Evidence is the material on the basis of which the Court can decide the case. Such evidence must be produced before the Court so that it can establish or disprove the point of contention between the parties. The Law of evidence is a very crucial piece of legislation which helps and guides the court in arriving at a conclusion with regard to the existence or non-existence of facts. The rules of evidence are necessary to bring out the truth in every case and the Court should stick to such rules. Basically, the rules of evidence are required to draw a line between relevant and irrelevant facts. There will be great uncertainty with regard to relevant matters, if the court started depending upon the discretion of the Judge in such matters in every case.
In contrast to the substantive laws, which deal with rights and liabilities, law of evidence is a procedural law which provides rules with regard to introduction of evidence to support the case and covers the fundamental principles of proof of facts, its type, quality and quantum etc in a legal proceeding. The Law of evidence is said to be the law of the forum or the lex fori.
The concept of burden of proof is also essential in the law of evidence. The concept is differently applied in civil and criminal cases. Burden of proof broadly means that whoever wants the Court to give a judgement as to any right or liability which is dependent on certain facts must prove existence of such facts. When a person is bound to prove certain existence of facts, it is said that “the burden of proof lies on that person”.
For deciding a civil case, preponderance of probability is sufficient. Preponderance of probability means existence of a greater weight of evidence which is valuable to determine the offence and sufficient enough to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue. The Judge generally takes into consideration that evidence which is persuasive and outweighs the other side. On the other hand in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution which should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The highest standard of proof which must be met in a trial court is that of beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the judge has no doubt of the defendant’s guilt.
Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines oral evidence and documentary evidence. The Act says that all those documents which are presented in the court for inspection are documentary evidence.
Section 60 of the Act provides for the recording of oral evidence. The most fundamental principle of oral evidence is that it must be direct. All facts except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
Evidence can also be classified into primary and secondary evidence. Primary evidence means that the document itself is produced for inspection. It is the best form of evidence. The evidence which is produced in the absence of primary evidence is known as secondary evidence. Secondary evidence is not admissible unless the primary evidence is proved to be lost or destroyed. Existence of facts needs to be proved by primary or secondary evidence, if there is no such evidence then the document cannot be said to be proved.
Primary evidence speaks for itself and it does not need corroboration. In case of secondary evidence, supplementary evidence needs to be provided so as to strengthen and confirm existence of facts. The Supreme Court has given a vivid description of corroborative evidence in the case of Rameshwar v/s State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54). Corroborative evidence refers to an additional evidence from an independent source which connects the accused with the crime and confirms/substantiates the complainant’s testimony. The corroboration need not be direct evidence.
Direct evidence of a fact means which can be perceived by the senses and it is always primary in nature. It is the strongest form of evidence. On the other hand, hearsay evidence is no evidence.
Hearsay evidence is that evidence which is based on information given by a third person. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in Court because information given by a third person cannot be trusted upon. In the case of Saktar Singh v/s State of Haryana (AIR 2004 SC 2570), The Supreme Court held that hearsay evidence means the statement of a witness not based on his personal knowledge but on what he heard from others and such evidence is not admissible.
However, there are few exceptionional circumstances under which hearsay evidence is admissible. Statement of a person may be proved by a witness if the fact stated by such person surrounds the relevant facts. This is called doctrine of res-gestae (section 6). An admission of liability or a confession of guilt which is outside the Court can be proved by the testimony of the person to whom such confession was made. Statement in public documents, such as official books and registers, Acts of Parliament are not needed to be proved by the draftsman of such document. Evidence given by a witness in proceeding can be used in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, provided that, the witness has died or is unavailable for some other reason. Hearsay evidence is also admissible in case of dying declaration. Statement of a dead person becomes relevant when it relates to his cause of death. Expert evidence of a third person is required when the Court has to form an opinion about some foreign law, science, art, and identification of handwriting or hand impression. An expert must have special training and experience on the subject matter upon which his opinion is asked for.
