4/29/2017 name

Understandingofthequestionof
Evidence&ProcedureinCr.Pc.&related
laws

Site: VirtualLearningEnvironment
Course: LegalLiteracy
Book: UnderstandingofthequestionofEvidence&ProcedureinCr.Pc.&relatedlaws
Printedby: GuestUser
Date: Saturday,29April2017,07:37AM

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 1/37
4/29/2017 name

TableofContents
UnderstandingofthequestionofEvidence&ProcedureinCr.Pc.&relatedlaws
Introduction
HISTORICALDEVELOPMENTOFTHELAW
DevelopmentoftheIndianLaw
LawofEvidence
DefiningtheLawofEvidence(Sections14)
Presumptionsunderthelaw
PresumptionsofFactandPresumptionsoflaw
Relevancyoffacts
General
AdmissionsandConfessions
DyingDeclarations
Judgmentswhenrelevant
Opinionofthirdpersonswhenrelevant
Characterwhenrelevant
Proof
Factswhichneednotbeproved
Oralevidence
Documentaryevidence:general,publicandprivatedocuments,presumptionastodocuments
OfexclusionoforalbyDocumentaryevidence
OFPRODUCTIONANDEFFECTOFEVIDENCE
BurdenofProofForBurdenofProof,pleaserefertothelessontitled:ConceptsinLaw
Examinationofwitnesses
OfImproperAdmissionandRejectionofEvidence
Conclusion
Summary
Exercises
References

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 2/37
4/29/2017 name

UnderstandingofthequestionofEvidence&ProcedureinCr.Pc.&
relatedlaws

Lesson:UnderstandingofthequestionofEvidence&ProcedureinCr.Pc.&relatedlaws
LessonDeveloper:Shabnam
College/Department:FacultyofLaw,UniversityofDelhi

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 3/37
4/29/2017 name

Introduction
EvidenceisthatpartofthelegalsystemwheretheprocedurefordeterminingtherightsofthepartiesbytheCourtsiscompletedonlywhen
evidence is produced in the Courts. The manner in which it is to be presented before the Courts differs in each country, though it is an
indispensiblepartofanylegalsystemacrosstheworld.Withoutevidencetherightsandliabilitiesofthepartiescannotbedeterminedbyany
of the Courts and the judges. In our country, the law of evidence is a part of the procedural and substantial law. The evidence presented
before the Courts determines the direction in which the judgment is proclaimed. Wrongful actions of people result in violation of rights of
othersthatcanbelawfullydeterminedbytheCourts.Theserightscanonlybeestablishedifthewrongdoer'swrongfulactionsaredetermined
through evidence produced in the Court. Otherwise a person may find it difficult to establish that his legal right or rights have been violated
and it proves to be difficult to find redressal from the Courts and the legal system. Given below are some typical questions that arise as
regardsthelawofevidenceandsomeappropriateanswerstocommonplacequeries.

Q.Whatisevidence?

A.EvidenceissaidtobeapartofthatprocedurallawwhichestablishesrightsofthepartiesbywayoffactspresentedbeforetheCourts.The
facts in a case are presented in the manner the evidence Act lays down and they are looked into by the Courts in accordance with the law.
IndianevidenceActhasbothtracesofsubstantiveaswellasprocedurallaw.

QWheredoesitstandintheschemeoflaw?

A.Thelawofevidenceismainlyapartofprocedurallawi.e.theprocedureCourtthatthehastofollowundertheIndianlegalsystemwhile
tryingacaseanddeterminingtherightsandliabilitiesoftheparties.LexForii.e.lawofthelandappliestoacasecomingbeforetheCourts.
Thecaseiscarriedoutaccordingtosubstantiveandprocedurallawsofthecountry.Sinceitisapartofprocedurallaw,itappliestobothcivil
andcriminalproceedingsandnopart,whereverapplicable,canbedispensedwithbytheCourts.

QWhatistheobjectiveoftheAct?

ATheObjectiveoftheActistoprescriberulesofprocedurewherebytheCourtsmaydecideandrecordevidenceinthemannerasprescribed
bytheAct.ItisnotanexhaustiveAct,butisaveryopenendedlaw.AlthoughtheActfindsitsrootsinEnglishlaw,theEvidenceActisnot
boundbyEnglishlaw.Atitsveryinception,itisanIndianlawapplicableasthelawofthelandanditisthislawthatappliesuniformlytoall
cases in the Courts. No person, including a judge, can dispense with any part of the procedure. What should be accepted as a part of it and
what should be rejected by way of exclusionary evidence is stated in very clear terms. So while accepting or rejecting evidence the Court
lookstowardsthoseprovisionsthattalkaboutthedisputedfactsandthesectionsthatapplytothemandthenregardevidenceasgoodproof
of the rights and liabilities of the parties. In case irregular evidence is accepted but it does not result in grave injustice, then Courts do not
orderforaretrialofthecase.

QWheredoesitapply?

AThislawisbasedonlexforii.e.thelawofthelandapplies.ThisActbeingapartoftheprocedurallawoftheland,itappliestoallcases
which the legal Court system accepts as a part of its procedure. It however does not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, to certain
Armed Forces Acts, to Affidavits and to Arbitration proceedings. The law is an open ended law which has laid down provisions in a very
general manner to include within its fold any kind of situation that may arise. It is for these reasons that it has witnessed very few
amendments since its inception in 1872. Major changes took place when its definition did not mention anything about the latest internet
technology,itisthenthatevidencelawwasamendedtoincludethisasapartofevidenceandwasacceptedasgoodproofofthesame.

QWhereisitderivedfrom?

AThederivationofthewordevidencecomesfromaLatinterm"evidens"whichliterallymeanstoshowveryclearlywithcertaintyortobring
proof of something which helps the Courts, the judges and the lawyers to arrive at a solution in a case based on facts, law and the proof
presentedinacase.

QWhataretheprinciplesunderlyingevidence?

ATheprinciplesunderlyingthelawofevidenceisthatallevidencemustbesubmittedbeforetheCourt.Itisnotthediscretionofanyperson
to withhold information from the Court. It allows all evidence to be submitted and those matters which are not related or do not have any
connectiontothecasearenottobeproducedasthatisfrivolousevidencewhichthelawdisallowstobepresented.Inotherwords,onlythose
factswhicharesorelatedtothecasewhethertothedisputeorotherwisewhichshowsthebestevidenceinacaseistobesubmitted.Italso
furtherenumeratesthatgoodproofisbywayofdocumentedevidenceandnothearsayevidence.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 4/37
4/29/2017 name
FIGURE:1.1
SOURCE:AUTHOR

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 5/37
4/29/2017 name

HISTORICALDEVELOPMENTOFTHELAW
InquisitorialsystemandAdversarialsystemoflaw

The legal system is one of the most important basis of existence of any society. With the myriad legal systems existing in the world today,
eachowesitsexistencetothehistoricalaspectofhowtheywereenactedandimplementedinancienttimesaccordingtotheprevalentsociety
which framed those rules of existence. The word of the divine and the rule of the King and his men was the order of running of these legal
systems. Changes took place very gradually alongside the changes in society and new laws were made to suit the needs of a particular
society. The legal jurisprudence, and as various jurists reflect in their writings, highlight the society and the prevailing laws which governed
themasthebasisoflawandordersituationofthatsociety.

ThereweremainlytwokindsofsystemsthatemergedinEuropeandEnglandwhereInquisitorialandAdversarialsystemshademergedforthe
purposeofdispensingjustice.Inboththesesystems,variousagencieslikethepolice,advocateorlawyersorcounsels,judges,accusedand
thevictimarepresentbutthemannerinwhichtheyaredealtwithisdonedifferently.Inotherwordstheroleofeachpersonisdifferentin
eachofthesystems.Whiletheinquisitorialsystemworksforfindingthetruth,theadversarialsystemworkstowardsthedeliveryofjusticein
acase,whenpresentedaccordingtothelegalsystemwhichgovernsthelandi.e.Lexfori.

The Inquisitorial system is said to be a byproduct of the system of France and other European nations, where they have all the agencies
involved working with a common objective of a quest for "the truth" in a case rather than pitted against each other for the judge to draw a
conclusioninacase.Alltheagenciesareinvolvedintheinquesttofindthetruth.TheAdversarialsystem,ontheotherhand,deliversjustice
inacasewheretheaccusedandthevictimarepresentingtheirowninquiriesandevidenceisproducedforthejudgewhoassumesaneutral
roletoarriveataconclusionincase.Thepartiesi.etheaccusedandthevictimareadversariesandthejudgeisaneutralpersonwho,based
uponthefactsandevidencepresent,hastoprovidejusticetothevictim.

