The term 'character' has not been described in Indian law. The Cambridge
wordbook defines conduct as a particular combination of rates that make a person
different from others. Honesty, good-natured, modest, violent tempered. Is each
trait of character? Section 55 of the Indian substantiation Act provides that
the term 'conduct' includes both character and disposition. It's typically
established that character is the general opinion about an individual in the
eyes of others whereas disposition is how that person is in real and what are
his essential rates.
Relevance of Evidence of character civil cases
Applicability of substantiation of character civil cases Section 52 of the
Indian substantiation Act provides that in civil cases, a fact pertaining to the
character of an existent isn't applicable. It lays the principle that the
character of a party as a piece of substantiation can't be used to manifest that
conduct attributed to him is probable or questionable. For illustration, a
person is charged with fraud. In this case, no substantiation of the fact can be
treated as applicable which states that he's an honest man i.e. the character is
similar in that he can in no way commit fraud.
Neither can the contrary party present substantiation of the fact that A's
character had been so wile that he must have committed the fraud. The reasons
behind the impertinence are that a case has to be decided grounded on the data
of the case and not the character of the parties. Substantiation of conduct
doesn't just delay the proceedings but also hampers and impairs the mind of the
judge. In civil cases, the former persuasions of the indicted person are
Section 55 of the substantiation Act provides that in civil cases,
substantiation of the good or bad character of the person that's to admit the
quantum of damages is applicable. The character of the original complainant is
applicable. For illustration- In the case of the action of damages for rape or
temptation, the character of the complainant is applicable as it's likely to
affect the damages that the complainant ought to admit.
When the character of the party is itself a fact in issue also the
substantiation pertaining to the character of that party is applicable. For
illustration- if divorce is sought on the ground of the atrocity of the hubby,
in similar cases substantiation pertaining to the character of the hubby will be
applicable as the cruel character is itself a fact in the issue.
Applicability of substantiation of former good character felonious cases
Unlike civil cases where the character is inapplicable, in felonious cases it's
applicable. Section 53 of The Indian substantiation Act provides that in
felonious cases, the good character of the indicted person is applicable. The
reason behind this is the introductory mortal psychology that a person of good
character won't generally resort to a felonious act. If virtuousness is proved
it helps in a presumption of commission of the offence by that existent.
Substantiation of good character is always permissible. In a doubtful case, it
may be used to cock the balance in favour of the indicted but in a case where
there's positive substantiation of guilt of the indicted also the good character
cannot overweigh the positive substantiation. It depends on the discretion of
the court how important weight the substantiation of good character has to be
given while deciding the case.
The distinction between the Applicability of character in civil and felonious
In order to separate the first thing to note is that the Indian substantiation
Act addresses about two types of characters-good and bad characters. In cases of
civil nature, the substantiation pertaining to character is inapplicable as per
Section 52 of the substantiation Act. There are two exceptions to this rule
first when the character of the party is a fact in issue also substantiation of
character is applicable and alternate, the character of the person who ought to
admit the quantum of damage is applicable (Section 55).
Whereas in cases of felonious nature, the former good character of the indicted
person is applicable (section 53) but the former bad character isn't applicable
(section 54). Substantiation of the bad character of the indicted is applicable
in two cases first, to rebut the substantiation of good character presented by
the execution, and second, when the character of the party is itself a fact in
Former bad character is not applicable, except, in Reply
Section 54 According to Section 54 of the Indian confirmation Act, confirmation
pertaining to the fact that the criminate has a bad character isn't applicable
in lawless cases. In other words, the execution cannot present confirmation of
the indicter's bad character as a part of the main case.
When the criminate has submitted any confirmation of his good character, in such
a case to rebut, the execution can present confirmation pertaining to the bad
character of the criminate. Explanation 1 to Section 54 provides that when the
character is itself a fact in issue also confirmation of bad character can be
submitted. Illustration In a vilification case, the character of the complainant
becomes a fact in the issue.
Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if a person is by
habit a purloiner, a housebreaker, etc. also he's to be bound down. Explanation
2 of section 54 provides that confirmation showing any former conviction is also
applicable as confirmation of bad character in lawless cases. According to
Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who's formerly a former con
should be doomed to a longer term of imprisonment than that's awarded naturally.
Character as affecting Damages
Section 55 of the Indian confirmation Act states that in cases of civil nature,
the character of the person who ought to admit the quantum of damages is
applicable. This section is an exception to Section 52 mentioned over. The
confirmation pertaining to the good or bad character of the criminate is
inapplicable whereas confirmation of the good or bad character of the victim is
applicable. For case, in cases of temptation or rape, or vilification, the
confirmation of the good or bad character of the original complainant is
applicable to decide the quantum of damages that the complainant is ought to
This is generally used to reduce the quantum of damages. Explanation of this
section states that the term character which is used in sections 52, 53, 54, and
55 includes both character and disposition. Disposition is constantly
appertained to as what a person is in a person's reality. A person's essential
rates which he'd attained through education, parenting, or any material
condition in life is called disposition.
A badly reputed person may have a good disposition. Character is constantly
appertained to as the general estimation of a person. It's what other people
suppose about that existence. It's to be noted that the confirmation of those
who don't know the individual but have heard of his character isn't permissible
in court. Illustration In the show 'Suits ', the character Harvey Spectre had a
character of an arrogant and selfish individual whereas he had the disposition
of a largely confident, tone-motivated, practical thinker and concentrated
existent. Both of these goods combined defined the character of Harvey Spectre.
The Judgment of Joginder Kumar v. UP State
and Supreme Court ruled that
an arrest cannot be based solely on suspicion of having committed a crime and
that police officers must follow all procedures necessary for bail. . Milk
production must be maintained and arrests avoided, except in cases of egregious
crime. In Sangangouda Veeranagovda and Ors v Karnataka provinces, one defendant
was arrested and died 24 hours later in police custody.
He was not brought before the judge within the prescribed time limit. It was
thus established that it was their duty to bring the defendant before the judge,
and that the petitioner would be held accountable. The defendant's right to
privacy and protection from unlawful searches, police officers cannot search a
suspect's property without a warrant.
Right to object to self-incrimination- Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution,
a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Bombay v. Kathi Kaku
Oghad and ors, finding in this case that confession by the defendant without any
justification does not fall under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Right to Double Criminal Prosecution - According to Sec. An inquiry into the
Commissioner's Public Service Investigation Act of 1960 was conducted by SV
Venkataraman v. India Coalition.
He was later released and charged under the
IPC and corruption laws. Therefore, the court held that the initial
investigative process was merely an inquiry, so the concept of double jeopardy
does not apply here.
Bail as a defendant's right in India - This right gives the defendant the right
to be released from custody. In his Gudikanti Narasimhulu case
Judge V.R. stated: In Aftab Ahmad v. UP, a court ruled that a destitute person
could be released if he was released on bail with a surety.
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Mulchand Saraswati
Authentication No: AP310403642629-14-0423