Evidence needs to be proved before the court admits such documents. Once the evidence is admitted, it cannot be further challenged. The general notion is that, any dispute regarding the admissibility of any document should be made by the opposite party at the trial level only. In contrast, there are various landmark judgments where admissibility of evidence has been challenged at an appellate level. In the case of R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder v/s Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr(2003 8 SCC 752), the admissibility of document was challenged at the appellate level. As per the case, the objection as to admissibility of evidence can be classified in two ways - (i) an objection that, the document which is to be proved was inadmissible; and (ii) an objection to the insufficient mode of proof of that document. In the first case, even if a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility can be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the second case, when the objection is regarding mode of proof of the document, it should be raised before the evidence is admitted. Once a document is admitted, objection to its mode of proof can’t be raised at a subsequent stage. It is fair play rule.
The Indian evidence Act, 1872 is dynamic in nature and has evolved with time. Two of the recent developments in the Act came with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 broadened the definition of “evidence” by substituting the words "all documents produced for the inspection of the Court", with “all document including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court". After section 65, sections 65A & 65B were inserted. Section 65A has special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records such as telephone conversation, CCTV footage, computer output etc. and section 65B deals with the admissibility of such electronic records. The Information Technology Act basically enhanced the Evidence Act by elaborating the scope of evidence (electronic records, digital signature etc.)
The most recent development in Evidence Act was in 2013 after the infamous Delhi rape case. Section 53A was inserted which says that evidence of character of the victim or any person with prior sexual experience is not relevant on the issue of consent or the quality of consent . Quality of consent means likelihood or probability of the victim to give consent. It is a scale of character where a woman is judged based on her sexual experience. If the woman is a virgin then it is very unlikely of her to give consent and as it is often generalized, women with prior sexual experience with different partners are more likely to give consent to any subsequent sexual act. Section 114A when the sexual intercourse of the victim is proved and the question is whether the victim consented or not, if she states in her statement that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent. The Amendment to section 146 made it clear that it is not permissible to introduce evidence or put questions in the cross examination of the victim as to her immoral character or her prior sexual experience for proving consent or quality of consent.
The procedural laws are as important as the substantive laws. Sometimes simple procedures are neglected which cause problem in the later stages of the trial or also in the appellate stage. Small loopholes can change the entire scenario of the case. In conclusion, procedural law is required for carving the path for proper functioning of the substantive laws. The law of evidence establishes a working structure for the courts from the grass root level. In some cases it is just a set of technical hurdles to buy time for the parties and delay justice but these laws are framed for the sole purpose of filtering out the truth and serving justice to the people of the country.
MODULE - I: Introduction and Relevancy
a) Evidence and its relationship with the substantive and procedural laws.
b) Definitions
i. Facts.
ii. Relevant Facts and Facts in issue.
Facts in issue are the matters which are in dispute or which form the subject of decision in the suit. They are facts out of which some legal right, liability, or disability, involved in the inquiry, necessarily arises and upon which a decision must be arrived at. They are matters affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Thus, if A is accused of the murder of B, the facts in issue will be that A caused B’s death, that he intended to cause B’s death, and so on. Relevant facts, on the other hand, are facts so connected with each other as to prove or disprove the facts in issue. Relevant facts are not themselves in issue, but are foundation of inferences regarding them.
One can, therefore, distinguish between ‘fact in issue’ and ‘relevant fact’ thus:
1. A fact in issue is a necessary ingredient of a right or liability. It is from such fact, either by itself or in connection with other facts, that the existence or non-existence of a right or liability necessarily follows. A relevant fact, on the other hand, is not a necessary ingredient of a right or liability.
2. A fact in issue is called the “principal fact” or factum probandum. A relevant fact is called the “evidentiary fact” or factum probans.
What is the meaning of facts in issue?
Definition of fact in issue. : a fact that is raised by the pleadings directly and is necessary to be determined by the decision so that it will become res judicata —distinguished from fact in controversy — compare issue of law.
What are relevant facts?
Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened ...
iii. Evidence proved, disproved and not proved.