Figure:2.1
Source:Author

Figure:2.2
Source:Author

InIndia,thedivinelawandthesayingsoftheholybooksandthewisesagesonrunningofthesocietywasfollowedtodeliverjusticeinthe
ancienttimes.ThencametheruleoftheKingandhismen,andalittlelaterthepanchayatsystemwasfollowedinthevillagesofIndia.The
formalIndianLegalSystemhasanancientoriginasitissaidtobeoneoftheoldestsystemexistingintheworldtoday.Owingitsorigintothe
BritishcolonialruleinIndia,ithasreceivedthisexistencefromthelawsframedbytheBritishers,whoasrulerstriedtoinstilltheprinciples
ofEnglishlawwhileframingthelawsinIndia.TheBritishfirstspecificallyinvokedEnglishlawforthePresidencytownsofCalcutta,Bombay
and Madras, where the formal Courts had started with a view of adjudicating disputes in India. Therefore, for interpretation of the laws in

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 6/37
4/29/2017 name
IndiawestilllooktowardsEnglishprinciplesforpurposeofinterpretingthelaw.AfterIndiaachievedindependence,theConstitutionofIndia
beingtheMagnaCartaofIndiaformsthebasisofgivingvaliditytoalllawsinIndiaandthepowersoftheJudiciary,too,havebeenframed
withinit.

India has a federal system that provides for division of powers between the Centre and the States but the Court system is framed in an
integratedmannersoastoadjudicateboththeUnionaswellastheStatelaws.IthastheexistenceofsubordinateCourtswiththetalukaas
thelowestlevel,thedistrictCourtsatthedistrictlevel,theHighCourtatthestatelevelwhichmayoperateforasingleormorestatestaken
together e.g. the Punjab and the Haryana High Court, and at the apex level it has the Supreme Court where the final decision from appeals
maybetakenalongwithitspowersoforiginaljurisdiction.

Figure:2.3
Source:Author

ThecurrentIndianJudicialsystemhasincorporatedthefeaturesofthe'commonlawsystem,whichhasdevelopedbywayofprecedentsi.ea
judgment which frames a principle which takes the shape of the law that in a similar situation, based on the same principle, that particular
kindofjudgment,orderordecisionshouldbefollowed.ThepatterndevelopedundertheIndiansystemisonthesamelinesastheEnglishlaw
which has its roots in the common law system. The Indian system has the features of common law, as it has the statutory and regulatory
systemembeddedasapartofitslegalsystem.

ThedistinguishableproponentoftheIndianJudicialsystemisthat,beingframedbytheEnglishjurists,theadversarialsystemwaschosenas
amodeofdispensingjusticewithintheIndiansystem.Thereasoningbehindfollowingtheadversarialsystemisthatthecountriesthathave
adoptedthecommonlawsystemhavealsoadoptedtheadversarialsystemratherthaninquisitorialsystemasapartoftheirprocedurallawin
the Courts. The adversarial system works on the lines of two adversaries who are arguing their rights and each other's liabilities before a
judge,whoissupposedtobeaneutralpersontodecidetheirdisputeonissueorissuesoflawandtheirlegalrightsbasedonthelawofthe
country in that regard. The judge is meant to be a neutral person giving his judgment based on the evidence presented before him by both
sidesandfactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.HehastoperformaneutralbalancingactbetweenthetwodisputingpartiesintheCourt.

ThoseinfavoroftheAdversarialsystemsupporttheviewthatthissystemformsaprocedurewherefairtrialcanbeconductedandleavesno
space for any bias to take place by any State actor or any other agency against the accused as against an inquisitorial system. The various
stages of a trial like pretrial settlement or an alternate dispute mechanism to be adopted at any stage of the proceeding makes space for
litigants to settle disputes which lessens the adversity of either party being affected in the situation. It also provides for mutually agreed
issues not to be dealt with in a trial process. The proponents of the adversarial system also defend the system by pointing towards the
institutionalizedapproachoftheinquisitorialsystem,makingitunreachabletoanaveragepersonwhoselegalrightshavebeenviolated.The
legaltrialbeforeaCourtinthesystemhelpsaccesstojusticeandthedueprocesstobefollowedeasiertoachievebothasameansaswellas
a principle. The manner of a trial by a discovery process helps in analyzing the details of the facts, evidence and the kinds of evidence
available in a case to help the judge arrive at a decision. The lawyers too play an important role by delving into the do's and don'ts of the
variousissueswhicharetobedecidedinthetrialinamannersimilartothatofinvestigationinacase.

Those in favor of the Inquisitorial system have an alternate argument to the above argument. They point towards issues as plea bargaining
and settlement of disputes as the main outcome of an adversarial system. Pleabargaining, as a part of the law, does not exist in an
Inquisitorialsystem.InanAdversarialsystem,theentiresystemappearstobeprorichandapoorman,whoselegalrightsareviolated,may
havealawyerbutisstatedtobeapoorman'slawyerandmaynothelphimtoachievejustice.Forotherkindofcases,thepoormanmay
havetooptforanADR(alternatedisputeresolution)processwhichmaynotgethimeitherjusticeoradueprocesstrial,towhichhemaybe
entitled to. Additionally, this effect may lead, under the pleabargaining system, to have the prosecution bringing excessive charges against
theaccusedpersons(whichmaynotbewarranted)andtheaccusedpleadingguiltyeven,whenitmaybeotherwise,thusdefeatingtheends
ofjusticeinseveralcases.

CertainfundamentalrightssuchasthoseguaranteedunderourConstitutionsuchasarighttobeheardandarightnottocompelanyaccused
tobeawitnessortogiveevidenceagainstoneselfaretobeprotectedbytheStateandistobeverifiedineverytrialthattakesplace.Ina
criminal proceeding, an accused person cannot be compelled to give evidence or cannot be compelled to answer anything which may be
incriminating when questioned by the public prosecutor or the judge. There is a change in the circumstances when the accused chooses to
testifyandwhereverhedoesmakehischoice,hewouldbecrossexaminedandifhisstatementisnotfoundtobecorrectthenhewouldbe
consideredguiltyofperjury.Whentheaccusedperson'srighttobecrossexaminedisovertakenbyhisrighttoremainsilentthenitfallsback
onthelawyer'srightastowhatotherevidenceisavailabletoprosecutetheaccusedperson.Thelawyerortheprosecutorthenmayuseother
tacticstomanipulatethetrueversionofthecasethatmightprovedetrimentaltotheendsofjustice.Thiscallsforthelawyersskillsatboth
endsthatofthevictimaswellastheaccused,whichisfinallyleftforanimpartialjudgetodecide.

The other features of the adversarial system has led to the emergence of the concept of "crossexamination" in a case. Under the civil law
system, the defendant cannot be compelled to give a statement, as it is not administered on oath and crossexamination by a prosecutor is
dispensed with. It simply allows the defendant to present his case without any hindrance of any opposition from the other side. The reason

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 7/37
4/29/2017 name
being that questioning is then done by a judge and not the prosecutor, who may otherwise try to extract some incriminating statements
makingthedefendantliableunderthelaw.

Access to justice and the due process of law to be followed in an adversarial system are the key proponents where the judge's role, as an
impartialarbiter,isfundamentalinensuringthekeyproponentstobeimplementedunderthecommonlawjurisdiction.Theroleofthejudge
mayalsobeemancipatedintwokindsofcaseswhereinonekindamotionaskedbyalawyermaydecidewhatevidencemaybeadmittedin
a dispute and whereas, on the other side of the case the judge may himself decide based on what the law says in admitting or rejecting
evidence.Ineithercaseswheredecisionistakenbyajudgeduetoabuseofhisdiscretion,wherewrongevidenceisadmittedorthecorrect
evidenceisrejected,itmayendupinawrongfuldecisionthusdefeatingtheendsofjusticeandthewholejudicialprocessmayappeartobe
farceunderthelegalsystem.

The Evidence law and the rules governing the same also talk of the objections which may be raised by the adverse parties and they may
mislead a judge or make him feel biased, who otherwise should be a neutral person adjudicating the dispute. However, the judge may be
equippedwithinquisitorialpowers,eveniflimited,wherebyhemayincludeorexcludeevidencetoberelevantorotherwisetotheissuesina
case.

Lastbutnottheleast,amajordifferenceariseswhenadefendantadmitstoacrimeinacase.Undertheadversarialsystem,thecontroversy
between the counsel of the accused and the public prosecutor comes to an end and sentencing is done in the case, though a wrongful
confession may be rejected under the common law system where the accused must have an allocution of the crime. Under the Inquisitorial
system,ifthedefendantadmitstohisguilt,itisconsideredonlyasoneofthefactorsunderevidenceanditdoesnotdispensewiththatpart
thattheprosecutiondoesnotpresentitscaseatall.Thisalsogetsfollowedbypleabargainingunderthecommonlaw,whichisabsentunder
theinquisitorialsystem,andmanyfelonycasesintheUnitedStatesarehandledwithouttrialthroughsuchpleabargains.

