Section 54 of IEA : Section 54: Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi is on trial for theft. During the trial, the prosecution wants to introduce evidence that Ravi has been convicted of theft multiple times in the past. According to Section 54 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872, this evidence of Ravi's previous bad character is not relevant and cannot be introduced unless Ravi himself introduces evidence of his good character. If Ravi's defense team presents witnesses to testify that Ravi is an honest and law-abiding citizen, then the prosecution can introduce evidence of Ravi's past convictions to counter this claim.

Example 2:

Sita is accused of fraud. During the trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence that Sita has a history of committing fraud in her previous jobs. According to Section 54, this evidence is not relevant and cannot be used against Sita unless she introduces evidence of her good character. However, if Sita's defense argues that she has always been trustworthy and presents character witnesses to support this, the prosecution can then introduce evidence of her past fraudulent activities to challenge her claim of good character.

Example 3:

Raj is on trial for assault. The prosecution wants to show that Raj has a history of violent behavior. Under Section 54, this evidence is not relevant unless Raj introduces evidence of his good character. If Raj's defense team brings in witnesses to testify that Raj is a peaceful and non-violent person, the prosecution can then introduce evidence of Raj's past violent behavior to rebut this claim.

Example 4:

Meera is charged with embezzlement. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that Meera has been previously convicted of embezzlement. According to Section 54, this evidence is not relevant unless Meera introduces evidence of her good character. If Meera's defense presents evidence that she has a reputation for being honest and trustworthy, the prosecution can then introduce her previous conviction to challenge this assertion.