A Court after considering the evidence adduced before it and hearing arguments, comes first to a conclusion as to the existence or non existence of the various facts asserted or denied by the parties and, after finding all the facts, applies the rule of law. If all the facts stated in the rule of law are found to exist, the right or liability which would follow according to the rule of law is decreed or ordered by the court. When a court finds that fact exist, the facts are said to have been approved, If the Court finds they do not exist, they are said to be disproved.
Section 3 defines proved, disproved and Not Proved as follows :
Proved -
A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
The term ‘proved’ is positive
When fact is proved the court gives judgment in favour of the person, who has proved it.
Disproved -
A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.
The term ‘disproved’ is negative.
When a fact is disproved no further question arises as to its proof.
Not proved -
A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.
The term ‘Not Proved’ is a mean between the terms proved and disproved.
When a fact is not proved, it implies further evidence either to prove or disprove the fact.
A fact is said to be not proved when either its existence nor its not existence is proved. It also indicates a state of mind in between the two, that is one cannot say whether a fact is proved or disproved. It negatives both proof and disproof.
iv. Oral and Documentary evidence.
Documentary evidence means all documents produced for the inspection of the Court. (S. 3)
Oral evidence means and includes all statements which the Court requires, or permits, to be made before it, by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; documentary evidence means and includes all documents produced for the inspection of the Court.
Oral evidence is a statement of witnesses; documentary evidence is a statement of documents. Documents are denominated as dead proof, as distinguished from witnesses who are said to be living proofs. Documentary evidence is superior to oral evidence in permanence, and in many respects, in trustworthiness. There are more ways of trying the genuineness of documentary evidence than there can be of disproving oral evidence. In many cases, the existence of documentary evidence excludes the production of oral evidence.
v. Relevant and Admissibility.
Evidence is relevant if it indicates a relationship between facts that increases the probability of the existence of the other. A trier of fact (judge or jury) determines the sufficiency or weight of the given evidence. In other words, the trier of law decides whether the evidence is relevant enough to be admitted, but the trier of fact decides how much ot counts (i.e. how much weight or probative value) in determining the verdict.
In order for evidence to meet the relevance threshold, there must be merely some probative value. It is for the trier of fact to decide whether there is sufficient probative value to convict.
Note: Even marginally probative evidence is admissible.
vi. Doctrine of res gestae.
Res Gestae is a Latin word which means "things done." This is the rule of law of evidence and is an exception to hearsay rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not admissible. It is a spontaneous declaration made by a person immediately after an event and before the mind has an opportunity to conjure a false story.
The author explained the various facet of the Doctrine of Res-Gestae with the help of various case laws and its interpretation from Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
“Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place of at different times and places”
The principal of law embodied in S.6 is usually known as the doctrine of res gestae. Facts which may be proved, as part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue but must be connected with it. Though hearsay evidence is not admissible, but when it is res gestae it can be admissible in a court of law and may be reliable evidence. This section is used by lawyers as a last resort so; there is not much case law on this section. The rationale behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement that there is hardly anytime for concoction. So, such statement must be contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter.
Res gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. So, it is pertinent to examine what is a transaction, when does it start and when does it ends. If any fact fails to link itself with the main transaction, it fails to be a res gestae and hence inadmissible. Res gestae include elements that fall outside the modern hearsay definition altogether, such as circumstantial evidence of state of mind, so-called “verbal acts,” verbal parts of acts, and certain non-verbal conduct. Because excited utterances are connected closely in time to the event and the excitement flows from the event, excited utterances were deemed part of the action (the “things done”) and hence, admissible despite the hearsay rule. Res gestae also hired the hearsay exceptions for present-sense impressions, excited utterances, direct evidence of state of mind, and statements made to physicians.
vii. Conspiracy.
A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence.
MODULE-II: Statement
a) Admissions
1) Meaning of Admission:
The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the existence or truth of a particular fact". But In the Evidence Act, the term 'Admission' has not been used in this wider sense. It deals with admissions by statements only oral or written or contained in an electronic form. Admission plays a very important role in judicial proceedings. If one party to the suit or any other proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case, the work of court becomes easier. An Admission must be clear, precise and not vague or ambiguous.
