§ SECTION 49 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply

The counterpart to § 47: in a criminal case the accused’s bad character is irrelevant — the prosecution cannot lead it — unless the accused himself claims good character, when it becomes relevant in reply.

How to read Section 49

Bad character is out — unless invited in.

The default

The accused’s bad character is irrelevant in a criminal case.

The exception

Once he leads good character, his bad character becomes relevant in reply.

Two explanations

1: not where bad character is a fact in issue. 2: a previous conviction is evidence of bad character.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 49 · verbatim

In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused has a bad character, is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.

Explanation 1.—This section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue.

Explanation 2.—A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.

In short: the mirror of § 47. The prosecution may not parade the accused’s bad character to argue he is the kind of person who would offend. That changes only if the accused first puts his good character in issue — then, in fairness, the prosecution may answer with his bad character. Two riders: the bar is off where bad character is itself in issue, and a prior conviction is a form of bad-character evidence.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 54 — bad character of the accused, and its exceptions.

Glossary

bad character

A reputation or disposition for wrongdoing — generally kept out against the accused.

irrelevant

Not admissible — the prosecution cannot lead it as a route to guilt.

in reply

Admitted only after the accused has raised his good character — to answer it.

opens the door

When the accused leads good character (§ 47), he lets the prosecution answer with bad character.

fact in issue

Explanation 1 — where bad character is itself the thing to be decided, the bar does not apply.

previous conviction

Explanation 2 — a proved earlier conviction counts as evidence of bad character.

The picture

The door to bad character — who opens it.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe two Explanations

the ruleBad character stays out — until the accused opens the door

In one lineIn a criminal case the accused’s bad character is irrelevant — unless he has led evidence of his good character, in which case his bad character becomes relevant (in reply).

In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused has a bad character,the accused’s BAD characterin a criminal case, the fact that the accused is of bad character…

is irrelevant,⚠ IRRELEVANT (as a rule)…is, by default, irrelevant — the prosecution cannot lead it to suggest guilt…

unless evidence has been given that he has a good character,unless HE opens the door…unless the accused himself has put in his good character (§ 47)…

in which case it becomes relevant.→ then relevant (in reply)…in which case his bad character becomes relevant — the prosecution may reply.

ExampleThe prosecution cannot prove the accused is a habitual thief to show he did this theft. But if the accused leads evidence of his good character, the prosecution may then bring his bad character in reply.

✗ Not thisBad character is barred as a shortcut to guilt — but not once the accused opens the door by claiming good character (§ 47). Then the shield drops, and his bad character is fair reply. (See also the two Explanations.)

the two explanationsTwo carve-outs to keep in mind

In one lineExp 1: the bar does not apply where bad character is itself a fact in issue. Exp 2: a previous conviction counts as evidence of bad character.

Explanation 1.— This section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue.Exp 1 · when bad character IS the issueif bad character is itself a fact in issue (e.g. the offence or the claim turns on it), this bar does not apply.

Explanation 2.— A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.Exp 2 · a conviction = bad charactera previous conviction counts as evidence of bad character (once bad character is in play).

ExampleExp 1: in a suit or charge where being of bad character is the very thing to be proved (say, an offence defined by it), this section’s bar simply does not bite. Exp 2: once bad character is admissible, a proved earlier conviction is a way of showing it.

✗ Not thisExplanation 2 does not throw prior convictions in freely — they are “evidence of bad character”, so they come in only when bad character itself is relevant (accused opened the door, or Exp 1 applies) — not as a routine prop for the prosecution.

Connected provisions

§ 47

IEA 1872, § 54

Carried forward — bad character of the accused, except in reply.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 49: Bad character of the accused, not relevant except in reply