Hello Friends, the question is What do you mean by character?
So, in legal language, In our Indian Evidence Act, section 52 from 55 contains information about the relevancy in detail. So, section 52 clears that in civil cases it is to prove conduct imputed is irrelevant. It means you cannot show any good or bad character in any type of matter. But if you read section 55 with section 52 then in that it is shown that it is affecting damages. Then its evidence is should be allowed to show.
So for a detailed understanding, you should read firstly section 52 and then section 55. Are showing you the details in which matter the relevancy of nature is applicable or in what type of matters it cannot be applicable. But you should read section 52 as a rule and section 55 as an exception. When we read the criminal section. Then the criminal section shows that In criminal cases, the previous good nature is relevant. Now, I talk about the character word again and again.
there are two things under the word –
the first is Reputation.
and the second is disposition.
So what is the reputation of any person or what is the disposition of a person, disposition means the nature of a person here.
Section 53 says that – In criminal cases, previous good character is relevant. So, it is relevant to talk about good character. But if we talk about section 54 then in that it is shown that the previous bad character is not relevant except in reply.
Detailed information about the word character here –
The evidence of it plays a very important role in almost every jurisdiction. For centuries, the character of a person is used to determine his guilt. The application of it to civil and criminal cases has become limited because of the evolution of the law over the years. The behavior of a person depicts his past actions. In our day-to-day life, a person’s character plays a very important role because the action and reactions of a person depend upon his behavior and his behavior defines his nature. While talking about character evidence, mainly two questions arise: First, whether the behavior of a person is relevant, and it is relevant than on what grounds it is relevant. Secondly, how to prove why such a character becomes relevant. Despite the answer to these questions, this article also seeks to find out how much evidence is appreciated.
So I hope you understand very well. Where and to what extent the good and bad nature are when relevant and when are not relevant?