AfteranextensiveinquiryintothereformofthejusticesysteminIndia,whichincludedanexaminationoftheinquisitorialsystemfollowedin
France, Germany and other continental countries, the Justice Malimath Committee said that the present system was unsatisfactory and
ineffectiveinprotectingtherightsoftheinnocentandpunishingtheguilty.Itrecommendedsweepingreforms,includingmakingitthedutyof
theCourttosearchforthetruthtoassignaproactiveroletojudges,togivedirectionstoinvestigatingofficersandprosecutingagenciesin
themannerofinvestigationincriminalcasesandleadingevidencewiththeobjectofseekingthetruthandfocusingonjusticeforvictims.The
Committeesaid:

"Whereas it shall be the duty of every functionary of the criminal justice system, and everyone associated with it in the administration of
justice,toactivelypursuethequestfortruth."

"QuestfortruthshallbethefundamentaldutyofeveryCourt."

"If any reply (to a question) is vague or devoid of material particulars, the Court may call upon the accused to rectify the same within two
weeks,failingwhichitshallbedeemedthattheallegationisnotdenied."

Figure:2.4
Source:Sangrea.net

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 8/37
4/29/2017 name

DevelopmentoftheIndianLaw
At the earliest, the Kings and the rulers decided cases according to the customs and traditions, which prevailed in the society at that
time,andinthevillagesthepanchayatsystemexistedwheredisputesweresettledinaccordancetothecustomarylawsthatexistedin
ruralIndia.
WiththeadventoftheBritishinIndia,presidencytownswereestablishedatCalcutta,BombayandMadras.ThesetownsandtheCourts
followed the English rules of Evidence. This however did not have much statutory sanction and these rules could not be successfully
implementedundertheIndianconditionsasthecommonmanwasunfamiliarwiththerules.
In 1726, the Courts were reframed and procedural law was formally introduced in the legal system, which the British were trying to
establishaccordingtotheirownrulesandprocedures.
However, after introduction of a formal legal system and rules of procedure, the system remained in chaos as several rules and
regulationsrelatingtoEvidenceexistedbywayofActIIof1855inthepresidencytownsbutcouldnotmeetwithsuccess.
SincethelawwasnotasystematicwholebutscatteredintoActsandRegulations,MofussilCourtshadtolooktowardstheEnglishand
theMohammadanlawtoresolvethedisputes.
In1868,theCalcuttaHighCourtheldthatEnglishandMuslimrulesofprocedurehadnolegalsanctityintheMofussilCourts.
However no single enactment was there to help the Mofussil or Presidency towns to determine the rules of Evidence and in turn the
procedurethatwastobefollowed.AlargenumberofcustomaryruleshaddevelopedinaccordancewiththeEnglishlawdevelopedina
haphazardmanner.
In 1868, Sir Henry Maine prepared a draft on the law of Evidence for it to be a part of procedural law, but it was again regarded as
unsuitabletobeappliedtoIndianconditions.
Finally,in1871,SirJamesFitzjamesStephendraftedanewActwhichfinallycametobeknownasActIof1872.
ThesavingclauseinthesecondsectionoftheAct(nowrepealedbyActIof1938)leftunaffectedallStatutes,ActsandRegulationsnot
expresslyrepealedbythisAct.NowtheActrepealsthewholeoftheEnglishCommonlawofEvidenceasitwasinforceinBritishIndia
beforethepassingoftheAct.

LISTOFAMENDINGACTSANDADAPTATIONORDERS
1.TheIndianEvidenceActAmendmentAct,1872(18of1872).
2.TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872,AmendmentAct,1887(3of1887).
3.TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872AmendmentAct,1891(3of1891).
4.TheIndianEvidenceAct,1899(5of1899).
5.TheRepealingandAmendingAct,1914(10of1914).
6.TheRepealingandAmendingAct,1919(18of1919).
7.TheIndianEvidence(Amendment)Act,1926(31of1926).
8.TheRepealingandAmendingAct,1927(10of1927).
9.TheAmendingAct,1934(35of1934).
10.TheGovernmentofIndia(AdaptationofIndianLaws)Order,1937.
11.TheRepealingAct,1938(1of1938).
12.TheIndianIndependence(AdaptationofCentralActsandOrdinances)Order,1948.
13.TheRepealingandAmendingAct,1949(40of1949).
14.TheAdaptationofLawsOrder,1950.
15.ThePartBStates(Laws)Act,1951(3of1951).
16.TheCriminalLaw(Amendment)Act,1983(43of1983).
17.TheCriminalLaw(SecondAmendment)Act,1983(46of1983).
18.TheDowryProhibition(Amendment)Act,1986(43of1986).
19.TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000(21of2000).
20.TheIndianEvidence(Amendment)Act,2002(4of2003).
21.TheCriminalLaw(Amendment)Act,2005(2of2006).

Source:TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 9/37
4/29/2017 name

LawofEvidence
Evidence Act is not an exhaustive Act and contains all provisions relating to evidence. It is a very open ended law to include within it every
kind of situation which may arise in any case e.g. Statements relating to admitting of facts in a case in any manner are stated to be
admissions. They are applicable in any case or situation whereby written or oral statements or any action by any person admitting to
somethingisregardedasanadmission.Thisappliesuniformlytoanyandeverycaserelatingtostatementsregardedasadmissions.

Figure:3.1
Source:Author

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 10/37
4/29/2017 name

DefiningtheLawofEvidence(Sections14)
TheIndianEvidenceActappliestoalljudicialproceedingsbutisnotapplicableto

theStateofJammu&Kashmir
Courtmartial'sunderspecifiedActs
Affidavits
Arbitrationproceedings

Figure:3.2
Source:Author

Judicial proceedings Where the rights and liabilities of the parties have to be determined,`the legal process calls for proceedings to be
judicial meaning thereby that in a legal proceeding the relations as to who is the offender and who is the victim gets established by a
proceedingundertakenbytheCourtsanddeterminedbyaneutraljudge,wholooksintothefactsofeachcaseandthendeterminestherights
and liabilities of each of the parties. Such enquiries require legal evidence to be supported by each party to establish the offence or the
defense. Evidence is submitted in the Courts by each side of the parties in an enquiry pending before the Courts. When facts are present
beforetheCourtaboutthedisputeinhand,theCourtaccordingtotheEvidenceActofthecountrylooksintothefactsandmaymakefurther
enquire about facts not very clear to the Court to help arrive at the truth in a situation. Sometimes, there may be administrative enquiries
carriedoutandthefinalreportmaybetakenasgoodevidenceinacasewheremattersarenotclearbeforetheCourt.Someenquiriesareof
a different nature and they are named accordingly but are not regarded as judicial enquiry as the enquiry is not judicial in nature. These
enquiriesmaysimplybeinformationseekingormayjustthrowlightoncertainfactsinacaselikeinquestproceedingsbyacoronerunderthe
CoronersAct1871oranadministrativeenquiryoracollectorseekingrecordsundertheLandAcquisitionAct.

Court The word Court includes Judges and Magistrates and all persons except arbitrators legally authorized to take evidence. To decide a
disputeinajudicialmannerandtodeclaretherightsofthepartiesinadefinitivejudgmentisessentialsinequanonofaCourt.Thedecision
in a judicial manner contemplates that parties are entitled to (i) a right to be heard in support of their claim (ii) and to adduce evidence in
proofofit(iii)andtodecidethematteronconsiderationofevidenceinaccordancewiththelaw.

AffidavitsTheyareconfinedtosuchfactsasthedeponentisableofhisownknowledgetoprove.MatterstowhichAffidavitsareconfined
areregulatedbyO.XIXr.1,2and3etcofthecivilprocedurecodeandbySection297etc.oftheCr.P.C1973.Adeclarationintheshapeof
anaffidavitcannotbereceivedasevidenceofthefactsstatedinit.

ArbitratorTheprovisionsoftheevidenceactdonotapplytoproceedingsbeforeanarbitrator.Arbitratorsareboundtoconfirmtotherules
ofnaturaljustice.Theyareunfetteredbytechnicalrulesofevidence.

ThedefiningsectionoftheActexplainscertaintermsinaspecificmannerastohowthesetermsaretobeunderstoodundertheAct(Section
3).

Court Itdefinesitasthatpartofthesystemwherepeoplewhoareappointedas
judgesandmagistratesareauthorizedtotakedecisionswithrespectto
evidencepresentbeforethem.
Fact Allphysiologicalandpsychologicalfactsi.e.thosecapableofperception
ormentallyunderstoodarefactsandtobeunderstoodassuch.
Factsinissue Thepointsofdisputebetweenthepartiesandwhichhelpindetermining
therightsorliabilitiesofthepartiesaresaidtobeFactsinissue.
Relevant Thosefactswhichgetconnectedtooneanothersoastoformacaseor
partsofthesametransactiongettingconnectedtooneanother.Itisa
kindofrelationshipthatwhenseveralfactsconnecttothrowlightona
casearestatedtoberelevanttoacase.
Document Anymatterwhichisinthewrittenoradocumentedformissaidtobea
document.Itneednotbewrittenonlybutmayincludefigureormarks
also.
Evidence AnythingwhichmaybepresentedbeforetheCourtbywayofstatements
ofwitnessesoradocumentedformisevidence.Inotherwordsanything
whichhelpspresentproofinacaseisevidence.
Proved AnyfactswhichafterhaslookedintothemattertheCourtbelievesexists
orbelievesthatitdoesnotexistissaidtobeproved.TheCourthasto
http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 11/37
4/29/2017 name
confirmitsexistenceornonexistence.
Disproved TheCourtbelievesthatafactstatedisnotcorrect.
Notproved Itisnetherprovednordisproved.ThismeanstheCourtdoesnotknow
whetheritistheproofisgoodorfalse.