2) Definition of Admission:
According to 17 of Indian Evidence Act, "An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or [contained in electronic form (Amendment w.e.f. 17/10/2000)] which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned."
There are three parts of the definition:
1) It defines term "admission"
2) It says that an admission will be relevant only if it is made by any of the person specified in the Act.
3) "Admission" is Relevant only in the circumstances mentioned in the Act.
b) Confessions
The word “confession” appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section comes under the heading of Admission so it is clear that the confessions are merely one species of admission. Confession is not defined in the Act. Mr. Justice Stephen in his Digest of the law of Evidence defines confession as “confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.”
1. Confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him.
2. Confession if deliberately and voluntarily made may be accepted as conclusive of the matters confessed.
3. Confessions always go against the person making it
4. Confessions made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused (section 30)
5. Confession is statement written or oral which is direct admission of suit.
c) Dying Declarations
A statement by a person who is conscious and knows that death is imminent concerning what he or she believes to be the cause or circumstances of death that can be introduced into evidence during a trial in certain cases.
A dying declaration is considered credible and trustworthy evidence based upon the general belief that most people who know that they are about to die do not lie. As a result, it is an exception to the Hearsay rule, which prohibits the use of a statement made by someone other than the person who repeats it while testifying during a trial, because of its inherent untrustworthiness. If the person who made the dying declaration had the slightest hope of recovery, no matter how unreasonable, the statement is not admissible into evidence. A person who makes a dying declaration must, however, be competent at the time he or she makes a statement, otherwise, it is inadmissible.
A dying declaration is usually introduced by the prosecution, but can be used on behalf of the accused.
As a general rule, courts refuse to admit dying declarations in civil cases, even those for Wrongful Death, or in criminal actions for crimes other than the Homicide of the decedent.
State and Federal Rules of Evidence govern the use of dying declarations in their respective proceedings.
MODULE-III: Method of Proof of Facts
a)Presumptions.
b) Expert Opinion.
c) Character.
d) Oral and Documentary Evidence.
e) Rules relating to Burden of Proof.
f) Estoppel.
g) Privileged Communications.
MODULE-IV: Presumptions regarding discharge of Burden of Proof
a) Evidence by accomplice.
b) Judicial notice.
c) Dowry Death.
d) Certain Offences.
In contrast to the substantive laws, which deal with rights and liabilities, law of evidence is a procedural law which provides rules with regard to introduction of evidence to support the case and covers the fundamental principles of proof of facts, its type, quality and quantum etc in a legal proceeding. The Law of evidence is said to be the law of the forum or the lex fori.
The concept of burden of proof is also essential in the law of evidence. The concept is differently applied in civil and criminal cases. Burden of proof broadly means that whoever wants the Court to give a judgement as to any right or liability which is dependent on certain facts must prove existence of such facts. When a person is bound to prove certain existence of facts, it is said that “the burden of proof lies on that person”.
For deciding a civil case, preponderance of probability is sufficient. Preponderance of probability means existence of a greater weight of evidence which is valuable to determine the offence and sufficient enough to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue. The Judge generally takes into consideration that evidence which is persuasive and outweighs the other side. On the other hand in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution which should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The highest standard of proof which must be met in a trial court is that of beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the judge has no doubt of the defendant’s guilt.
Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines oral evidence and documentary evidence. The Act says that all those documents which are presented in the court for inspection are documentary evidence.
Section 60 of the Act provides for the recording of oral evidence. The most fundamental principle of oral evidence is that it must be direct. All facts except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.
Evidence can also be classified into primary and secondary evidence. Primary evidence means that the document itself is produced for inspection. It is the best form of evidence. The evidence which is produced in the absence of primary evidence is known as secondary evidence. Secondary evidence is not admissible unless the primary evidence is proved to be lost or destroyed. Existence of facts needs to be proved by primary or secondary evidence, if there is no such evidence then the document cannot be said to be proved.
