Open Access Research Article
Admissibility of various Kinds of Evidence in Indian Courts- An Analysis.
Published Paper
Article Details
ADMISSIBILITY OF VARIOUS KINDS OF EVIDENCE IN INDIAN COURTS-
AN ANALYSIS.
AUTHORED BY - DR.J.JAMES JAYAPAUL[1]
ABSTRACT
Evidence forms the basis for proving
facts in a case. Though it can be said
that the evidence producing mode may be broadly classified as Direct Evidence
and Indirect Evidence. Futher the evidence by document method is classified as Primary
evidence and Secondary evidence. The court has recognized the other kinds of
evidence such as oral evidence, hearsay evidence etc which I am discussing below in detail. More
over in the present scenario there are other forms of evidence like electronic evidence,
which has been used in all transactions. The main criteria for accepting an evidence
is it must be genuine and satisfy all the norms of a valid evidence. The Golden
rules of evidence are of three categories. They are 1. Evidence produced must
be confined to the fact in issue. 2. Hearsay evidence to be avoided at the most
.3. Best acceptable relevant evidence should be given in all cases. Certain
kinds of evidences will be rejected by the court on the ground of public policy.
The court shall make presumptions on the basis of the evidence produced. If
there is any ambiguity in the words of an evidence , the court may apply its
inherent power and interpret to fulfill the objective of the maker. Therefore
the different kind of evidence shall be in such a proposition that it should
satisfy the court for delivering a justifiable Judgment. I have discussed in
this article about the various kind of evidence permissible and admissible by
the courts.
KEY WORDS: Evidence , Direct , Indirect , Kinds , Interpretation ,Admissibility .
1.INTRODUCTION
In its unique sense,
"Evidence" alludes to the condition of being clear , for example
plain, self-evident, or notable. Nonetheless, it is utilized to portray
something that will in general create proof or evidence. The central truth is
the one that should be demonstrated, and the evidentiary reality is the one
that will in general lay out it. To put it another way, one might say that,
correct evidence goes about as the eyes and ears of the court.
Sir William Blackstone defined evidence as “that which
demonstrates, makes clear or ascertains the truth of the facts or points in
issue.” . According to Mr.Faylor evidence is “All means which tend to prove or
disprove any matter, fact, the truth of which is submitted to judicial
investigation.”
Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary says evidence as “the state of being
evident, that is plain apparent or notorious”. Bentham says “evidence” as “any
matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of which is to produce in the
mind a persuasion affirmative or disaffirmative, of the existence of some other
matter of fact.”
Wigmore defined ‘evidence’ as
representing “Any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or logical
principle, considered with a view to its being offered before a legal Tribunal
to produce a persuasion, positive or negative, on the part of the Tribunal, as
to the truth of a proposition, not of law, or of logic, on which the
determination of the Tribunal is to be asked.”
Mr. James Stephen defines , “It
sometimes means words uttered and things exhibited by witnesses before a Court
of Justice. At other times, it means the facts proved to exist by those words
or things and regarded as grand work of inference as to other facts not so
proved. Again, it is sometimes used as meaning to assert that a particular fact
is relevant to the matter under inquiry.”
Section 3[2] says
‘Evidence’ means and includes the following:
“All statements made before the Court
by witnesses about matters of fact under investigation, which the Court permits
or requires; such statements are referred to as oral evidence”
“All documents (including electronic
records) presented for the inspection of the Court; such materials are referred
to as documentary evidence”.
Hence, the term "Evidence"
is characterized as whatever will in general check or deny the presence or non
presence of an expressed fact. The party who guarantees the presence of a
reality should demonstrate its presence, while the party who denies it should
negate its presence or lay out its non-presence.
2. KINDS OF EVIDENCE
a) DIRECT EVIDENCE : Direct Evidence is considered as basic proof for choosing the matter in
the issue. It straightforwardly demonstrates or invalidates the reality. In
such evidence, a particular reality is laid out straightforwardly without
giving motivation to associate with the reality. One scarcely needs to bring up
the delineation gave as the evidence of the observer in court is immediate
proof rather than a declaration to a reality recommending responsibility. Such evidence
is genuine, substantial, or obvious evidence of a reality that requires no
reasoning or thought to demonstrate its presence. In any case, depending on the
evidence totally with practically no thinking to demonstrate its presence can
be considered as a downside too. In Neeraj Datta Versus State ( N.C.T.of Delhi
) Held in a bribery case , “the mere receipt of any property or
valuable security would not tantamount to acceptance unless the bribe giver had
made an offer demanding favour from the public servant and that fact in issue
should be proved by direct evidence”. Therefore , If a person
sees anything he has to give evidence . If the person smells a thing , that
person has to give evidence . If a person hears anything that person has to
give evidence. It is called Direct Evidence. It is valid in the courts.
b) INDIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: It is the opposite of direct evidence,
in the sense that any third person giving evidence after hearing from the
original person. It is not valid. Dissimilar to direct evidence, circumstantial evidence
doesn't straightforwardly demonstrate a key reality. Rather, this kind of proof
demonstrates another reality and an individual can then make a sensible
derivation that a key truth occurred. Dying Declaration is an example. It is
valid if it is made by proper recognized procedures. In Bharad Bhirdi Chand
Sarda Versus state of Maharashtra[3] Held "Before accused can be convicted,
the fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the
commission of the crime morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable
doubt: the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and
compelling as to convince a jury that up on no rational hypothesis other than
murder can the facts be accounted for."