Figure:3.3
Source:Author

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 12/37
4/29/2017 name

Presumptionsunderthelaw
Presumptions (Section 4) are stated to be those inferences which the Courts may draw from particular facts presented before it. These
presumptions may be considered sufficient to highlight the rights or liabilities of the parties or if a different truth is present may ask for
furtherevidencetobringoutaccuracyinacase.PresumptionsarenotruleswhichtheCourtsareboundtofollow.Theymaypickupaleadas
aninferenceandmayaskforfurtherprooftoconfirmit.Thesepresumptionsmayberebuttedifoppositeevidenceispresenttodisproveit.

Wherethesetermsareusedtheyaretobeinterpretedinthemannergivenbelow:

Figure:3.4
Source:Author

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 13/37
4/29/2017 name

PresumptionsofFactandPresumptionsoflaw
A presumption means a rule of law that Courts and judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact or form a particular
evidence unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved. A Court where it may presume a fact has a discretion to presume it as
proved, or to call for confirmatory evidence of it , as the circumstances require. In such a case the presumption is not a hard and fast
presumption incapable of rebuttal, presumptio juris et de jure. In cases in which a Court shall presume a fact, the presumption is not
conclusivebutrebuttable.

Presumptions of fact or natural presumptions are inferences which are naturally and logically drawn from experience and observation of the
course of nature, the Constitution of human mind, the springs of human action, the usages and habits of society. These presumptions are
generallyrebuttable.Clause(1)ofthesectionappearstopointatpresumptionsoffacts.

Presumptionsoflawarebased,likepresumptionsoffactontheuniformityofdeductionwhichexperienceprovestobejustifiable,theydiffer
inbeingvestedbythelawwiththequalityofarulewhichdirectsthattheymustbedrawn,theyarenotpermissivelikenaturalpresumptions,
whichmayormaynotbedrawn,:andpresumptionsoflawagaindifferintheirforce,accordingastheyarerebuttableorirrebuttable.Asto
theformer,thepresumptionshallstandgoodonlyuntilitisdisproved.Thelatterclass,orirrebuttablepresumptions,thelawholdsconclusive.

ThiscanbeexplainedbyasuppositionthatwhenatelegraphicmessagesentbySureshtoRameshisthesamedeliveredbythetelegraphic
Department,buttheCourtcannotpresumeanyfactsregardingSureshorRameshorthepresumptionthatcertifiedcopiesofforeignjudicial
recordsarethesameandgiveninamannerasofuseinthatcountry.Thesearepresumptionoffactsandtheyarealwaysrebuttable.Then
say the certified copy of the official gazette is said to a presumption of law where the Courts will assume the copy is correct and allows
evidence to be given in case any wrong or misprint has been done. This falls under presumption of law which is only rebuttable in case of
proofwronglygivenotherwiseitistakenasitispresented.TheotherbeinglikewheretheCourthasstatedthatacouplehasamaritalstatus
which was disputed, the judgment is taken to be conclusive proof and the Court at no time allows evidence to be given to refute that
judgment.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 14/37
4/29/2017 name

Relevancyoffacts

Figure:3.5

Source:Author

Relevancyoffactsissaidtobetothosefactswhichshowsomeconnectiontothedisputedquestionsandalsothrowlightontheprobabilityor
improbabilityoftheirexistenceinacase.Relevancyshowstheconnectionofeventsorthecauseandeffecttobeshownandinterpretedby
theCourtwheretheserelevantfactsmayhelpindeterminingtherightsandliabilitiesoftheparties.UndertheIndianEvidenceAct,1872the
legalrelevancyoffactsisgivenundersections655.Theseprovisionsprovetobehavingaveryhighdegreeofforceastheygotoestablish
theconnectionbetweenthefactstobeprovedandexistingfactspresentedbeforetheCourt.Theseprovisionsalsoprovideforrelevancyand
admissibilityoffactstobetakenupinevidence.AdmissibilitymeansrecievabilityoffactsundertheevidencelawwhichtheCourtswilladmit
asgoodproof.Thecommonsayinggoesinevidencethat"alladmissibleevidenceisrelevantbutallrelevantevidencemaynotbeadmissible".
This law, after taking into account all relevant facts, does not accept those facts that are not accepted by way of the section or the statute
askingforit.TheCourtalsoisboundbythisruletonottoacceptfactsthatarenotrelevanttoacase.

SupposeamurderofapersonnamedRameshtakesplace,thefactsastowhatwastheidentityofRameshwhenhewasmurdered,howand
whereittookplace,werethereanywitnesses,whatwasthepreparationdonebythemurderer,whatwerehismotivesorthepersonaccused
wasamerebystanderanditwasactuallydonebysomeoneelse,arethedifferentquestionsraisedinrelationtoacaseandtheanswersas
factsarerelevantandadmissibleunderthischapter.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 15/37
4/29/2017 name

General

Figure:3.6
Source:Author

The law provides that all facts, whether they relate to matters of dispute or are relevant in a case, if they come under any provisions of
sections 655 must be produced before the Court for the Court to decide the matter. One cannot withhold evidence or information from the
Court thinking that it is not relevant. This rule under the English law is said to be res gestae, which otherwise means parts of the same
transaction.Indianlawdealswithresgestaeundersections6,7,8,9and14.EveryfactmustbeproducedbeforetheCourtanditistheCourt
with appropriate jurisdiction that shall decide the matter and take into consideration as to what facts are relevant and what are admissible
(sec 5). Those facts that are forming a part of the same transaction or different aspects of a case when connected to one another, so as to
presentacaseoratransaction,arerelevant(sec6).Theadmissibilitywillbedecidedafteritlooksintotheproofwhichispresent.Thefacts
which are the occasion, cause and effect are relevant facts (sec 7). The facts may show motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conduct (sec 8). Then there may be the less necessary facts that are necessary to explain the main facts in a case (sec 9). Facts that
describe, by way of conspiracy, the existence of anything said, done or written are facts that are proved in a case (sec 10). Where alibi or
inconsistent facts are shown to exist, they are important for proving the existing facts to be incorrect and this helps the Court to determine
whethertheexistingfactsarecorrectorincorrect(sec11).Factswhichthrowlightupontheexistenceofastateofmindorbodilyfeelingare
alsorelevanttoclarifythesituationbeforetheCourt(sec14).Allthesefacts,whichpresentanyoftheseaspectsofacasebeforetheCourt,
arerelevantandcanbemadeadmissibleiftheyarerelevantunderanyoftheprovisionsoftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872.

TheaboveexampleofthemurderofRameshandSureshasaccusedofthemurderandallfactsthatarepresentedbeforetheCourtforma
partofthesametransaction.Whatwasthemotive,preparationandconductofthepersonaccusedofmurder?Therecouldbefactsthatthere
weresignsofstrugglewheremurdertookplace,thefactthatwhentheaccusedheardthatpoliceislookingforapersonwiththeappearance
likethatofSureshandthereafterSuresh,afterhearingthenews,abscondedfromhishouseareallrelevantfacts.ThefactsthatSureshcan
show some emergency at that time, or reason why he left in a hurry, are relevant facts. Also, if Ramesh could show that Ramesh was in a
distantplaceandhecouldnothavebeenpresentatthatplaceandtheotherplacewhereheshowsproofofbeingpresentarerelevantfacts
andrelevantandadmissibleunderthevarioussections.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 16/37
4/29/2017 name

AdmissionsandConfessions

Persons whose statements are relevant in a case are relevant as facts. Those statements that relate to a case as admissions or confessions
havetobeseenaccordingtothefactsandcircumstancesofacase.Statementsmadebyanaccusedpersonmayberelevantasadmissionsor
confessions. Admission is said to be the genus and confessions are said to be the species. Admissions are defined under section 17 and
confessions, as statements, are not defined anywhere in the Act. Admissions are categorized as those statements made by certain persons
who are related to the case (sec 18) in the manner that they may be party to a proceeding, whether it is a civil or criminal case, or their
representativeininterest,orwhoareagentslikesolicitor,pleaderoralawyerinacase,orpartiessuingorsuedinarepresentativecharacter
e.g.atrustee,executororanadministrator,orbypersonshavingpecuniaryorproprietaryinterestprovidedthattheinterestiscontinuousor
by persons from whom the parties have derived their interest e.g. a tenant derives his interest from the landlord. Besides these statements
made by third persons as those who are third parties, or persons exclusively named by the parties, are relevant only where they have this
specialpositionnamedinthecase(sec19&20).

