Section 49

This rule reflects a long-standing principle in criminal law: a person should be judged on the specific evidence of the crime they're accused of, not on their general reputation or past behavior, which could unfairly bias a judge or jury. Allowing the prosecution to freely introduce 'bad character' evidence risks convicting someone because they seem like a 'bad person' rather than because they actually committed this particular crime. However, if the defense opens the door by claiming good character to sway the court, fairness allows the prosecution to rebut that claim. This provision continues, with modernized language, the same rule that existed under Section 54 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Indian courts have consistently held that the prosecution cannot introduce evidence of an accused's bad character or past misdeeds merely to create prejudice, unless the accused has first introduced evidence of good character, at which point rebuttal becomes fair. Courts have also clarified that in cases where the character of a person is directly in issue (such as certain matrimonial, reputation, or habitual offender proceedings), this restriction does not apply, and past conduct becomes directly relevant rather than merely being about a general propensity. Previous convictions have been treated as objective, provable facts of bad character, distinct from vague or reputational claims.

• Myth: Prosecutors can always tell the court about an accused's past crimes or bad reputation.
  Fact: They generally cannot, unless the defense first claims good character, or the bad character is itself the central issue in the case.
• Myth: A previous conviction can never be mentioned in a new criminal trial.
  Fact: Explanation 2 specifically allows a previous conviction to be used as evidence of bad character once the character issue becomes relevant.