LAW OF EVIDENCE

TOPIC – A CRITICAL STUDY ON

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

NAME-SASMIT PATIL{A}[1182200068]

ABSTRACT-:In most democracies, the accused are presumed innocent unless proved guilty.
The burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution's shoulders; they must establish guilt
beyond a shadow of a doubt. While there are exceptions to this rule, circumstantial evidence
alone cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To get a conviction, the prosecution
must provide evidence that is both reliable and sufficient. To be admissible, the evidence must
be relevant and gathered in a proper manner. The Indian Evidence Act,1872 details the rules
for producing evidence and the onus of proof in sections 101 - 166. Documentation, evidence,
and witnesses are all included. Hearsay testimony, for example, may only be used in a court of
law under very specific conditions.

Each side must provide the strongest evidence they can muster to succeed in court.

The inadmissibility of evidence collected illegally has hampered several criminal

investigations throughout the years. To this end, familiarity with the evidence collection and
production processes is crucial.

KEYWORDS-: Proof ,prosecution, Conviction, Admissible, Evidence, Documentation,

Witness, Hearsay, Testimony
INTRODUCTION-:

If something is acceptable in a court of law, it signifies that it may be used as evidence.All

acceptable evidence is detailed in Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.

"When any party wants to submit evidence of any fact, the Judge may question the party
making the proposal how the claimed fact, if established, would be relevant; and the Judge
must allow the evidence if he considers that the fact, if shown, would be relevant, and not
otherwise. If the fact that is to be proved depends on the proof of another fact, then the latter
fact must be proven before the former fact can be proven, unless the party undertaking to prove
the former fact gives proof of the latter fact and the Court is satisfied with the party's
undertaking. If the relevance of one alleged fact depends on the proof of another alleged fact,
the Judge may, in his discretion, allow evidence of the first fact to be given before the proof of
the second fact, or require evidence of the second fact to be given before the proof of the first
fact.

According to the preceding subsection, the Judge has the last say on what evidence may be
presented in court. If the presiding officer is not persuaded of the significance of a specific fact
or piece of evidence, he may ask the party to explain how it relates to the case under Section 6
to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In a strict sense, therefore, the relevance issue must be
answered first, followed by the admissibility question.

The decision of whether or not evidence is admissible rests solely with the presiding officer.
To ensure that all parties get justice without any unfair benefits, the judge has the final
obligation to ensure that all relevant evidence gathered legitimately is declared admissible.The
primary objective of the research is to determine whether the Law of Evidence needs updating
in light of modern times.

OBJECTIVE -:

Why Does Evidence Matter in Trials?

The goals of this paper are

(1) to distinguish between relevance and admissibility of evidence; and

(2) to assess if the Law pertaining to admissibility of evidence is acceptable for the current era.
RELEVENCY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF FACTS

Evidence is a legal term that is neither fixed nor all-encompassing. Historical practises, such
as the ordeal trial, would be completely foreign to modern-day practice1. The law prohibits the
use of any evidence that is not directly related to the issue at hand. Proving someone guilty or
innocent requires evidence 1(Ho). In light of recent developments in the law of evidence, even
scientific evidence is now often acceptable in legal proceedings. The problems with evidence
law have always existed. Modernization of evidence(Goodison) relies heavily on the common
approach of determining the truth regardless of the evidence. 2 The Indian Evidence Act is
unlike any other. It's been a while since it was last updated. When it comes to crime, the Indian
government prefers to adopt the Due Process Model rather than the crime control model
(Retreat, 2014).3, under the Due Process, the onus of evidence is on the contending parties.
Therefore, it is necessary to have a standard for what evidence may be presented in court. The
Act not only specifies the rules for presenting evidence, but also details the types of evidence
that may be presented and those that cannot. In the due process paradigm, the Judge has a great
deal of leeway. Since corruption has taken on various forms in different parts of the globe,
certain standards for what is relevant and what is admissible have been established to prevent
judges from abusing their authority. The phrases "admissibility" and "relevance" are
particularly significant under the Indian Evidence Act. The phrase "admissibility" is not
defined in the Act, although the word "relevancy" is. The Indian Evidence Act, namely sections
5 and 7, govern the applicability of evidence. Finding the truth via common means is crucial
to the development of contemporary evidence systems, according to Zhang. 4

