Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Opinion on Relationship Expressed by Conduct

An Exposition of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admissibility of Opinion on Relationship Expressed by Conduct

Introduction

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "the Act"), in its scheme of relevancy of facts, carves out specific provisions for the admission of opinion evidence. Section 50 of the Act is a distinct provision that deals with the relevancy of opinion as to the existence of a relationship between persons when such opinion is expressed by conduct. In a society where familial ties are paramount and often form the bedrock of legal rights and obligations, particularly in matters of succession, inheritance, and legitimacy, proving such relationships can be challenging, especially when direct evidence is scarce or unavailable. Section 50 provides a mechanism to adduce evidence of relationship based on the outward manifestation of an opinion held by a person having special means of knowledge on the subject. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 50, its ingredients, judicial interpretation, scope, and application, drawing upon key precedents and legal principles prevalent in Indian jurisprudence.

The Statutory Provision: Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, titled "Opinion on relationship, when relevant," states:

"When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

The essential ingredients for invoking Section 50 are:

  • The Court must be required to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another.
  • The evidence offered must be an opinion as to the existence of such relationship.
  • This opinion must be expressed by conduct.
  • The person whose opinion is expressed by conduct must be one who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject.

If these conditions are met, such an opinion becomes a relevant fact. The proviso, however, carves out an exception, making such opinion insufficient proof for specific matrimonial offences and divorce proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

Judicial Interpretation of Essential Ingredients

"Opinion as to Relationship"

The term "opinion" under Section 50 signifies more than mere gossip or hearsay; it implies a belief, a conviction, or a judgment formed on a particular question (Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra And Others, 1959 AIR SC 914; Amar Singh Etc. v. Chhaju Singh Etc., P&H HC 1972). The Calcutta High Court in Chandu Lal Agarwala v. Khalilar Rahaman (Calcutta High Court, 1942), a view approved by the Supreme Court in Dolgobinda Paricha, elaborated that "opinion means judgment or belief—what one thinks on a particular question—a belief, a conviction." This opinion must pertain to a relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption.

"Expressed by Conduct"

This is the cornerstone of Section 50. The opinion itself is not directly stated but is inferred from the conduct of the person. As observed in Dolgobinda Paricha, "It is only, ‘opinion as expressed by conduct’ which is made relevant... The offered item of evidence is ‘the conduct’, but what is made admissible in evidence is ‘the opinion’, the opinion as expressed by such conduct." The conduct must be of such a nature that it unequivocally points to the existence of the opinion regarding the relationship. Examples of such conduct include:

The Allahabad High Court in Shanker Lal v. Vijay Shanker Shukla And Others (1966 SCC ONLINE ALL 388) reiterated that what has to be offered as evidence is the conduct, from which the court infers the opinion regarding the relationship.

"Person with Special Means of Knowledge"

The person whose opinion (expressed by conduct) is sought to be admitted must possess "special means of knowledge" regarding the relationship in question. This typically includes members of the family. However, the phrase "or otherwise" widens the ambit to include individuals who, though not family members, are so intimately connected with the family or have such close interaction that they would naturally acquire knowledge about the family's relationships. This could encompass close friends, old family servants, or community members who have had long and continuous association with the family (Bhogal Paswan And Others v. Mt. Bibi Nabihan, Patna HC 1963). The Supreme Court in Dolgobinda Paricha emphasized that the person whose opinion is expressed by conduct must be one who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship.

Scope and Application of Section 50

Admissibility versus Probative Value

Section 50 renders the opinion expressed by conduct a "relevant fact," thereby making it admissible. However, the weight or probative value to be attached to such evidence is a matter for the court to determine based on the specific facts, the nature of the conduct, the reliability of the witness deposing to the conduct, and the strength of the "special means of knowledge" (Dolgobinda Paricha, 1959). The Supreme Court in State Of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh And Others (1983 SCC 3 118), while dealing primarily with genealogical evidence under Section 32, underscored the need for rigorous scrutiny of evidence concerning relationships, a principle that extends to the evaluation of evidence under Section 50.

Proof of Marriage

Section 50 can be utilized to prove the factum of marriage in civil proceedings, especially where direct evidence of solemnization is lacking or disputed (M. Yogendra And Others v. Leelamma N. And Others, 2009 SCC 15 184). In M. Yogendra, the Supreme Court considered evidence under Section 50, alongside other documentary evidence like school records, to determine paternity, which implicitly involved the question of marriage. However, the proviso to Section 50 explicitly states that such opinion evidence is insufficient to prove a marriage in prosecutions for bigamy (Section 494 IPC), adultery (formerly Section 497 IPC), or enticing a married woman (Section 498 IPC), or in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. In such cases, stricter proof of marriage, typically involving evidence of solemnization of ceremonies, is required, as highlighted in cases like Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State Of Maharashtra (1965 AIR SC 1564), which dealt with the essentials of a valid marriage for a bigamy prosecution.

