Correct option is A
Under the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact is considered
relevant if it is
legally relevant as defined by the provisions of the Act. The law does not permit the admission of facts solely based on logical relevance unless they are also legally relevant.
Information Booster:
Under the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts must be
legally relevant to be admissible in court. A fact may seem logically relevant (i.e., it may make sense to a layperson), but unless it meets the criteria set out in the law, it cannot be admitted as evidence.
Legal relevance is governed by Sections 5 to 55 of the Act, which specify what facts are considered relevant in different contexts.
·
Legally relevant facts are facts that the law deems important and admissible in the court of law.
·
Logical relevance, on the other hand, refers to facts that may seem connected in a logical sense but are not necessarily admissible under the rules of evidence.
Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that evidence may only be given of facts that are declared relevant under the provisions of the Act.
Additional Knowledge:
1.
Legally Relevant (Option a): The fact must be
legally relevant, meaning it falls under the categories specified by the law (Sections 5 to 55 of the Act). This is the correct answer because only legally relevant facts can be presented as evidence.
2.
Logically Relevant (Option b): Logical relevance alone is insufficient for admissibility in court. While a fact might make sense logically, it will only be admitted if it is legally relevant as defined by the Indian Evidence Act.
3.
Legally or Logically Relevant (Option c): This is incorrect because facts must meet the criteria of
legal relevance to be admissible, not just logical relevance.