In other words, the statements of those who are connected to a case are relevant if they have made a statement in the form of admission
(sec 17). Admissions are defined under section 17 but made relevant and provable under section 21. Admissions are statements associated
with civil cases, but are relevant in criminal cases too, and confessions are exclusively the domain of criminal cases. Suppose in a case,
Suresh admits that on a certain day he was present in a conference when a dispute arises as to his presence on that particular day. The
conferenceregistershowsthisadmissionbyhim,whichdoesnothavetospeak,becausetheregisterandhissignaturesshowhispresenceas
anadmission.

Confessions are not defined under the Act, but are interpreted by the Courts in the manner that those statements which are made without
inducement,threatorpromiseornotmadebeforeapoliceofficeraregoodconfessionalstatements(sec.2426).Confessionalstatementsare
relevant in criminal cases only. These statements, when made, should have a reference to the guilt of the person being tried in a case.
Confessions before a police officer are expressly barred under the law but a statement that leads to the discovery of facts is relevant and
admissible(sec27).Statementwhereinducement,threatorpromiseisremovedismadeadmissible(sec28).Wheredeceptionispracticedto
makeapersonspeakthetruthabouthisguiltymind,thosestatementsalsoareacceptedunderthelaw(sec29).Whereseveralpersonsare
jointlytriedinacaseandaconfessionalstatementmadebyanyoneofthemmayberelevantandadmissibleasagainstallofthemifproved
(sec 30). This makes it an exception to the English law that a confession is only admissible against the person making it and not any other
person.

DidYouKnow?
AdmissionsandConfessions
Admissionsincludeconfessionstooasadmissionsisthegenusandconfessionsarethe
species.Admissionsapplybothtocivilandcriminalcaseswhereasconfessionsapply
onlytocriminalcases.Ifastatementisnotadmissibleasaconfessionthenitmay
otherwisebeadmissibleasanadmission.
Source:Author.

SupposeSuresh,aftercommittingmurder,comesandconfessesbeforethepoliceofficerthathehasmurderedRameshandhiddenaweapon
in a garden. The statement made by him to the police officer that he has murdered Ramesh is rejected because confession before a police
officerisnotacceptablebutwhereitleadstothediscoveryofweapon(butataplacewhereitcouldnothavebeenaccessibletoanyone,but
Suresh)isadmissibleasdiscoveryofafact.SupposeSureshhadnotconfessedbeforeapoliceofficerandhewasmadetospeakoutthetruth
by deception practiced on him and recorded and produced as evidence will be regarded as a good confession made by him. Also suppose in
anotherincidentSureshisbeingtriedalongwithseveralandastatementmadebyhimalongwithproofthatalltheotherswerepresent,the
statementasconfessionisrelevantagainstSureshandallothersaccusedinthecase.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 17/37
4/29/2017 name

DyingDeclarations

Statements of persons who are dead, or cannot be found or have become incapable of giving evidence or cannot be brought to the Court
without inordinate delay are relevant when they relate to the cause of death or are made in the course of business or duty or against a
specificinterestorrelatetogeneralorpublicrightsoraredeclarationsrelatingtoexistenceofarelationshiporawillorfamilyaffairsormay
bemadebyseveralpersonsandexpressesfeelingsrelevanttomattersinquestionarerelevantandadmissibleiftheycanbeprovedinCourt
(sec 32). Statements that are relevant as the last statement made by the deceased person, in any manner either by spoken words or in
writing,arerelevantasDyingDeclarations.Thesearesaidtobestatementmadebyadeceasedpersonswhentheyrelatetothecauseofthe
personsdeathspecifically(sec32(i)).Thesemaybemadeorallyorinwriting.Thesestatementsareanexceptionastheygetadmitteddespite
beingagainstthe`rulethathearsayevidencewillnotbeadmitted.Thereasonforsuchstatementstobeadmittedarethatifthisstatementis
excludedthenitmightbedifficulttoprovethecaseagainsttheaccusedpersonandthepersondyingmaybetheonlywitnesstothecriminal
act.Also,thelastwordsofadyingpersonareequivalenttotheobligationofanadministeredoathasadyingpersonisnotpresumedtolie
when he is on his deathbed. However, the Court has interpreted in various cases that the statement made should be a clear and complete
statement made in any form. The statement should be made also when it can be shown that the person was in a fit state of mind when he
madethatstatement.Ifitsuffersfrominfirmitiesthenitwouldrequirecorroborationwithotherfactsbeforetheguiltoftheaccusedisgiven
bywayofaJudgment

INTERESTINGFACTS
Dying Declarations are not only the last statement of a dying person, it is that
statementwhichapersonhasmadeforthelasttimeaboutthecauseofhisdeath.In
dying declaration, oaths are dispensed with as it is presumed that a dying man will
speakthetruthasnomanwillmeethismakerwithalieinhismouth.
Source:Author

For dying declarations there could be two kinds of statements. As an example, lets take the case of Sarita, who could have made these
statements. Suppose Sarita, who is an employee in a bank, tells her friend that every day while going back home a car with certain
specifications follows her home. After six months she gets hit by a car which has similar specifications, as was told to her friend. Another
situation could be when Sarita receives burns and while in the hospital she tells the doctor, the police and a magistrate that her inlaws are
responsiblefortheburns.Inbothsituations,thestatementsmadebySaritaaredyingdeclarations.Itthoughhastobeseenineachsituation
whetherthedyingdeclarationissufficienttoconvicttheaccusedpersonordoesitrequirefurthercorroborationwithotherfacts.Italsohasto
beseenthatthestatementwasnottaintedortutoredorpromptedbyanyotherperson.Inthefirstsituation,sincethetimeperiodbetween
thestatementmadeandactualincidentwasalongone,itmayrequirecorroboration.However,inthesecondsituation,thedyingdeclaration
may be sufficient to bring about conviction as Sarita was in a conscious state to understand and tell her situation coupled also with the fact
thatthetimebetweentheincidentandstatementmadewasnotaverylengthyone.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 18/37
4/29/2017 name

Judgmentswhenrelevant

Previous judgments delivered by the Courts are relevant if they show some connection to the existing case or render the previous situation
beingdifferenttothecurrentcase(sec.4044).Previousjudgmentsifdeliveredonthesamecasebetweenthesamepartiesbarsfurthertrial
ofthesamecaseas'DoubleJeopardy'underArticle20oftheConstitutionandservesasResJudicataasbaroftrialofthesamecasewhere
judgment has been delivered (sec.40). Those judgments which are delivered in Probate i.e. relating to probate, matrimonial, admiralty or
insolvency,whichconfersortakesawayrightsofalegalcharacter,thenthosejudgmentsaresaidtobeconclusiveproofandthelawdoesnot
allowevidencetobegivenatanytimefordisprovingit(sec.41).Judgmentswhichareotherthanthosementionedabovearenotregardedas
conclusiveproofandwherecertainrightsarenotclearlydefinedinanypreviousjudgmentthenthosefactsmaybeallowedtoberebuttedin
thesubsequentone(sec42).Unlesstherelevancyofpreviousjudgmentscanbeshownthenanyjudgmentthathasbeendelivered,butdoes
notrelatetothecurrentcase,wouldbedisregardedbytheCourt(sec43).Ifhoweverinthepreviouscase,asmentionedintheabovesaid
situations,wherejudgmenthasbeendelivered,anyfraud,collusionorlackofjurisdictionoftheCourt,ifproved,mayresultintheretrialof
thecase(sec.44).

DidYouKnow
Headingtext
Body text: Those cases which have been tried before and judgment delivered cannot
be tried again in Courts but those judgments which have been obtained by fraud or
otherillegalmeansmay,ifreasonsbeshown,beopenedupagainbetweenthesame
partiesandthesamesubjectmatterofdispute.
Source:Author

SupposeinadisputebetweenRameshandSuresh,adisputehadarisenregardingacontractandtherightsandtheliabilitieshadbeendecided
bytheCourtsinaccordancewiththelawandfactsofthecase,thenthepreviousjudgmentactsasbarofresjudicataforthecasetobetried
onthesameissuesbetweenthesameparties.InanothersituationwhereRameshandSuresharebrothersandapropertydisputehasarisen
betweenthemandtheCourthasdeliveredjudgmentstatingthewilloftheirfatherregardingthesaidpropertyastohowitwastobedivided,
then it is conclusive proof and the Court will not entertain any other case regarding the same. A third situation could be where dispute had
existed previously between Ramesh and Suresh as brothers, but now a different dispute has arisen with respect to other properties jointly
ownedbythem.ThiscasenowcanbetriedbytheCourtsbetweenthesamepartiesbuttheissueswouldbedifferentnow.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 19/37
4/29/2017 name