Relationship with Section 32(5)

Both Section 32(5) and Section 50 of the Act pertain to evidence of relationship. Section 32(5) deals with the relevancy of statements, written or verbal, made by a person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., relating to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, when the person making the statement had special means of knowledge, and the statement was made before the question in dispute was raised. Section 50, on the other hand, deals with the opinion of any person (living or deceased, if their conduct can be proved) expressed by conduct. The Allahabad High Court in Mt. Chunna Kunwar v. Lala Mukat Behari Lal And Others (1933 SCC ONLINE ALL 252) observed that if a statement is inadmissible under Section 32(5), but the witness deposes to facts establishing treatment (conduct) as contemplated by Section 50, it could be admitted to that extent.

Deposition by the Person Whose Conduct is Relied Upon

A point of judicial discussion has been whether the person whose opinion, expressed by conduct, is relied upon must himself depose in court. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kishan Singh v. Nichhattar Singh And Others (1983 P&H HC) referred to the Full Bench decision in Amar Singh v. Chhaju Ram (1972 Cur LJ 591 P&H), where differing views were expressed. Sodhi, J. opined that the witness appearing in court must be the one whose opinion, expressed by his own conduct, is relevant. However, Suri, J. and Mahajan, J. (forming the majority) held that it was not necessary that the person whose opinion as expressed by conduct has been proved should himself come into the witness-box; their conduct could be proved by other witnesses who observed it. This majority view appears to align with the practical application of the section, as conduct is often observed and reported by others.

Key Judicial Pronouncements Analyzing Section 50

Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra (1959 AIR SC 914)

This Supreme Court judgment is a locus classicus on Section 50. The Court clarified that Section 50 allows evidence somewhat akin to "reputation evidence" but is distinct. It held that the "opinion" must be a judgment or belief, not mere gossip. The conduct offered in evidence must be such that it establishes this opinion. The Court admitted testimonies of witnesses regarding their attendance at family ceremonies as conduct expressing their opinion on the relationship, provided they had special means of knowledge. The Court quoted with approval the Calcutta High Court's decision in Chandu Lal Agarwala v. Khalilar Rahaman.

Chandu Lal Agarwala v. Khalilar Rahaman (Calcutta High Court, 1942)

This decision, heavily relied upon by the Supreme Court, provided a foundational understanding of "opinion" under Section 50. It stated, "Opinion means judgment or belief... So, when a Court has to judge as to the relationship of one person to another, it is permitted to take into consideration the ‘belief’ or ‘judgment’ of a person provided the requirements of this section are satisfied." It further explained that belief, a state of mind, can be evidenced by conduct illustrating and pointing back to the state of mind producing it.

M. Yogendra And Others v. Leelamma N. And Others (2009 SCC 15 184)

In this case, the Supreme Court considered evidence under Section 50 in a dispute concerning paternity. The Court noted the reliance by the trial court and High Court on the evidence of certain witnesses in terms of Section 50, alongside other documents like school records showing the father's name. This case illustrates the practical application of Section 50 in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence to establish familial relationships.

Challenges and Considerations in Applying Section 50

While Section 50 provides a valuable avenue for proving relationships, its application requires careful consideration by the courts:

  • Authenticity of "Special Means of Knowledge": Courts must be vigilant in ensuring that the person whose opinion is relied upon genuinely possessed special means of knowledge. A casual acquaintance or a person with superficial interactions may not meet this threshold.
  • Interpretation of "Conduct": The conduct adduced must be clear, unambiguous, and directly indicative of the opinion regarding the specific relationship in question. Vague or equivocal conduct may hold little evidentiary value.
  • Risk of Manufactured Evidence: As with any form of indirect evidence, there is a potential risk of parties attempting to manufacture evidence of conduct. Courts must critically assess the credibility of witnesses deposing to such conduct.
  • Balancing with Direct Evidence: Evidence under Section 50 is often resorted to when direct evidence is unavailable. If credible direct evidence exists, it would generally carry more weight than opinion evidence under Section 50.

Conclusion

Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, serves as a crucial provision enabling courts to form opinions on relationships based on how individuals are treated and acknowledged within their family and community circles. It recognizes the practical reality that familial relationships are often demonstrated through consistent patterns of behavior and interaction rather than formal documentation alone. The judiciary, through landmark pronouncements such as Dolgobinda Paricha, has meticulously delineated the contours of this section, emphasizing that the "opinion" must be a reasoned belief expressed through unequivocal "conduct" by a person possessing "special means of knowledge." While the proviso limits its application in certain criminal and divorce matters, Section 50 remains an indispensable tool in civil litigation, particularly in adjudicating complex disputes involving inheritance, succession, and family status. Its careful and judicious application by the courts continues to uphold the principles of justice by allowing relevant and reliable, albeit indirect, evidence to establish crucial familial ties.

References