Primary evidence speaks for itself and it does not need corroboration. In case of secondary evidence, supplementary evidence needs to be provided so as to strengthen and confirm existence of facts. The Supreme Court has given a vivid description of corroborative evidence in the case of Rameshwar v/s State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54). Corroborative evidence refers to an additional evidence from an independent source which connects the accused with the crime and confirms/substantiates the complainant’s testimony. The corroboration need not be direct evidence.
Direct evidence of a fact means which can be perceived by the senses and it is always primary in nature. It is the strongest form of evidence. On the other hand, hearsay evidence is no evidence.
Hearsay evidence is that evidence which is based on information given by a third person. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in Court because information given by a third person cannot be trusted upon. In the case of Saktar Singh v/s State of Haryana (AIR 2004 SC 2570), The Supreme Court held that hearsay evidence means the statement of a witness not based on his personal knowledge but on what he heard from others and such evidence is not admissible.
However, there are few exceptionional circumstances under which hearsay evidence is admissible. Statement of a person may be proved by a witness if the fact stated by such person surrounds the relevant facts. This is called doctrine of res-gestae (section 6). An admission of liability or a confession of guilt which is outside the Court can be proved by the testimony of the person to whom such confession was made. Statement in public documents, such as official books and registers, Acts of Parliament are not needed to be proved by the draftsman of such document. Evidence given by a witness in proceeding can be used in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, provided that, the witness has died or is unavailable for some other reason. Hearsay evidence is also admissible in case of dying declaration. Statement of a dead person becomes relevant when it relates to his cause of death. Expert evidence of a third person is required when the Court has to form an opinion about some foreign law, science, art, and identification of handwriting or hand impression. An expert must have special training and experience on the subject matter upon which his opinion is asked for.
Evidence needs to be proved before the court admits such documents. Once the evidence is admitted, it cannot be further challenged. The general notion is that, any dispute regarding the admissibility of any document should be made by the opposite party at the trial level only. In contrast, there are various landmark judgments where admissibility of evidence has been challenged at an appellate level. In the case of R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder v/s Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr(2003 8 SCC 752), the admissibility of document was challenged at the appellate level. As per the case, the objection as to admissibility of evidence can be classified in two ways - (i) an objection that, the document which is to be proved was inadmissible; and (ii) an objection to the insufficient mode of proof of that document. In the first case, even if a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility can be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the second case, when the objection is regarding mode of proof of the document, it should be raised before the evidence is admitted. Once a document is admitted, objection to its mode of proof can’t be raised at a subsequent stage. It is fair play rule.
The Indian evidence Act, 1872 is dynamic in nature and has evolved with time. Two of the recent developments in the Act came with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 broadened the definition of “evidence” by substituting the words "all documents produced for the inspection of the Court", with “all document including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court". After section 65, sections 65A & 65B were inserted. Section 65A has special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records such as telephone conversation, CCTV footage, computer output etc. and section 65B deals with the admissibility of such electronic records. The Information Technology Act basically enhanced the Evidence Act by elaborating the scope of evidence (electronic records, digital signature etc.)
The most recent development in Evidence Act was in 2013 after the infamous Delhi rape case. Section 53A was inserted which says that evidence of character of the victim or any person with prior sexual experience is not relevant on the issue of consent or the quality of consent . Quality of consent means likelihood or probability of the victim to give consent. It is a scale of character where a woman is judged based on her sexual experience. If the woman is a virgin then it is very unlikely of her to give consent and as it is often generalized, women with prior sexual experience with different partners are more likely to give consent to any subsequent sexual act. Section 114A when the sexual intercourse of the victim is proved and the question is whether the victim consented or not, if she states in her statement that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent. The Amendment to section 146 made it clear that it is not permissible to introduce evidence or put questions in the cross examination of the victim as to her immoral character or her prior sexual experience for proving consent or quality of consent.
The procedural laws are as important as the substantive laws. Sometimes simple procedures are neglected which cause problem in the later stages of the trial or also in the appellate stage. Small loopholes can change the entire scenario of the case. In conclusion, procedural law is required for carving the path for proper functioning of the substantive laws. The law of evidence establishes a working structure for the courts from the grass root level. In some cases it is just a set of technical hurdles to buy time for the parties and delay justice but these laws are framed for the sole purpose of filtering out the truth and serving justice to the people of the country.
