The legal concept of Evidence is neither static nor universal. The past methods followed like the trial by ordeal would be alien to the present methods followed today . The Indian Evidence Act is unique. Although it has not been amended in its basic principles, it is firmly situated in the wisdom and expertise of great jurists like Sir James Stephens. India follows the due process model which is in contrast to the crime control model that involves statist agencies in solving a crime. . In the Due Process, the burden of proof lies on the parties to prove their case. Thus, having a guideline for admissibility of evidence is important. Admissibility is not defined but relevancy is, as according to sections 5 and 7 of Indian Evidence act, 1872. This model also emphasises discretion of judges pertaining to the merits of the case. Definite rules are needed to regulate and control such a wide and subjective power and to curb any signs of arbitrariness or corruption that would tarnish the judgement. Yet if one looks to the standard writings on relevance, both in the legal and logical literatures, there is only one point at which the two traditions converge. This is the juncture at which relevance is characterized as that which influences probabilities. The concept of relevance is one of the most highly discussed and debated ideas among lawyers, logicians and jurists. “logical” refers to a clear application of logic that interconnects the facts but “legal” refers to application of law or rather finding logical facts with provisions of a decided law. While logical relevance is a probabilistic deduction, while the legal relevance is more actualist in its nature. In any given practice, these two concepts are at par and whenever, probability is embraced, it needs to be filtered with plausibility.