RELEVENCY OF FACTS-:

In section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the relevant facts are laid forth. A fact is anything that
really exists. The word "fact" under the Evidence Act is wide and includes intangibles such as
emotions, mental states, and individual preferences. Facts are discussed in Sections 5 through

1
"The Legal Concept of Evidence (Stanford " Accessed May 31, 2018.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/.
2
(n.d.). Digital Evidence and the US Criminal Justice System - NCJRS. Retrieved May 31, 2018, from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248770.pdf
3
"Why is Evidence So Important? • Smilodon's Retreat - Skeptic Ink." Accessed May 31, 2018.
https://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/06/19/why-is-evidence-so-important/.
4
(n.d.). Recent trends in evidence law in China and the new evidence Retrieved May 31, 2018, from
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8158126/
55. Which truth is legally important and rational in nature is the first issue that emerges. A fact
that seems sense from a logical standpoint could not hold up in court. The standards of evidence
require that any evidence offered in court be both relevant and acceptable.. It was established
that not all potentially relevant evidence is admissible in the case of State of UP v. Raj Narain
("AIR 1975 SC 865"5)5.The distinction between relevance and admissibility is laid forth in
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar6. Important information on facts that are all part of the
same transaction is provided in Section 6 of the India Evidence Act. According to sections 6
through section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act, the most relevant facts are those that are closely
related to the matter at hand, including motivation, cause, and effect. The Indian Evidence Act
of 1872 explains the importance of Confessions and previous cases. A person's character may
also be an important factor.Evidence of character and the part it plays. 7

ADMISSIBILITY OF FACTS -:

When assessing whether or not a certain piece of evidence would be helpful in coming to a
verdict in a case, the admissibility of facts is a factor that is taken into consideration. The
admissibility of evidence is a subject of law, and according to section 136 of the evidence act,
the decision about whether or not evidence should be allowed is made by the judge. The law,
not logic, determines whether or not evidence may be admitted. In rare cases, facts that seem
to have no logical relation at all may be admitted in legal proceedings. After an item of evidence
has been established as having logical relevance and been deemed legally admissible, the
manner in which it was collected is no longer relevant. If the evidence that is admissible and
the evidence that is not admissible are delivered together to the point where they cannot be
separated, then the whole body of evidence is deemed inadmissible. This may happen in
circumstances when it is virtually difficult to discern between an admissible evidence and one
that is not admissible. According to Loevinger, the rules that govern the admission of evidence
in civil and criminal proceedings are the same.8

5
AIR 1975 SC 865
6
AIR 1998 SC 1850
7
n.d.). Character evidence and the role it plays in court - LawTeacher. Retrieved May 31, 2018, from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/judicial-law/character-evidence-and-the-role-it-plays-in-court-law-
essay.php
8
(n.d.). Facts, Evidence and Legal Proof - Scholarly Commons - Case Retrieved May 31, 2018, from
RELIVENCY AND ADMISSIBILITY-:

Knowing the difference between admissibility and relevance is crucial. The law governs
whether or not evidence may be presented in court, while logic and probability determine
whether or not it is relevant.The second essential distinction between the two is the
characteristics. Whether or not evidence is admissible is called its admissibility, whereas
whether or not supplied facts are relevant to the facts in issue is called their relevance
(Croxford).

THE VALUE OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE-:

There is undeniably a need to alter the legislation relating to data innovation and the concepts
of acceptability of electronic evidence both in common and criminal concerns in India, given
the country's growing reliance on electronic methods for correspondences, web-based
company, and capacity of data in digital form. However, the increased use of technology
presents issues in appeasing and reflecting the new age developments in legislation across
jurisdictions, which has provided the much-needed impetus for the growth and activity around
digital evidence.

In 2000, in response to the changing times, the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('IT Act')
was introduced, which made parallel adjustments to preexisting Indian legislation to recognise
digital evidence. Changes were made to the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (the "Evidence Act"),
the Indian Penal Code of 1860 (the "IPC"), and the Banker's Book Evidence Act of 1891 as a
result of the Information Technology Act, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on
Electronic Commerce. As a result of the change in policy, Indian courts have developed
precedent concerning the admissibility of digital evidence.