MODULE - I: Introduction and Relevancy
a) Evidence and its relationship with the substantive and procedural laws.
b) Definitions
i. Facts.
ii. Relevant Facts and Facts in issue.
Facts in issue are the matters which are in dispute or which form the subject of decision in the suit. They are facts out of which some legal right, liability, or disability, involved in the inquiry, necessarily arises and upon which a decision must be arrived at. They are matters affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Thus, if A is accused of the murder of B, the facts in issue will be that A caused B’s death, that he intended to cause B’s death, and so on. Relevant facts, on the other hand, are facts so connected with each other as to prove or disprove the facts in issue. Relevant facts are not themselves in issue, but are foundation of inferences regarding them.
One can, therefore, distinguish between ‘fact in issue’ and ‘relevant fact’ thus:
1. A fact in issue is a necessary ingredient of a right or liability. It is from such fact, either by itself or in connection with other facts, that the existence or non-existence of a right or liability necessarily follows. A relevant fact, on the other hand, is not a necessary ingredient of a right or liability.
2. A fact in issue is called the “principal fact” or factum probandum. A relevant fact is called the “evidentiary fact” or factum probans.
What is the meaning of facts in issue?
Definition of fact in issue. : a fact that is raised by the pleadings directly and is necessary to be determined by the decision so that it will become res judicata —distinguished from fact in controversy — compare issue of law.
What are relevant facts?
Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened ...
iii. Evidence proved, disproved and not proved.
A Court after considering the evidence adduced before it and hearing arguments, comes first to a conclusion as to the existence or non existence of the various facts asserted or denied by the parties and, after finding all the facts, applies the rule of law. If all the facts stated in the rule of law are found to exist, the right or liability which would follow according to the rule of law is decreed or ordered by the court. When a court finds that fact exist, the facts are said to have been approved, If the Court finds they do not exist, they are said to be disproved.
Section 3 defines proved, disproved and Not Proved as follows :
Proved -
A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
The term ‘proved’ is positive
When fact is proved the court gives judgment in favour of the person, who has proved it.
Disproved -
A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.
The term ‘disproved’ is negative.
When a fact is disproved no further question arises as to its proof.
Not proved -
A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.
The term ‘Not Proved’ is a mean between the terms proved and disproved.
When a fact is not proved, it implies further evidence either to prove or disprove the fact.
A fact is said to be not proved when either its existence nor its not existence is proved. It also indicates a state of mind in between the two, that is one cannot say whether a fact is proved or disproved. It negatives both proof and disproof.
iv. Oral and Documentary evidence.
Documentary evidence means all documents produced for the inspection of the Court. (S. 3)
Oral evidence means and includes all statements which the Court requires, or permits, to be made before it, by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; documentary evidence means and includes all documents produced for the inspection of the Court.
Oral evidence is a statement of witnesses; documentary evidence is a statement of documents. Documents are denominated as dead proof, as distinguished from witnesses who are said to be living proofs. Documentary evidence is superior to oral evidence in permanence, and in many respects, in trustworthiness. There are more ways of trying the genuineness of documentary evidence than there can be of disproving oral evidence. In many cases, the existence of documentary evidence excludes the production of oral evidence.
v. Relevant and Admissibility.
Evidence is relevant if it indicates a relationship between facts that increases the probability of the existence of the other. A trier of fact (judge or jury) determines the sufficiency or weight of the given evidence. In other words, the trier of law decides whether the evidence is relevant enough to be admitted, but the trier of fact decides how much ot counts (i.e. how much weight or probative value) in determining the verdict.
In order for evidence to meet the relevance threshold, there must be merely some probative value. It is for the trier of fact to decide whether there is sufficient probative value to convict.
Note: Even marginally probative evidence is admissible.
vi. Doctrine of res gestae.
Res Gestae is a Latin word which means "things done." This is the rule of law of evidence and is an exception to hearsay rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not admissible. It is a spontaneous declaration made by a person immediately after an event and before the mind has an opportunity to conjure a false story.
