Character evidence in civil and criminal cases (sections 46 to 50)

1. What "character" means

The Explanation to section 50 says "character" includes both reputation (what others think of a person) and disposition (what he really is, his inherent qualities). But, except as provided in section 49, evidence may be given only of general reputation and general disposition, not of particular acts by which they were shown. A witness may say "he is known in the village as an honest man"; he may not narrate the occasions on which the accused returned lost purses.

The reason for the general rule that character is irrelevant is twofold: it diverts the inquiry from what happened on the occasion in question, and it is prejudicial. A man is tried for what he did, not for what he is.

2. Section 46: character to prove conduct in civil cases is irrelevant

In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him is irrelevant, except so far as it appears from facts otherwise relevant. In a suit for fraud, that the defendant has a reputation for sharp dealing does not prove he cheated the plaintiff. The exception: where character emerges from relevant facts, for instance where knowledge or intention is relevant under section 12, or where character is itself in issue (a suit for defamation where justification is pleaded).

3. Section 47: good character of the accused is relevant

In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused is of good character is relevant. The rule is a concession to the accused: evidence that he is a person of good reputation and disposition makes it less likely that he committed the offence. Its weight is limited. Good character may tip the balance in a doubtful case, but where the evidence of guilt is clear it is of little use. It is of more value in offences involving dishonesty or moral turpitude than in crimes committed under sudden passion.

4. Section 48: character and sexual history of the victim

In a prosecution for an offence under sections 64 to 71, 74 to 78 of the BNS (rape, sexual intercourse by deceitful means, gang rape, assault and use of criminal force against women, voyeurism, stalking and related offences), or an attempt, where consent is in issue, evidence of the character of the victim or of her previous sexual experience with any person is not relevant on the issue of consent or its quality.

The section came into the 1872 Act as s.53A by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, after the Justice Verma Committee. Its companion rule in cross-examination is the proviso to section 149 (old s.146 proviso): no question may be put to the victim as to her general immoral character or previous sexual experience to prove consent. The older provision that allowed a rape accused to show that the prosecutrix was "of generally immoral character" (old s.155(4)) had already been omitted in 2003 and has no counterpart in section 158.

In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 INSC 75, (1996) 2 SCC 384, decided before these amendments, the Court held that even if the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse, that could not be a ground to disbelieve her, and that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault can be acted on without corroboration if it inspires confidence. It also asked trial courts to conduct such trials in camera and to restrain humiliating cross-examination.

5. Section 49: bad character of the accused irrelevant, except in reply

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. The prosecution cannot open with "the accused is a known thief". But if the accused puts his good character in issue under section 47, the prosecution may rebut it.

• Explanation 1. The section does not apply where bad character is itself a fact in issue, for example proceedings for security for good behaviour from habitual offenders under the BNSS, or a charge of being a member of a gang of habitual thieves.
• Explanation 2. A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character. So when bad character becomes relevant in reply, a previous conviction may be proved. Previous convictions are also relevant independently where they are facts in issue (section 37 illustration (d)), go to state of mind (section 12 Explanation 2), or affect sentence.

Bad character can also come in through other doors: under section 6 (conduct), section 12 (motive, ill-will) or section 13 (system), when the facts showing it are relevant for those purposes. Section 49 excludes bad character only as proof of propensity.

6. Section 50: character affecting damages

In civil cases, the fact that the character of a person is such as to affect the amount of damages he ought to receive is relevant. In a suit for defamation, a plaintiff with a poor reputation has less to lose, so the damages are lower. In a suit for seduction or breach of promise to marry, the plaintiff's character may also bear on quantum. This links to section 10 (facts enabling the Court to determine damages).

7. Character of witnesses

Sections 46 to 50 are about the character of parties. The credit of a witness is dealt with in Part IV: a witness may be cross-examined to shake his credit by injuring his character (section 149(c)), and his credit may be impeached by evidence that he is unworthy of credit, has been bribed, or has made inconsistent statements (section 158, old s.155). Character witnesses themselves may be cross-examined and re-examined (section 145, old s.140).

8. Problem

A is tried for cheating. He calls his employer to say that A is known as a man of integrity. The prosecution then seeks to prove that A was convicted of criminal breach of trust five years ago. Admissible?

Conclusion. Yes. A's good character is relevant under section 47. By leading it, A has made his bad character relevant in reply under section 49, and Explanation 2 makes the previous conviction evidence of bad character. Had A not called the employer, the conviction would have been irrelevant as proof that he cheated this time, unless it became relevant under section 12 or 13 on the facts.

How this is examined

"Explain the relevancy of character evidence in civil and criminal cases" (Law of Evidence, Feb 2025) for ten marks, and "Character evidence" as a six-mark note (June 2025). Give the meaning of character from the Explanation to section 50, then sections 46 to 50 with old numbers, and finish with section 48 and the proviso to section 149.