Opinionofthirdpersonswhenrelevant
Theseprovisionsrefertothosepersonswhoareexpertsandtheiropinionmightbeimportanttothrowlightoncertainaspectsofthecase(sec
4551).Theseprovisionsformanexceptiontotherulethatwitnessesshouldonlystatethefactsandtheirpersonalopinionsareirrelevantand
inferencewouldbedrawnbytheCourts.Wheretherelevancyofsuchthirdpersonasanexpertisimportantincasehehasspecialknowledge
on foreign law, science or art or finger impressions, then they are admissible (sec 45). This also includes the opinion of an examiner of
electronicevidenceasanexpertundertheInformationTechnologyAct,2000(sec45A).Thisopinion,ifitthrowslightontheexistingfacts,if
it supports or is inconsistent with the existing facts makes it relevant (sec 46). Where the facts require opinion has to the handwriting or
signatureofapersonthentheopinionofpersonacquaintedwiththehandwritingofthatindailyroutineisrelevant(sec47).Anopinionofthe
certifyingauthoritymayberelevantifthequestionisinrelationtothedigitalsignaturesofaperson(sec47A).Personswhoarefamiliarwith
existence of any rights or customs, usages or tenets, meaning of words or terms or persons having any special means of knowledge are
relevantandadmissibleiftheythrowlightonthefactsofacase(sec4849).Wherethepersonmayhaveknowledgeabouttheexistenceofa
relationship where the person may be a family member or otherwise is relevant. Also if the person is asked to give opinion that also holds
importanceinrelationtocertainoffencesastoamarriageundertheIndianDivorceAct,1869orprosecutionsunderSections494,495,497or
498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is relevant. Though the persons opinion should be corroborated with other facts under these
offences(sec50).Thegroundsonthebasisofwhichapersonformsanopinionalsoholdimportancewherereasonsmaybeaskedastohowa
personhasarrivedastotheopinionthatheisproviding(sec51).

Figure:3.10
Source:Author

Valueaddition:Whoisanexpert?
Headingtext
Bodytext:Expertisapersonwhoholdspecialknowledgeonpointsofforeignlaw,
scienceorart,orastoidentityofhandwritingorfingerexpressionsandhelptheCourt
toarriveatadecisioninaspecificcaseforwhichtheiropinionmaybeaskedbythe
Court.
Source:Section45oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872

Wheremattersinquestionrelatetohandwritingorthecustomsorusagesofaplacetheneitherthehandwritingexpertorapersonwellknown
withusagesorcustomsmaybecalledintogivehisview.Ifitcorrespondswiththefactsofthecaseorpointstowardscertainthing(s)itis
relevantanditisrelevanteveniftheopinionsshowinconsistencywiththeexistingfacts.SupposeathreatletterwrittenbyhandbyRamesh
to Suresh and the previous handwriting by way of other documents available with Suresh may help identify Ramesh with the help of the
opinion of the handwriting expert. In cases where say Sarita and Suresh are husband and wife have a marital discord, they may not make
preciouscommunicationsrelevantbutastatementgivenbytheirservant,whostayedwiththem,mayberelevant.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 20/37
4/29/2017 name

Characterwhenrelevant

SOURCE:AUTHOR

Incivilcasescharactertoproveconductimputedirrelevantexceptwhereitappearsfromthefactsotherwiserelevant(sec52).Thisexcludes
character evidence in civil cases. The previous good character of a person is relevant in criminal cases but bad character is not relevant
exceptwherebadcharacterisprovedbyapreviousconvictioninapreviouscase.Howeverpreviousbadcharacterisnotrelevant,asitisnot
necessarythatapersonwithanotsogoodcharacterisanoffenderineverycase(sec5354).Despiteirrelevancyofcharacterincivilcases,
itisrelevantincertaintypesofcivilactionsfordamagesinordertodeterminethequantumofdamagesthattheplaintiffhastoreceivee.g.
accidentaldamagesunderthelawofTorts.

DidYouKnow
Whatismeantbybadcharacternotrelevant?
Bodytext:Thisisthedefinitionwhichappliesacrosssections5255meaningthereby
one relating to a person's repute in society. Generally, a person with bad character
may not be involved in every case, therefore bad character has to be proved and
previousbadcharacterdoesnotapplyineverycase.
Source:IndianEvidenceAct,1872

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 21/37
4/29/2017 name

Proof
FactsthatdealwithproofofevidencesubmittedisdealtwithbyPartIIoftheIndianEvidenceAct1872.Theentireevidenceisdividedinto
oralanddocumentaryevidence,mainlyasevidencethatmaybeinthewrittenortheoralform.Thenthereiscertainproofforwhichevidence
neednotbebroughttotheCourtasitisalreadypresumedtoexistinacertainmanner.Sections56100dealwithprovisionsrelatingtoProof
andhowitisadmissible.

Figure:3.11
Source:Author

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 22/37
4/29/2017 name

Factswhichneednotbeproved

Those facts that are judicially noticeable, or those that the Court must take judicial notice of, or those that the parties have admitted
themselves, proof need not be established for the same. Those facts that may be judicially noticeable need not be proved before the Court
(sec.56).Thismeansthatlikewhensomeonenames"aNeemtree"knownforgrowinginnorthernIndiaisafactknowntoeveryonesothat
name, when mentioned, the Court will take judicial notice of the same. Then there are those facts that the Court is bound to take judicial
notice of, proof need not be brought for the same (sec. 57). These include the laws in force in India, all Public Acts, Articles of war for the
ArmedForces,proceedingsinParliament,sealsoftheCourtsinIndiaandcertainsealsofEngland,personsholdingpublicofficeoftheState
and notified in the official gazette, National flag of a State recognized by India, geographical divisions and those of time, observation of
festivals and holidays, people and members of the Court, rule of the road on land or at sea, or any other matter relating to public history,
literature,science,artwiththehelpofappropriatebooksordocumentsforreference.Thelistisonlyenumerativeundersection57andnotan
exhaustiveone.Thosefactsthathavebeenadmittedbythepartiesthemselves,eitherbythemselvesortheirrepresentatives,inanexpress
orimpliedmannerpreviouslyinanyformneednotbeprovedbeforetheCourt(sec.58).

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 23/37
4/29/2017 name

Oralevidence

TheprovisionsoftheEvidenceActprovidehoworalevidenceisrelevantandadmissibleinacase,butithastobedirect.Thosefactsinthe
absence of any other proof may regard oral evidence as admissible. It gives out two provisions mainly regarding oral proof. One is that all
facts in a case, besides those available as contents of documents or electronic form, may be proved by way of oral evidence (sec. 59). It
furtherprovidesthatalloralevidencemustbedirectthatistosayalloralevidencemaynotbegiveninahearsayorsecondaryform(sec.
60). Oral evidence is defined under section 3 as that evidence where the Court requires or permits statements to be made before it by
witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry. The statements made in this manner are oral evidence. Where a person is unable to
speakduetoaninfirmityorvowofsilence,itmaybepresentedinanyotherwaylikesignsorotherwise.

InterestingFacts
OralEvidence.
Oralevidence,whereeveravailable,hastobelookedintobyCourtseventhough
in the presence of documentary proof it does not hold good. The Court, under
Order 41, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, has to look into the oral
statementsofwitnesses,otherwiseitispresumedthattheyhavedispensedwith
theprovisionsofthelaw.
Source:CivilProcedureCode,1908.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 24/37
4/29/2017 name

Documentaryevidence:general,publicandprivatedocuments,
presumptionastodocuments

Regardingproofofdocuments,elaborateprovisionsofinterpretingdocumentaryproofincertainspecificorgeneralcaseshasbeenlaiddown.
Section3givesthedefinitionofdocumentaryevidenceasalldocuments,includingelectronicrecords,whicharepresentedbeforetheCourtfor
itsexamination,whendocumentsarerelieduponasproofofcertainrightsorliabilitiesoftheparties.Section6174dealswithdocumentary
evidenceinvariousformsandtheproofinitandsection7590AdealswiththepresumptionsthattheCourtmayregardwithrespecttothose
documents.Theprovisionsprovidethatdocumentaryevidencemaybeprovedbyprimaryandsecondaryevidence.Thekindofdocumentsby
whichevidencemaybeprovedisfurtherdividedintopublicandprivatedocuments.Primaryevidencemeanspresentingtheoriginaldocument
itselfwhetheritisinpartsandeachpartbeingessentialforthecompletionoftheentiredocument.SecondaryevidencemeanswhereCourt
acceptscertifiedcopiesoftheoriginaldocumentorwherecopiesproducedbymechanicalprocessesarethereororalaccountsofthecontents
ofadocumentgivenbysomepersonwhohashimselfseenitanditisacceptedbytheCourt.Proofofdigitalsignaturesunderdocumentary
evidence,maybeverifiedbythecontrollerorthecertifyingauthority.Publicdocumentsarethosedocumentsformingtheactsorrecordsof
theactsofanyofficialauthority,tribunalsandotherbodiesorpublicofficers,beitjudicialorlegislativeorexecutiveofIndiaoranyforeign
countryorpublicrecordsofprivatedocuments(sec.74).Allotherdocumentsexceptforpublicdocumentsareregardedasprivatedocuments
(sec.75).

