The Business of the Court is to try the Case, not the Man

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

TANMOY MUKHERJEE INSTITUTE OF JURIDICAL SCIENCE

Dr. Tanmoy Mukherjee

[Advocate]

 

The Business of the Court is to try the Case, not the Man

Tanmoy Mukherjee

     [Advocate]

Meaning and Legal Basis of the Principle-

The statement “The business of the court is to try the case, not the man” reflects a cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence and law of evidence.

It means:

The court’s primary duty is to decide whether a specific offence has been committed, based on admissible evidence and applicable law.

The court must not be influenced by any personal opinions about the accused’s past conduct, moral character, or social background.

Justice should be based only on facts in issue and relevant facts — not on character assumptions.

This ensures impartiality, fair trial, and protection against prejudice, which are core components of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Equality before law and Right to fair trial).

Provisions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023-

The BSA has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but has retained these fundamental evidentiary principles under updated section numbering.

Relevant Provisions-

Section 47 in BSA [Section 53 in IEA] — Good character relevant in criminal cases.

 “In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of good character is relevant.”

Explanation:

This provision allows the accused to produce evidence of his good character as a supporting factor for his defence.

A person of good character is presumed less likely to commit a crime, but this is only a subsidiary fact, not conclusive proof of innocence.

Example:

If A is accused of theft, and he shows that he has always been honest and has never been accused of theft before, it may slightly support his defence.

Sec 49 in BSA [Section 54 in IEA] — Previous bad character not relevant

 “In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person 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:

The prosecution cannot use the accused’s previous bad character (like prior crimes or immoral acts) to suggest that he is likely to have committed the present offence.

This prevents prejudice and ensures a fair trial.

However, if the accused himself introduces evidence of his good character, the prosecution may rebut that by proving his bad character.

Illustration:

If A, accused of murder, claims “I am a man of good character and incapable of such acts,” then the prosecution can rebut by showing that A had been previously convicted of violent assaults.

Sec 50 in BSA [Section 55 in IEA] — Character as affecting damages (Civil cases)

 “In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages which he ought to receive is relevant.”

Explanation:

In civil proceedings, such as defamation, breach of promise, etc., character is generally irrelevant except when it directly affects the quantum of damages to be awarded.

Example:

In a defamation case, if the plaintiff already had a bad reputation, that may reduce the damages he is entitled to.

Underlying Principle -

The reason behind this principle is to prevent miscarriage of justice due to bias.

Every person, no matter his past, has the right to be judged only on evidence related to the specific offence charged.

The accused’s past conduct or general reputation cannot justify a conviction unless it forms part of the same transaction or is relevant under other sections like motive, intention, or previous conduct — Sections 6, 12 in BSA [Section 8, 14 in IEA etc].

Exceptions —

When Character May Become Relevant

There are some limited exceptions where evidence of character can be relevant:

1. When character forms part of the issue itself — e.g., in defamation, or matrimonial cases.

2. When accused introduces his good character — prosecution can rebut it.

3. When it explains motive, intent, or conduct Sections 6, 12 in BSA [Section 8, 14 in IEA etc].

 4. When a witness’s credibility is questioned [Section 149 BSA (Sec 146 IEA) — cross-examination about character to test credibility].

Thus, the law maintains a balance between relevance and fairness.

Judicial Decisions-

(i) Rv. Rowton (1865) Le & Ca 520

The court held that character evidence must refer to general reputation, not specific acts of misconduct.

A man should not be condemned for isolated acts.

(ii) K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)

The Supreme Court held that courts must decide on the basis of legal evidence and not on emotional or moral judgments about the accused’s character.

(iii) State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271

The Court observed that conviction cannot rest on the character of the accused; only legal proof of guilt matters.

(iv) Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54)

The Supreme Court emphasized that evidence must be judged objectively without bias or prejudice.

Relation to Principle of Fair Trial-

The principle ensures:

-Equality before law (Article 14)

-Protection of life and liberty (Article 21)

-Presumption of innocence.

-Prevention of prejudice or moral condemnation.

Hence, the business of the court is only to determine guilt or innocence based on evidence — not to morally judge the accused as a person.

Conclusion-

The statement “The business of the court is to try the case, not the man” under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reflects the rule that:

Only relevant facts related to the offence should be considered;

Character evidence is generally inadmissible except in limited cases;

The court’s focus must remain on facts, evidence, and law, not on prejudices, emotions, or personality;

This principle safeguards the fairness, impartiality, and dignity of judicial proceedings.