c) PRIMARY EVIDENCE: If the original document itself produced for the inspection of the court
as evidence , then it is called primary evidence. According to Section 62[4] it
is the permissible evidence without objection and explanation. It says “when a document is in various parts, each part of the
document forms a part of the primary evidence and if the documents are merely
copies of a common original work, then they cannot be considered as primary
evidence of the original work ” . The Supreme Court in J.Yasoda Versus Shobana
Rani[5] Held
that “it is a general rule that the Secondary evidence can be admitted
only in the absence of primary evidence and in a situation where the original
is found to be inadmissible as the party who files it to prove its validity has
failed to do so, then the said party cannot be allowed to introduce any
secondary evidence of its contents”
d) SECONDARY EVIDENCE: It is used in the absence of primary evidence and is
considered inferior to primary evidence. Section 63 deals about it. Section 65
prescribes the situation where the secondary evidence is admissible. Permission to be obtained from the court to file
secondary evidence on the specified grounds under section 65 including reasons
like unavailability or lost of original documents.
The fundamental essential for driving
secondary evidence is that the party depending upon the first archives couldn't
deliver them regardless of their earnest attempts, because of reasons outside
of its reach. Besides, to deliver secondary evidence under the steady gaze of
the official courtroom, the party should lay out the conceivable justification
behind the non-creation of primary evidence. secondary evidence can't be
acknowledged until it is laid out that the said unique reports are lost or are/have
been annihilated or have been intentionally kept by the party against whom the
said records were looked to be utilized.
The Supreme Court in Chandra
Versdus Thangamuthu[6] Held
that “the secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence
that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original and that should be
emphasized that the exceptions to the rule requiring primary evidence are
designed to provide relief in a case where a party is genuinely unable to
produce the original through no fault of that party.”
e) EXPERT EVIDENCE : The opinion of experts in any
particular field is dealt under Section 45 to 51 of the Indian Evidence Act. It
is defined As “When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign
law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger
impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such
foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or
finger impressions are relevant facts”.
An 'Expert'
witness is one who has committed time and study to a unique part of learning
and in this way is extraordinarily gifted on those focuses on which he is
approached to express his viewpoint. For the court to reach a satisfactory
conclusion, his evidence on these points is admissible. Even for determining a
scientific dispute, an expert having scientific mode of knowledge can be
brought as an expert. In Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi and
others[7]
held that Expert is a person who by his training and experience has
acquired the ability to express an opinion.
The opinion of an expert cannot be
used to interpret a provision of Law. In Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohammed Ali[8]
held that expert opinion is only‘opinion evidence’ . Therefore it
does not make the court in interpretation of the law. Section 73 in case of
disputed signatures, gives power to Judge for comparing and coming to a conclusion.
Any person who is
present in court may be asked to write down any words or figures so that the
Court can compare them to any words or figures that are alleged to have been
written by that person. This part applies likewise, with any essential
alterations, to finger-impressions.
In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors. (2003),
the Honourable Supreme Court Held that as per Section 73, the Court can compare and act as
an expert.
f) CHARACTER EVIDENCE: Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with Character
Evidence. It says that the term “conduct
includes both reputation and disposition”. “It is normally established that
reputation is the general opinion about an individual in the eyes of the others
whereas disposition is how that person is in real and what are his inherent qualities”.
Section 55 gives that in civil cases, evidence
of the good or bad character of the individual person is relevant in suits for
determining compensation. Similarly the good character of an accused is also
relevant in a criminal case except in situation if the accused tells lie. In Habeeb Mohammad vs The State Of Hyderabad[9] Held
by the Supreme Court that The accuser’s character can play a role in
determining whether they are innocent or guilty during criminal proceedings. It
can help in either making him dubious or liberated from every one of the
doubts. Accused will be allowed to prove general good character to determine
the quantum of punishment.
h) ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act of 1872 specifies a distinct framework for electronic evidence
admissibility. The Apex Court has taken opposing positions in a number of
litigations concerning Section 65B's scope and application. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Goratyal[10]
Judgment delivered by three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, clarifies the
interpretation of Section 65B. On the off chance that the competent authority
won't give the certificate, the party who wishes to depend on the electronic
record can apply to the Court for a request to create the essential testaments.
In light of this reason, the Court presumed that the commitment put by Section
65B(4) was compulsory, and not deliberate, and is a condition point of
reference before optional duplicates of an electronic record can be conceded.
It was held that the electronic proof ought to be introduced before the
preliminary starts, and at any stage preceding the culmination of the
preliminary, the Court can coordinate the creation of the authentication under
Section 65B(4). More over in Union of India & Others Versus Ravindra V.
Desai[11] ,
Held If the certificate is not produced as per section 65(B), it can be curable
later.
3. CONCLUSION:
Thus an analysis of the various kinds
of evidence shows that the final decision lies with the Judge to decide its admissibility
based on its corroboration with other evidences. Everything that is used to
acknowledge or explain the truth of a submission is considered evidence, and
each type is considered extremely important in determining a case's outcome.
Whether it is a common or a crook case, proof assumes a huge part as the
confirmation of realities won't be compelling without having any proof. In
addition, the various types of evidentiary proof are eminent concerning their
importance and suitability principles.
Article Information
Admissibility of various Kinds of Evidence in Indian Courts- An Analysis.
Authors: Dr.J.James Jayapaul
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/17
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.