Judges have also demonstrated sensitivity to the inherent "electronic" nature of evidence, which
includes familiarity with the acceptability of this type of evidence and an understanding of how
the law relates to the presentation and documentation of electronic evidence in a judicial
setting. While the use of electronic evidence in legal proceedings is not new in India, the
safeguards utilised to enable the creation of records have evolved significantly over time,
especially as the capacity and use of electronic data has grown and become more mind-

http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3731&context=caselrev
boggling. The earlier decision in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu,2 often
commonly referred to as the 'Parliament Assaults' case, was recently overturned by the
Supreme Court of India in the case of Anvar P. K. against P.K Basheer & Ors.1. The Supreme
Court rethought the admissibility of electronic documents in court by reinterpreting the use of
Sections 63, 65, and 65B of the Evidence Act to more closely reflect its provisions.

The reader will gain a better appreciation for the Supreme Court's decision and the ways in
which digital records can be presented as evidence in Indian courts with a brief introduction to
the Evidence Act and the fundamental standards of evidence.

It is generally accepted that, with the exception of reports, all facts may be proven by the
presentation of direct oral evidence. Any non-immediate oral evidence is not reliable, under
the prattle decision, unless it falls under one of the exceptions mentioned in sections 59 and 60
of the Evidence Act. However, unlike with oral evidence, archival research makes following
the rumour trail less difficult and more indirect. This is due to the fact that the archive can
easily defend itself in court and it is well-established in law that oral testimony cannot prove a
report's findings. Thus, in the absence of a written record, testimony given orally is useless.

Provided in terms of the reliability of the record; it cannot be compared to the report's contents.
Even while the report's archive has all the proof we need, we anticipate that there may be times
when even it is inaccessible. Accordingly, under section 63 of the Evidence Act, alternative
evidence such as certified copies of the report, copies created by mechanical techniques, and
oral recordings of person who has viewed the archive were permitted for the purposes of
showing the report's content. Thus, the arrangement for enabling optional evidence is an
attempt to accommodate the difficulties of anchoring the formation of narrative vital evidence
if the first is unavailable, which undermines the criteria of the gossip rule. There are exceptions
to the need of delivering important evidence of the report, as outlined in Section 65 of the
Evidence Act, and supplementary evidence, as outlined in Section 63 of the Evidence Act, may
be published. Included in this category are situations in which the original record is either

(i) in threatening ownership,

(ii) has been demonstrated by the partial gathering itself or any of its agents,
(iii)is lost or destroyed,
(iv) cannot be effectively moved, i.e. physically conveyed to the court,
(v) is an open archive of the state,
(vi) can be demonstrated by certified duplicates when the law barely allows, and
is a collection of multiple reports. The prattle lead was already experiencing issues before the
widespread use of digital record keeping. The increased prevalence of electronic storage of
evidence as a result of widespread record digitization has resulted in a greater propensity to
cite supporting evidence wherever digital evidence is provided.

A number of amendments have been made to the Evidence Act over the years, most notably to
allow for the admissibility of electronic records alongside paper based reports in Indian courts.
Some of the major changes include treating electronic documents as reports in order to provide
evidence.5 Segment 22A was inserted to accommodate the significance of oral evidence with
respect to the content of electronic records, and the definition of "admission"6 was expanded
to include any declaration, whether oral, narrative, or contained in electronic form, that
recommends any derivation as to any reality in issue or significant reality. This means that
unless the legitimacy of the transmitted electronic records is at stake, oral confessions about
the content of electronic records are meaningless.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE -:

To be acceptable in a legal proceeding, evidence must be both true and relevant.All acceptable
evidence is detailed in Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.(Mcdonald) 9.

"When any party seeks to present evidence of any fact, the Judge may question that party how
the claimed fact, if established, would be relevant; and the Judge must allow the evidence if he
considers that the fact, if shown, would be relevant, and not otherwise. If the proposed fact to
be proved is one for which proof of another fact is necessary, the latter fact must first be proven
before the former fact can be proven, unless the party undertaking to prove the former fact
undertakes to prove the latter fact and the Court is satisfied with the party's undertaking. When
the relevance of an allegation depends on the proof of another allegation, the judge may, at his
discretion, allow the first allegation to be proven before the second is proven, or require the
second allegation to be proven before the first is proven.

