Before any of the specific relevance rules in Chapter II do their work, one foundational principle has to be established: what is admissible in a suit or proceeding is evidence of facts in issue and evidence of relevant facts, and nothing else. Section 3 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) states that principle at the head of the chapter, framing every provision that follows.
3. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts. Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.
Explanation.—This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure.
Illustrations.
(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death. At A's trial the following facts are in issue:— A's beating B with the club; A's causing B's death by such beating; A's intention to cause B's death.
(b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce the bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section 3 reproduces Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) without any change in wording. The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records "No change." The section is the doorway to Chapter II — everything the chapter goes on to say about specific relevance rules depends on this opening statement of principle.
The two limbs of the rule
"And of no others" — the exclusionary edge
The most consequential words in the section are the closing ones: "and of no others." Section 3 does not merely admit facts in issue and relevant facts — it excludes everything else. If a fact is neither a fact in issue nor declared relevant by the specific provisions that follow, no evidence of it may be given in the suit or proceeding. This is the operational core of Indian evidence law's structure: relevance is closed and defined by statute; there is no residual "generally interesting" or "loosely bearing" category of admissible fact.
The Explanation: a limit from procedural law
The Explanation preserves the operation of civil procedural rules. Section 3's admission of relevant facts does not enable a party to give evidence of a fact they are "disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure." Where the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (or its successor procedural rules) forecloses a specific evidentiary route — for instance, by requiring particular documents to be filed at particular stages, or by requiring a party to plead a specific defence — Section 3 does not override the procedural bar.
Illustration (b) shows the Explanation in action. A suitor who has not brought a bond to the first hearing cannot use Section 3 to produce it later — the CPC's rules on the timing of document production must still be complied with, and Section 3 does not override them.
The murder illustration, and what it teaches about facts in issue
Illustration (a) is a useful teaching example. A is tried for murdering B by beating him with a club. At A's trial, the "facts in issue" are: A's beating B with the club; A's causing B's death by such beating; and A's intention to cause B's death. Evidence may be given of each. The illustration shows that "facts in issue" typically resolve to the elements of the offence or cause of action — the constituent factual questions the court must answer to reach a decision.
Everything else in the case — the motive, the preparation, the surrounding transaction, the conduct after the beating, the identification, the state of A's mind — is not itself a fact in issue but may be relevant under the specific rules of Sections 4 to 15. Together, Sections 3-15 create a two-tier structure: facts in issue at the core, and relevant facts around them.
Section 3's structural role in Chapter II
| Layer | Sections | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation | 3 | Only facts in issue and declared-relevant facts may be evidenced |
| General relevance | 4–14 | Specific rules — res gestae, cause/effect, motive, explanatory, conspiracy, catch-all, damages, custom, state of mind, accident/intent, course of business |
| Admissions/confessions | 15–25 | Definition of admission and specialised rules for their proof |
| Statements by unavailable persons | 26–27 | Dying declarations and earlier judicial testimony |
| Documentary/opinion/character | 28–50 | Specialised rules for entries in books, opinion evidence, and character |
Everything below Section 3 in Chapter II is either "hereinafter declared to be relevant" or an ancillary rule shaping how such relevance operates. That structure is what makes Section 3 the doorway, and it is what makes the "and of no others" phrase the boundary of the whole chapter.
Key Takeaways
- Foundational admissibility rule: only facts in issue and facts declared relevant by the following sections may be evidenced.
- Exclusionary closing words: "and of no others" — the closed list of what qualifies.
- Explanation preserves procedural law: Section 3 does not override CPC-based restrictions on when a party may prove a fact.
- Two illustrations: the murder case (identifying facts in issue) and the bond-not-produced case (procedural limits).
- Substantive rule unchanged from Section 5 IEA.
Conclusion
Section 3 is short, but everything in Chapter II depends on it. By declaring that only facts in issue and specifically-declared-relevant facts may be evidenced, and no others, it defines the outer boundary of what the chapter admits. The specific relevance rules that follow — Sections 4 to 15 for general relevance, Sections 16 to 50 for specialised topics — populate the "hereinafter declared to be relevant" category. And the Explanation keeps the section respectful of procedural law's own timing and formality requirements. Reproduced verbatim from Section 5 of the 1872 Act, it continues to serve as the doorway to the entire chapter.