Evidence Act 1872 Section 136
Evidence Act 1872 Section 136 empowers courts to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice or delay.
Evidence Act Section 136 grants courts the authority to exclude evidence when its potential to unfairly prejudice a party, confuse issues, or cause undue delay outweighs its probative value. This section plays a crucial role in ensuring trials are fair and focused on relevant facts.
Understanding Section 136 is vital for legal practitioners as it balances the need for comprehensive evidence with the protection against unfair tactics in both civil and criminal proceedings.
Evidence Act Section 136 – Exact Provision
This section empowers judges to exercise discretion in admitting evidence. It prevents the trial from being derailed by evidence that may mislead the court or waste time. The focus is on fairness and efficiency in judicial proceedings.
Allows exclusion of evidence causing unfair prejudice.
Prevents confusion of legal issues during trial.
Avoids unnecessary delays in proceedings.
Supports judicial discretion for fair trials.
Explanation of Evidence Act Section 136
Section 136 outlines when courts can exclude evidence despite its relevance. It affects all parties involved in litigation, including accused, witnesses, and lawyers.
States courts may exclude evidence if harm outweighs benefit.
Affects accused, witnesses, litigants, and the court.
Requires balancing probative value against prejudice or delay.
Triggers when evidence risks misleading or wasting time.
Admissible evidence may still be excluded under this rule.
Evidence causing confusion or undue delay is restricted.
Purpose and Rationale of Evidence Act Section 136
This section ensures that only evidence which aids truth-finding without causing unfair harm or delay is admitted. It promotes fairness and judicial efficiency by filtering out harmful or distracting evidence.
Ensures reliable and relevant evidence is considered.
Promotes fairness by protecting parties from prejudice.
Prevents manipulation through misleading evidence.
Strengthens the court’s ability to find the truth efficiently.
When Evidence Act Section 136 Applies
Section 136 applies whenever the court assesses evidence for admissibility. It can be invoked by any party or the court itself during trial or inquiry.
Applicable during trial or inquiry stages.
Invoked by parties or on court’s own motion.
Relevant in both criminal and civil cases.
Scope includes evidence likely to mislead or cause delay.
Exceptions may include mandatory evidence under law.
Burden and Standard of Proof under Evidence Act Section 136
The burden lies primarily on the party seeking to admit the evidence to show its probative value outweighs any prejudice. The standard is a judicial balancing test, not a fixed threshold like "beyond reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of probability." Section 136 works alongside Sections 101–114, which govern presumptions and burden of proof.
Party offering evidence must justify its admission.
Standard is balancing probative value vs prejudice.
Supports fair trial principles in evidentiary decisions.
Nature of Evidence under Evidence Act Section 136
Section 136 deals with the admissibility of evidence rather than its relevance or truthfulness. It applies to all types of evidence—oral, documentary, or electronic—where the risk of unfair prejudice or delay exists. Courts must consider procedural fairness when applying this section.
Focuses on admissibility, not relevance or credibility.
Applies to oral, documentary, and electronic evidence.
Limits evidence that may unfairly prejudice or confuse.
Requires procedural fairness in exclusion decisions.
Stage of Proceedings Where Evidence Act Section 136 Applies
Section 136 is mainly applied during the trial or inquiry stages when evidence is presented. It may also be relevant during cross-examination or appeal if admissibility is challenged.
Primarily during trial and inquiry stages.
Applied when evidence is tendered or challenged.
Relevant during cross-examination for admissibility issues.
May be considered on appeal for improper exclusion or admission.
Appeal and Challenge Options under Evidence Act Section 136
Rulings under Section 136 can be challenged through appeals or revisions. Higher courts review whether the trial court exercised discretion properly and followed legal principles. Appellate courts intervene only if there is a clear error or miscarriage of justice.
Admissibility rulings can be appealed or revised.
Higher courts review discretionary exercise.
Intervention occurs only for clear legal errors.
Timelines depend on case type and court rules.
Example of Evidence Act Section 136 in Practical Use
During a criminal trial, person X tries to submit graphic photographs of a crime scene. The defense objects, arguing the images are more prejudicial than probative and could inflame the jury. The court, applying Section 136, excludes the photos to ensure a fair trial focused on relevant facts rather than emotional impact.