According to the preceding subsection, it is the exclusive prerogative of the Judge to determine
whether or not certain evidence will be admitted. In accordance with Section 6 to 55 of the

9
(2012, December 1). Principles of Evidence in Criminal Cases – Thomson Reuters New Retrieved May 31,
2018, from https://www.thomsonreuters.co.nz/landingpages/pdfs/Chapter-Extracts-Reviews/Extract-Principles-
Criminal-Evidence.pdf
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the presiding officer may ask the party to explain why a certain
fact or piece of evidence is important. If he doesn't think it's important, he won't be persuaded
(Kaye)10. In a strict sense, therefore, the relevance issue must be answered first, followed by
the admissibility question. Given the potential for abuse of the judge's discretion, it is crucial
that rules be established to prevent the judge from acting arbitrarily. Only relevant evidence,
but not necessarily all relevant evidence, is admitted in a court of law.In Ram Bihari Yadav v.
State of Bihar, the Supreme Court explicitly said this. The weight to be assigned to the evidence
depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case, and this is known as the
evidence's probative value.

Facts listed in Section 9 of the Evidence Act of 1872 are admissible in certain cases. Facts that
are essential to explain or introduce a fact that is in question or significant are considered
"relevant facts" by the court in Lakshman Das Chagan lal Bhatia v. State ("AIR 1968 Bom 400,
(1967) 69 BOMLR 808, 1968 CriLJ 1584")11.Evidence that either confirms or disproves a
conclusion drawn from the facts at handInformation that can be used to positively identify
something or someone,Time and location specifics of any significant or contested events,
Evidence of the parties' relationship to one another is also significant (Thomson).

A similar topic, admissibility, is covered in Section 11.

The Supreme Court ruled in Bibi Khaver v. Bibi Rukha(Gurnani) 12 that "in order for a collateral
fact to be admitted as relevant under this section, the prerequisites of the law are that the
collateral fact must itself be established by conclusive evidence; and it must, when established,
afford a reasonable presumption or inference as to the matter in dispute(National Conference
On Evidence Law: Contemporary Development)." 13There is no guarantee that any fact
presented as evidence will really hold up in court. It is up to the defence to prove that the
prosecution's evidence is improperly admitted. However, in some cases, the burden of proof

10
"Digging into the Foundations of Evidence Law" by David H. Kaye. Retrieved May 31, 2018, from
http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol115/iss6/8/
11
AIR 1968 Bom 400, (1967) 69 BOMLR 808, 1968 CriLJ 1584
12
[1904] 6 AIR 983 (BLR)
13
(2016, April 23). Evidence Law: Contemporary Development - Galgotias University. Retrieved May 31,
2018, from http://law.galgotiasuniversity.edu.in/pdf/hyperlink.pdf
shifts to the defendant (Kaplow). 14The judge has complete discretion over what evidence may
be presented in court. Evidence errors are not a basis for a new trial, and they cannot be used
to overturn a verdict on their own. A judge's authority under Section 136 is broad and must be
used responsibly. Therefore, it is essential that rules be established to help a presiding officer
determine whether or not a piece of evidence is admissible (Swift).

There is a risk that expanding a judge's discretion to admit or reject evidence at trial could
cause injustice.15 Because judges are human, just like everyone else, they should not be allowed
to use their own judgement when deciding whether or not certain pieces of evidence should be
admitted into court. One of the most renowned murderers of our time, Ted Bundy, was released
from prison due to inadmissible evidence (Rule) and went on to commit other atrocities while
evading capture Neither the law nor the judge should be responsible for deciding which pieces
of evidence may be presented in court.. No matter how it was obtained, even via an unlawful
search, all relevant evidence must be admitted into court. Due to inadmissible evidence, there
are many individuals living among us who will never be caught. This means we need a new
system for deciding whether or not to accept certain pieces of evidence.

