – whether
a person is “habituated to sexual intercourse” or “habitual to sexual intercourse”
is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the ingredients of rape are
present in a particular case. The so-called test is based on the incorrect
assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. Further, the
probative value of a woman’s testimony does not depend upon her sexual history.
It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she
states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is sexually active.

This section was recognized and Indian Evidence Act amended by criminal
amendment act, 2013 after the Nirbhaya case. Two finger test was abolished
from the curriculum of medical schools. Also any person conduction two finger
test in contravention of the direction of Hon’ble Supreme court shall be guilty of
misconduct.
Section 49 – Bad Character of the Accused

Section 49 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 129 of BNSS.

Bad character isn’t defined in Indian law but it amounts to the general meaning
as interpreted by the society. Explanation 2 of section 49 provides that evidence
showing any previous conviction is also relevant as evidence of bad character in
criminal cases. According to BNS, any person who is already a previous convict
should be sentenced a longer term of imprisonment than that is awarded
ordinarily.

In a defamation case, the character of the plaintiff may be a fact in issue.

Similarly, in custody battles (e.g., B. Vasanthi Vs. Bakthavatchalu), the
character of both parties may be relevant to determine the best interest of the
child.

Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. 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 emphasized that while good character might tilt the balance in favor
of the accused in doubtful cases, it cannot outweigh concrete evidence of guilt.

Difference Between Relevancy of Character in Criminal and Civil Cases

Civil Cases

• General Rule (Section 46) : Character evidence is irrelevant.

 • Exceptions:

o Character as a fact in issue.

o Character affecting damages (Section 50).

Criminal Cases

• Good Character (Section 47) : Relevant.

• Bad Character (Section 49) : Generally irrelevant, except in rebuttal or

when character is directly in issue.

• Sexual Offences (Section 48) : 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.