All relevant facts are not admissible but all admissible facts are relevant

Q. All relevant facts are not admissible but all admissible facts are relevant.

A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when it bears such a causal relation with the other as to render probable the existence or nonexistence of the latter.

All facts which are logically relevant are not legally relevant.

Legally relevant facts:

One fact is said to be legally relevant to another, only when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred under chapter III Articles 18-29.

Art. 19 Facts forming part of same transaction whether proximate or remote, immediate or later, direct or indirect with respect to space and time

Art. 20 Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of fact in issue

Art. 21 Facts showing motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct relating to fact in issue

Art. 22 Facts necessary in supporting or rebutting an inference suggested by fact in issue or relevant issue, establishing identity of anything or person or (article) whose identity is relevant, fix time of occurrence of fact in issue or relevant fact, showing relation of parties involved in commission of offence.

Art. 23 Facts proving existence of conspiracy and parties involved through the things said or done by conspirators in respect to common design since time of making intention by one of the party of conspiracy.

Art. 25 Facts enabling court to determine amount of damages in a suit for damages.

Art. 26 Facts showing existence and non existence of customs

Art. 27 Facts showing existence of state of mind( intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness) or state of body or bodily feelings.

Art. 28 Facts showing/Explaining an act whether it is intentional or incidental

Art. 29 Facts showing existence of conduct of business in particular way.

Logical relevancy is wider than legal relevancy; every fact which is legally relevant is logically relevant, but every fact which is logically relevant is not necessarily legally relevant. Thus, a confession made to a police officer may appear to be logically relevant, but such a confession is not legally relevant, for Art 40 of the QSO declares that it cannot be used as evidence against the person making it unless it is recorded in presence of magistrate exercising judicial powers.

Very often, public considerations of fairness and the practical necessity for reaching speedy decisions necessarily cause the rejection of much of the evidence which may be logically relevant.

Thus, all evidence that is admissible is relevant, but all that is relevant is not necessarily admissible. Relevancy is the genus of which admissibility is a species. Thus, oral statements which are hearsay may be relevant, but not being direct evidence, are not admissible.

Cases of exclusion of logically relevant facts by positive rules of law are:

(i) Exclusion of oral by documentary evidence Art. 102-110

(ii) Exclusion of evidence of facts by estoppel Art. 114-116

(iii) Exclusion of privileged communications, such as confidential communications with a legal adviser, communication during marriage, official communications, etc 

Art. 4-14

Admissibility means that the facts which are relevant are only admissible by the Court.

Cases in where facts can be admissible although not relevant

1. Art. 24 facts which logically relevant but not legally, but are admissible.

2. Dying declaration a logically relevant fact but not legally to court as it is hearsay evidence u/A 71 but is admissible u/A 46(1).

3. Opinion of a person on question of fact is irrelevant but under Art 59-65 court may admit it.

Admissibility involves the process whereby the court determines whether the Law of Evidence permits that relevant evidence to be received by the court.

The concept of admissibility is often distinguished from relevancy. Relevancy is determined by logic and common sense, practical or human experience, and knowledge of affairs. On the other hand, The admissibility of evidence, depends first on the concept of relevancy of a sufficiently high degree of probative value, and secondly, on the fact that the evidence tendered does not infringe any of the exclusionary rules that may be applicable to it.

Relevancy is not primarily dependant on rules of law but admissibility is founded on law.

Difference between relevancy and admissibility:-

Relevancy

i) When facts are so related as to render the existence or non-existence of other facts probable according to common course of events or human conduct, they are called relevant.

Admissibility

i) When facts have been declared to be legally relevant under QSO 1984 they become admissible.

Relevancy

(ii) All admissible facts are relevant.

Admissibility

(ii) All relevant facts are not admissible. Only legally relevant facts are admissible.

Conclusion, 

Relevancy is a test for admissibility. The question of admissibility is one of law and is determined by the Court. if it can be shown that the evidence would be relevant if proved, the court shall admit evidence of it.