DidYouKnow
WhencansecondarycopiesbeproducedinCourt?
Thesecopiescanbeproducedinbothcivilandcriminalcaseswhen:

(a)originalisinthepossessionoftheoppositeparty,whorefusestoproduceit

(b)whereexistence,conditionorcontentsareadmittedbyapersonagainstwhomit
isproduced

(c)whenoriginalislostordestroyed

(d)whenoriginalisnoteasilymovable

(e)whenoriginalisapublicdocumentdeclaredtobeundersection74

(f)wherecertifiedcopyoforiginalispermittedbytheAct

(g)whereoriginalformsapartofahugecollectionofdocuments.
Source:

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 25/37
4/29/2017 name

OfexclusionoforalbyDocumentaryevidence
Thelawprovidesthatwheredocumentaryproofisavailableandwhereoralproofisalsoavailable,documentaryproofshouldbegivenmore
weightage than oral proof due to the reasons given under Sections 91100. They explain those facts where oral agreement, explanation or
amendmentofambiguousdocumentorwheredocumentsdonothavereferencetoexistingfactsthenthatevidenceinthedocumentaryform
oriforalevidenceisproducedinthefollowinginstancesistobeexcluded.Evidencemayalsobegivenofapplicationoflanguagetooneofthe
twosetsoffactstowhicheverofthetwoitappliesto(sec.97).Evidencemayalsobegivenwhereillegiblecharactersarethereandtheyare
usedinapeculiarsense(sec.98).Ifcontraryevidenceispresent,showinganagreementshowingvaryingtermofdocument,evidencemay
beprovidedbypersonswhoarenotapartytotheagreementorbytheirrepresentativesininterest(sec.99).Lastbutnottheleast,itdoes
notapplytoprovisionsofIndianSuccessionActrelatingtowills(sec.100).

Figure:3.16
Source:Author

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 26/37
4/29/2017 name

OFPRODUCTIONANDEFFECTOFEVIDENCE

FIGURE:1.8
SOURCE:Author

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 27/37
4/29/2017 name

BurdenofProofForBurdenofProof,pleaserefertothelessontitled:
ConceptsinLaw
Estoppel

Figure:3.17
Source:Author

The provisions of Estoppel describe it only in terms of proof submitted (sec. 115117). The term basically means "to stop" which is derived
from the ancient English word, "to estop". The Indian law lays down that whereby a person, by making either a declaration or by an act or
omission,makesanotherpersonbelieveintheexistenceofasetoffactsandonthebasisofthatbelieftheotherpersonactonit,thenlater
on he cannot deny his liability by denying those facts which he made the other person believe in. Estoppel, therefore, is laid down to be an
equitabledoctrinethatifapersonhasactedtohisdetrimentoralteredhispositiononthebasisofanydeclaration,actoromissionofanother
person, then he or his representative cannot go back upon it to the detriment of the opposite party. There should be proof present to show
howhehadmadetheotherpersonactonthatdeclaration,actoromission.Evidenceundercertaincircumstancese.g.asbetweentenantand
landlord,licenseeofpersoninpossessionandlicensor(sec.116),orasbetweenacceptoranddrawerofabillofexchange,asbetweenbailor
and bailee and licensor and licensee (sec. 117) are based on the rule of exclusion of evidence where the principle of estoppel applies
specificallyunderthosecircumstances.

DIDYOUKNOW
WhatisEstoppelinLaw?
Estoppelisaruleoflawthatbindsboththepartiestothecaseandneitherparty
canpleadotherwisewhenthematterhasoncebeendealtwithbytheCourts.

SupposeRameshmadeSureshtobelievethathe,astheonlysonofhisfather,islikelytobetheownerofasaidpropertyandthensellsthe
property to Suresh. After three months Ramesh's father dies and he actually becomes the owner of the said property. Ramesh will not be
allowedtodenythatatthetimeofsellinghewasnottheownerofthesaidproperty,ifSureshwantstotakeovertheproperty.Thisissaidto
bethatRameshisestoppedunderthelawfromdenyinghiscontractwhathe,byhisactions,hadearlieradmittedtoSureshtobeingafact.

DidYouKnow
WhatarethedifferentKindsofEstoppel?
KindsofEstoppel

Estoppelbyrecord:Thisisthebasicprincipleofresjudicatathatacaseoncetriedcannotbe
reopened.
Estoppelbydeed:ThiskindofEstoppeldoesnotapplyinIndia.
ConstructiveEstoppel:ThisisaKindofEstoppelactioni.e.incertaincasesof
registrationofproperty.

Source:TheLawofEvidencebyChiefJusticeM.Monir

Figure:3.18
Source:Author

1.3.4.3Witnesses

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 28/37
4/29/2017 name

Figure:3.19
Source:Author

The question may come before the Court as how to explain certain facts for which the role of witnesses comes in. The provisions of the
Evidence Act state as to who is a competent witness, when can these witnesses be compelled to answer a question put to them, in what
circumstances they cannot be compelled to give an answer, what are the privileges given to certain people in certain situations, the
admissibility of the statements made by the witnesses who depose their statements before the Court and how the number of witnesses who
maybecalledintodeposetheirstatementsintheCourts.

As the law provides, all persons are competent to testify unless due to any infirmity, extreme old age, disease of body or mind or tender
years, they are prevented from being witnesses in a case (sec. 118). It means the Court will look into those facts whether a person, or a
smallchild,isorisnotabletounderstandthequestionsputacrosstothemonthebasisoftheirunderstandingandifduetoanyoftheabove
reasons they are unable to do the same they cannot be taken as competent persons to testify in a case. However, a dumb witness may be
competenttotestifybyeitherwritingorbywayofsignsiftheCourtrequiresoralevidencetobegiveninacase(sec.119).Supposeincase,
Suresh has been murdered and the accused person is Ramesh and there are two other people, who were present at the time when murder
tookplace,itistheothertwo,whetherbothbeadultsoroneadultandachild,whoaretheoneswhocanbecalledaswitnesses.Ifanyofthe
adultisnotofasoundmindorthechildpresentisjusttwoyearsoldbothwillbepersonsnotcompetenttotestify.

DidyouKnow
Whatisaprivilege?
Privilegeistherightofapersonwherehecan,underthespecificprovisionoflaw,
refusetodiscloseafactundercertaincircumstances.Italsoincludestherightnotto
produceadocumente.g.incertainaffairsoftheStateorintheinterestofsecurityof
theStatedocumentsmayberefusedtobeproduced.Section121131oftheEvidence
Actusuallyapplytothispart.
Source:IndianEvidenceAct,1872.

Incivilcases,thepartiestoasuitandthehusbandandwifeofsuchpartyareconsideredtobegoodwitnesses.Incriminalcasesagainsta
person,theperson'shusbandorwife,asthecasemaybe,willbeacompetentwitness(sec.120).Incaseofacivildisputeorevenacriminal
caseagainstanyoneofthemandacivilcasebetweenRameshandSuresh,theirspousescanbegoodwitnessesinthecase.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 29/37
4/29/2017 name

Figure:3.20
Source:Author

EvenJudgesandMagistratesmaybeexaminedbyasuperiorCourtonmattersthatoccurredintheirpresenceincertaincases,butinothers,
they cannot be compelled to answer (sec. 121). Persons who are married and have made communications during marriage cannot be
compelledtodisclosethecommunicationwithouttheotherspousesconsent.However,incasesbetweenhusbandandwifeagainsteachother
orwhereamarriedpersonisprosecutedforacrimeagainsttheothercommunicationscannotbedisclosed(sec122).Sincecommunications
madeduringmarriageareprivilegedcommunications,noonecanbecompelledtodisclosethesame.TakingthecasewhereSaritahascome
home after having a fight with her husband and the husband writes defamatory letter about her father and the father reads the letter, the
father will not be allowed a compensation of defamation as the communication was privileged between husband and wife and without each
other'sconsentitcannotbeallowedtobereadinCourtasthecommunicationwasnotmeantforSaritasfather.

SimilarlyevidenceastoaffairsoftheStateorofficialcommunicationsintheinterestoftheStatemaynotbepermittedtobedisclosed(sec.
123&124).Eveninthecaseofprofessionalcommunications,saybetweenalawyerandhisclient,cannotbecompelledtobediscloseduntil
thepurposeincaseofthesameisillegal(sec.126129).Awitnessmaybecompelledtoansweraquestion,eventhoughitmayincriminate
him/herandarefusalmaybepunishableunderSection179oftheIndianPenalCode.Thoughthewitnessmaynotbecompelledtoanswer
irrelevant questions, but when compelled to answer relevant questions the same will not be proved against him in any subsequent criminal
proceeding. When compelled to answer, the witness can be prosecuted for giving a voluntary defamatory statement or for giving a false
statementinanycase(sec.132).