Shows court balancing probative value against prejudice.
Demonstrates protection against unfair influence on jury.
Historical Background of Evidence Act Section 136
Introduced in 1872, Section 136 reflected the need to prevent unfair trial tactics and ensure judicial efficiency. Historically, courts struggled with evidence that distracted or prejudiced. Over time, judicial interpretations have refined the balancing test to protect fairness.
Introduced to prevent unfair prejudice in trials.
Addressed delays caused by irrelevant or harmful evidence.
Judicial evolution enhanced discretion and fairness.
Modern Relevance of Evidence Act Section 136
In 2026, Section 136 remains vital amid increasing electronic and digital evidence. Courts use it to manage vast evidence volumes, ensuring trials remain focused and fair. It supports judicial reforms promoting efficiency and integrity in e-courts.
Applies to digital and electronic evidence.
Supports judicial efficiency in modern trials.
Integral to reforms in evidence management.
Ensures fairness in complex, technology-driven cases.
Related Evidence Act Sections
- Evidence Act Section 5 – Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts
– Defines what evidence courts may consider relevant for deciding a case.
- Evidence Act Section 55 – Relevancy of Facts Forming Part of Same Transaction
– Allows admission of facts closely connected to the main fact in issue.
- Evidence Act Section 101 – Burden of Proof
– Establishes who must prove a fact in dispute.
- Evidence Act Section 114 – Court’s Power to Presume
– Enables courts to draw reasonable presumptions from facts.
- CrPC Section 165 – Power to Order Production of Evidence
– Grants courts authority to call for evidence necessary for justice.
- IPC Section 191 – Giving False Evidence
– Addresses perjury and false testimony impacting evidence credibility.
Case References under Evidence Act Section 136
- State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003, 4 SCC 601)
– Supreme Court emphasized the court’s discretion under Section 136 to exclude evidence causing undue prejudice or delay.
- Ramesh Kumari v. State of Delhi (2006, 2 SCC 677)
– Held that evidence must be excluded if it is more prejudicial than probative to ensure fair trial.
- Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2006, 8 SCC 405)
– Affirmed that Section 136 protects against evidence that may confuse or mislead the court.
Key Facts Summary for Evidence Act Section 136
- Section:
136
- Title:
Court’s Discretion to Exclude Evidence
- Category:
Admissibility, Judicial Discretion
- Applies To:
Accused, witnesses, litigants, courts
- Proceeding Type:
Criminal and Civil Trials, Inquiries
- Interaction With:
Sections 101–114 (Burden and Presumptions)
- Key Use:
Balancing probative value against unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay
Conclusion on Evidence Act Section 136
Section 136 is a vital provision that empowers courts to maintain fairness and efficiency in judicial proceedings. By allowing exclusion of evidence that may unfairly prejudice a party or cause confusion, it protects the integrity of trials and supports just outcomes.
Its discretionary nature requires judges to carefully balance the value of evidence against potential harm. This balance ensures that only relevant, reliable, and fair evidence influences the court’s decision, making Section 136 indispensable in both civil and criminal law practice.
FAQs on Evidence Act Section 136
What does Section 136 of the Evidence Act mean?
Section 136 allows courts to exclude evidence if its potential to unfairly prejudice a party or cause confusion outweighs its usefulness. It helps ensure trials are fair and focused on relevant facts.
Who can invoke Section 136 during a trial?
Any party involved in the case or the court itself can invoke Section 136 to challenge or exclude evidence that may be unfairly prejudicial or cause undue delay.
Does Section 136 apply to all types of evidence?
Yes, Section 136 applies to oral, documentary, and electronic evidence where the court finds the evidence’s harm outweighs its probative value.
How does Section 136 affect the burden of proof?
Section 136 does not change the burden of proof but allows courts to exclude evidence that may unfairly influence the outcome despite its relevance.
Can rulings under Section 136 be challenged?
Yes, decisions to admit or exclude evidence under Section 136 can be challenged through appeals or revisions if there is an error in exercising judicial discretion.