The author explained the various facet of the Doctrine of Res-Gestae with the help of various case laws and its interpretation from Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
“Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place of at different times and places”
The principal of law embodied in S.6 is usually known as the doctrine of res gestae. Facts which may be proved, as part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue but must be connected with it. Though hearsay evidence is not admissible, but when it is res gestae it can be admissible in a court of law and may be reliable evidence. This section is used by lawyers as a last resort so; there is not much case law on this section. The rationale behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement that there is hardly anytime for concoction. So, such statement must be contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter.
Res gestae includes facts which form part of same transaction. So, it is pertinent to examine what is a transaction, when does it start and when does it ends. If any fact fails to link itself with the main transaction, it fails to be a res gestae and hence inadmissible. Res gestae include elements that fall outside the modern hearsay definition altogether, such as circumstantial evidence of state of mind, so-called “verbal acts,” verbal parts of acts, and certain non-verbal conduct. Because excited utterances are connected closely in time to the event and the excitement flows from the event, excited utterances were deemed part of the action (the “things done”) and hence, admissible despite the hearsay rule. Res gestae also hired the hearsay exceptions for present-sense impressions, excited utterances, direct evidence of state of mind, and statements made to physicians.
vii. Conspiracy.
A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence.
MODULE-II: Statement
a) Admissions
1) Meaning of Admission:
The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the existence or truth of a particular fact". But In the Evidence Act, the term 'Admission' has not been used in this wider sense. It deals with admissions by statements only oral or written or contained in an electronic form. Admission plays a very important role in judicial proceedings. If one party to the suit or any other proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case, the work of court becomes easier. An Admission must be clear, precise and not vague or ambiguous.
2) Definition of Admission:
According to 17 of Indian Evidence Act, "An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or [contained in electronic form (Amendment w.e.f. 17/10/2000)] which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned."
There are three parts of the definition:
1) It defines term "admission"
2) It says that an admission will be relevant only if it is made by any of the person specified in the Act.
3) "Admission" is Relevant only in the circumstances mentioned in the Act.
b) Confessions
The word “confession” appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section comes under the heading of Admission so it is clear that the confessions are merely one species of admission. Confession is not defined in the Act. Mr. Justice Stephen in his Digest of the law of Evidence defines confession as “confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.”
1. Confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him.
2. Confession if deliberately and voluntarily made may be accepted as conclusive of the matters confessed.
3. Confessions always go against the person making it
4. Confessions made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused (section 30)
5. Confession is statement written or oral which is direct admission of suit.
c) Dying Declarations
A statement by a person who is conscious and knows that death is imminent concerning what he or she believes to be the cause or circumstances of death that can be introduced into evidence during a trial in certain cases.
A dying declaration is considered credible and trustworthy evidence based upon the general belief that most people who know that they are about to die do not lie. As a result, it is an exception to the Hearsay rule, which prohibits the use of a statement made by someone other than the person who repeats it while testifying during a trial, because of its inherent untrustworthiness. If the person who made the dying declaration had the slightest hope of recovery, no matter how unreasonable, the statement is not admissible into evidence. A person who makes a dying declaration must, however, be competent at the time he or she makes a statement, otherwise, it is inadmissible.
A dying declaration is usually introduced by the prosecution, but can be used on behalf of the accused.
As a general rule, courts refuse to admit dying declarations in civil cases, even those for Wrongful Death, or in criminal actions for crimes other than the Homicide of the decedent.
State and Federal Rules of Evidence govern the use of dying declarations in their respective proceedings.
MODULE-III: Method of Proof of Facts
a)Presumptions.
b) Expert Opinion.
c) Character.
d) Oral and Documentary Evidence.
e) Rules relating to Burden of Proof.
f) Estoppel.
g) Privileged Communications.
MODULE-IV: Presumptions regarding discharge of Burden of Proof
a) Evidence by accomplice.
b) Judicial notice.
c) Dowry Death.
d) Certain Offences.