Figure:3.21
Source:Author

Accomplice can also be made witnesses in a case. Accomplice evidence means evidence of a person who was first accused of the crime but
becauseapardonisgrantedtotheaccused(sec.337CriminalProcedureCode,1973)inacasesoastoturntheaccusedintoanapprover,his
statementisadmissibleasevidenceundertheAct(sec133).ThelawsaysthattheCourtmayproceedupontheuncorroboratedtestimonyof
suchanapproveroraccomplicebutasamatterofcautiontotheCourt,thelawunderSection114illustration(b)laysdownthatitwouldbe

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 30/37
4/29/2017 name
unsafe to proceed on such testimony of an accomplice as he/she would not be considered a person with good credentials. No particular
numberofwitnesssaregivenunderthelaw,soasmanynumbercanbecalledsoastoverifyfactsorevidenceinanycase(sec134).

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 31/37
4/29/2017 name

Examinationofwitnesses
ThestageofexaminationofwitnessesiswhenthewitnessesarefinalizedandaretodeposebeforetheCourt.Thosewhoarechosentobethe
appropriate,competentandcompellablewitnessesforthepurposeofexaminationinCourtaredealtwiththeprovisionsunderSections135
166. The process to compel attendance of witnesses or production of documents is dealt with by the Civil and the Criminal Procedure Codes
(sec.135).AllthewitnessesthatareproducedbyapartywillbeexaminedbytheCourt.Itisthenthejudgewhodecidestheadmissibilityof
evidencebyquestioningthepartyastohowtheevidenceproducedbythemshouldbeconsideredrelevanttoacaseandiftheevidenceisin
partstheCourtmayrequirethefirstparttobeprovedfirstandnextthelatterbeproved(sec.136).Thewitnesses,whencalledintheCourt
to depose, will first be examined by the party on whose behalf the witness is called and thereafter be cross examined by the adverse party
and then reexamined by its own party (sec 137 & 138). Leading questions may be put to witnesses during crossexamination and the Court
permitsthistobedone(sec.141143).Leadingquestionsarequestionsthataresuggestiveoftheanswer.TheCourtdecides,inmostcases,
whenthewitnessesmaybecompelledtoanswerquestions(sec.148)andthosequestionswhicharescandalous,indecentorintendedtoinsult
orannoymaybeforbiddenbytheCourt(sec.151152).Thecreditofawitnessmaybeimpeachedbytheadversepartybyshowingthatthe
witness is unworthy of credit, or showing that witness has been bribed or by proof of former statements contradicted with the current
statement(sec.155).Awitnessmayrefreshhisorhermemorybyreferringtoanythingwhichthewitnessfeelswillhelphim/herrecallthe
facts(sec.159).Thepowersofthejudgetoputquestionsortoorderproductionofdocumentshelpshimtoarriveatajudgmentbasedonthe
factswhicharedulyproved(sec.165).

Orderofexaminationofwitnesses

OrderofexaminationWitnessesshallbefirstexaminedinchiefthen
(iftheadversepartysodesires)crossexamined,then(iftheparty
callinghimsodesires)reexamined.Theexaminationandcross
examinationmustrelatetorelevantfactsbutthecrossexamination
neednottobeconfinedtothefactswhichthewitnesstestifiedduring
his/herexaminationinchief.

DirectionofreexaminationThereexaminationshallbedirectedto
theexplanationofmattersreferredtoincrossexamination,andifnew
matterbypermissionoftheCourtisintroducedinreexaminationthe
adversepartymayfurthercrossexamineonthatmatter.

Source:Section138oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 32/37
4/29/2017 name

OfImproperAdmissionandRejectionofEvidence
This forms the last part of the Act which clarifies that in case any evidence has been improperly admitted or rejected, and if that does not
grossly violate the law and does not result in grave injustice, then in those matters the Court will not speak of a new trial to be carried out
(sec. 167). In case there is sufficient evidence present, besides the evidence improperly admitted, then the judgment given by the Court
stands and a new trial does not take place. This applies to both civil and criminal cases. Objections to admissibility of improper evidence or
rejection will not be interfered with by the higher Courts unless the conditions violate the objectives of a case or the decision would have
changed had the evidence been accepted or rejected. It is easier for the Courts in appeal to decide on the basis of oral evidence probably
stated by a witness but if documentary proof is available, then they may appropriately take up a decision as to the findings of the lower
Courts.

Figure:3.22
Source:Author

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 33/37
4/29/2017 name

Conclusion
TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872wasoneofthemostremarkableActswhichtheBritishcontributedtothenewlegalsystemofIndia.Although
notofmuchapplicationandcontributiontothelegalsysteminBritishIndia,itformsamajorandindispensiblepartofthepostindependence
system of India. This Act owes its inception to the Anglo Saxon system of the English speaking countries. Inquiries and investigations into
cases forms a part of the procedural law as without a trial a judgment or outcome in a case cannot be pronounced, else rights would b
violatedwithoutthisregulatoryprocess.TheremarkablefeatureoftheActisthatnotmanyamendmentshavebeenmadesinceitsinception
tilldate.Inall,ithas167sectionsthatcovertheentireprocessofgivingevidencei.e.frompresentingfacts,togivingofproof,topresenting
witnesses and recording their statements to the judge finally delivering judgment in a case. A very effective and openended law to include
anysituationwhichexists,ormayariseinfuture.Sinceelectronicrecordsbeingacharacteristicofthemoderntimes,theActwasamendeda
little to include all documents relating to electronic records. Without the Evidence Act, the procedure in any of the cases, whether civil or
criminal,isnotcomplete.Itappliesuniformlytoallcases,whereverandhoweveritisapplicable.Onlyincaseswhereprocedureisdispensed
withintheEvidenceActitselfisprocedurenotapplicableotherwisetoallformallegalcasesthisActhasanapplicabilitythroughoutIndia.

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 34/37
4/29/2017 name

Summary
IntroductionThisintroducesthelawofEvidenceandhowitappliestocases,civilorcriminal.
HistoricalDevelopmentoftheLaw.

AdversarialandInquisitorialsystemsoflaw.
DevelopmentoftheIndianlaw.
ListofAmendingActsandAdaptationOrders.

LawofEvidence

DefiningthelawofEvidenceDefinitions,presumptionsoffactandoflaw.
RelevancyofFactsFactsrelevantinacasemaybeadmissibleinthefollowingways:Generallaw,AdmissionsandConfessions,Dying
Declarations,Judgementswhenrelevant,Opinionofthirdpersonswhenrelevant,Characterwhenrelevant.
ProofFactswhichneednotbeproved:Oralevidence,Documentaryevidence,OfexclusionoforalevidencebyDocumentaryevidence.
ProductionandEffectofEvidenceBurdenofProof,Estoppel,Witnesses,Examinationofwitnesses,OfimproperAdmissionandRejection
ofEvidence.

Conclusion

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 35/37
4/29/2017 name

Exercises
Q1.Whatisevidence?WhatistheobjectiveofthelawofEvidence?(Hint:Determinesrightsandliabilitieswiththeproofavailable,provide
rulesofprocedureforthetrialofacase).

Q2.What are the two systems of law and which system is applicable to the Indian Legal system? (Hint: The Inquisitorial system and the
AdversarialsystemsandAdversarialsystemappliestoIndianLaw).

Q3.MatchtheFollowing:

A.Lexfori1)principleunderlyingevidence
B.IndianEvidenceAct,18722)includesjudgesandmagistratesnot
Arbitrators

C.Bestevidenceistobegiven3)lawoftheland
D.Court4)draftedbySirJames.F.Stephen
E.Maypresume5)whoseopinionisrelevant
F.Expert6)Courtallowsfactstoberebutted
G.Facts7)partsofthesametransaction
H.Resgestae8)Statementsadmissiblewithoutoath
I.DyingDeclarations9)allphysiologicalandpsychologicalfacts

(Ans:A3,B4,C1,D2,E6,F5,G9,H7,I8).

Q4.WhatdoyouunderstandbyRelevancy?Howarestatementsrelevantinacase?(Hint:whentheycanbemadeapplicableunderoneofthe
sections,resgestae)

Q5.ElucidateonstatementsasDyingDeclarationsandhowtheyareadmissible?

Q6.ExplainthosefactsthatneednotbeprovedbeforetheCourts?(Hint:Sections5658)

Q7.WhatisthedifferencebetweenOralandDocumentaryevidenceandwhichevidenceprevailsoverallothers?(Hint:oralevidenceisonly
statementsanddocumentaryevidenceisanythingwhichistheinformofanydocuments,documentaryproofprevailsoverothers)

Q8.WhatisEstoppelandwhatistheeffectofEstoppel?(Hint:ThesamecasecannotberetriedagainintheCourt)

Q9.Whoisacompetentwitness,whocantestifyintheCourt?(Hint:Personofasoundmind,dumbwitnessorachilddependingontheageof
thechild)

Q10.Whatistheorderofexaminationofwitnesses?(Hint:Examinationinchief,crossexaminationandreexamination.)

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 36/37
4/29/2017 name

References
BareActofTheIndianEvidenceAct,1872
TheLawofEvidencebyM.Monir
TheLawofEvidencebyRatanlal&Dhirajlal
ThelawofEvidencebyVepaP.Sarathi

http://vle.du.ac.in/mod/book/print.php?id=9242 37/37