CONCLUSION-:

Over the years, the Law of Evidence has developed into a crucial component in reaching
verdicts. The authority of the presiding officer to choose whether or not a piece of evidence is
admissible is tremendous and must be tempered by rules. The current state of evidence
legislation is antiquated and must be updated for the sake of the efficient operation of the
judicial system. Such a large amount of power should not be entrusted in a single human
individual, since this may easily lead to abuse of authority. No one individual should be able
to unilaterally interpret the law in any given situation. Therefore, it is essential to differentiate
between judicial discretion and the rule of law. As a result, the legislation has to be changed
immediately. Because judges are human, just like everyone else, they should not be allowed to
use their own judgement when deciding whether or not certain pieces of evidence should be
admitted into court. One of the most renowned murders of our time, Ted Bundy, was released

14
(2011, November 4). Burden of Proof by Louis Kaplow :: SSRN. Retrieved May 31, 2018, from
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/burden-of-proof
15
One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer's Triumph" by Retrieved May 31, 2018, from
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1481&context=californialawreview
from prison because the evidence against him was inadmissible. Neither the law nor the court
should decide whether or not evidence will be admitted. No matter how it was obtained, even
via an unlawful search, all relevant evidence must be admitted into court.Due to inadmissible
evidence, there are many individuals living among us who will never be caught.This means we
need a new system for deciding whether or not to accept certain pieces of evidence.

REFERANCES-:
[1] “AIR 1968 Bom 400, (1967) 69 BOMLR 808, 1968 CriLJ 1584.” Indian
Kanoon,

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/569786/. Accessed 2 June 2018.

[2] “AIR 1975 SC 865.” India Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/438670/. Accessed 2

June 2018.

[3] Croxford, Sarah. “Has the Evidence Act Been a Successful Codification? Is It a True
Code?” Victoria University of Wellington, 2015,
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/5114/paper.pdf?sequence=1.

[4] Goodison, Sean. “Digital Evidence and the US Criminal Justice System.” NCJRS,
2015, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248770.pdf.

[5] Hamer, David. “21st Century Challenges in Evidence Law.” Sydney Law Review,
2011, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2011/15.pdf.

[6] Ho, Hock Lai. “The Legal Concept of Evidence.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Nov. 2015, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/.

[7] Kaplow, Louis. “Burden of Proof.” Yale Law Journal, 2012,

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/burden-of-proof.

[8] Kaye, David. “Digging into the Foundations of Evidence Law 2017 Survey of Books
Related to the Law: Reviews 115 Michigan Law Review 2016-2017.” Michigan Law Review,
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mlr115&div=37&id=&page=
. Accessed 2 June 2018.

[9] Loevinger, Lee. “Facts, Evidence and Legal Proof.” Case Western Reserve Law
Review, vol. 9, no. 2, 1958,
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3731&context=caselrev.

[10] Mcdonald, Elisabeth. “PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES.”

Thomson Reuters, https://www.thomsonreuters.co.nz/landingpages/pdfs/Chapter-Extracts-
Reviews/Extract-Principles-Criminal-Evidence.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2018.
[11] National Conference On Evidence Law: Contemporary Development. Centre for
Criminal Justice Studies School of Law Galgotias University,
http://law.galgotiasuniversity.edu.in/pdf/hyperlink.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2018.

[12] “Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar.” India Kanoon,

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/643499/. Accessed 2 June 2018.

[13] Rule, Ann. The Stranger Beside Me. Planet Ann Rule, LLC, 2013.

[14] Swift, Eleanor. “One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer’s Triumph.”
California Law Review, 2010,
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1481&context=californiala
wrevi ew.

[15] Zhang, Nanning. “Recent Trends in Evidence Law in China and the New Evidence
scholarship[No Title].” Advance Access Publication, 2010

[16] Dr.Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S “In Vitro Evaluation of Anticariogenic Activity of

Acacia Catechu against Selected Microbes”, International Research Journal of
Multidisciplinary Science & Technology, Volume No. 3 , Issue No. 3, P.No 20-25, March
2018.

[17] Trishala A , Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S,“ Physicochemical profile of Acacia

catechu bark extract –An In vitro study”, International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary
Science & Technology, Volume No. 3 , Issue No. 4, P.No 26-30, April 2018.