LAW OF EVIDENCE

By

Dr.P.R.L.Rajavenkatesan
Assistant Professor(Senior)
VIT LAW SCHOOL
Chennai
 INTRODUCTION
 There was no complete or systematic
enactment.
 Calcutta, Bombay and Madras-The Courts
established by Royal Charter followed the
English rules of Evidence.
 Outside the Presidency Towns, there were no
fixed rules of evidence.
 Mofussil courts used to be guided by occasional
directions-Old Regulations-between 1793-1834.
 Introduction
 English law of evidence based as it is on the
social and legal institutions of England was not
applicable here in its entirety , owing to the
peculiar circumstances of this country.
 Competent knowledge of the English law could
then be hardly expected from the judges, and so
a strict application of that law would result in
miscarriage of justice.
 R v. Khairulla, 6 WR Cr 21.
 English law of evidence was not the law of the
mofussil courts and it was further held that the
rules of evidence contained in the Hindu and
Mahomedan laws were also not applicable to
those courts.
 Introduction
 First attempt-Act of 10 of 1835 – which was
applicable to all Courts in British India.
 Between 1835 and 1853, a series of Acts were
passed by the Indian Legislature-Which was
advocated by Bentham and introduced in
England by Lords Broughan and Denman.
 Introduction
 In 1856, Sir Henry Summer Maine, the then law
member of the Governor General’s Council was
asked to prepare and Indian Evidence Act. His
draft was found unsuitable for the Indian
conditions. So it fell to Sir James Fitzjames
Stephan who became the law member in 1871 to
come up with the Indian Evidence Act. His
draft bill was approved and came into being as
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and came into
force from 1st September 1872.
   The Act is based entirely on the English law of
Evidence- Only 167 sections.
 Introduction

 Ram jas v. Surendra Nath, AIR 1990 All 385.

 It is the procedural side of law which lays down
the rules of evidence.
 How a fact is to be proved and it helps in
preventing the wastage of court’s valuable time
upon irrelevant issues.
 Evidence
 Judicial investigation is the enforcement of a
right or liability that depends on certain facts.
 Procedural Law
 The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the Latin
terms ‘evident’ or ‘evidere’ that mean ‘to show
clearly, to discover, to ascertain or to prove.’
 Evidence is a means of proof. Facts have to be
proved before the relevant laws and its
provisions can be applied.
 Evidence
 According to Sir Blackstone, ‘Evidence’
signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear or
ascertain the truth of the facts or points in issue
either on one side or the other.
 According to Sir Taylor, Law of Evidence means
through argument to prove or disprove any
matter of fact. The truth of which is submitted
to judicial investigation.
 Evidence
 Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872
 All the statements which the court permits or
requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such
statements are called Oral evidence;
  All the documents including electronic records
produced for the inspection of the court; such
documents are called documentary evidence.
 Case Law
 Sivrajbhan v. Harchandgir AIR 1954 SC 564
 “The word evidence in connection with Law, all
valid meanings, includes all except agreement
which prove, disprove any fact or matter whose
truthfulness is presented for Judicial
Investigation. At this stage it will be proper to
keep in mind that where a party and the other
party don’t get the opportunity to cross-examine
his statements to ascertain the truth then in such
a condition this party’s statement is not
Evidence.”
 Evidence

 Admit guilty- No issue-If not-Evidence

required.
 Administration of Justice-Based on Evidence
 Parties cannot contract to exclude the Act.
 Direct- Circumstantial-Hearsay  Documentary-  Oral- 
Scientific- Real-Digital
 LEX FORI
 Law of Evidence is part of the law of procedure.
 Lex Fori-Law of the Court or Forum
 Indian Courts Know and apply only the Indian
Law of Evidence
 A civil case of will and murder will have the
same law of evidence. 
 Types of Evidences
 Oral Evidence– Section 60 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 prescribed the provision of
recording oral evidence. All those statements
which the court permits or expects the witnesses
to make in his presence regarding the truth of
the facts are called Oral Evidence. Oral
Evidence is that evidence which the witness has
personally seen or heard. Oral evidence must
always be direct or positive.
 Types of Evidence
 Documentary Evidence– Section 3 of The
Indian Evidence Act says that all those
documents which are presented in the court for
inspection such documents are called
documentary evidences. In a case like this it is
the documentary evidence that would show the
actual attitude of the parties and their
consciousness regarding the custom is more
important than any oral evidence
 Types of Evidence
 Primary Evidence-Section 62 of The Indian
Evidence Act says Primary Evidence is the Top-
Most class of evidences. It is that proof which in
any possible condition gives the vital hint in a
disputed fact and establishes through
documentary evidence on the production of an
original document for inspection by the court.
 Types of Evidence
 Secondary Evidence– Section 63 says
Secondary Evidence is the inferior evidence. It is
evidence that occupies a secondary position. It is
such evidence that on the presentation of which
it is felt that superior evidence yet remains to be
produced. It is the evidence which is produced
in the absence of the primary evidence therefore
it is known as secondary evidence.
 Types of Evidence

 Real Evidence– Real Evidence means real or

material evidence. Real evidence of a fact is
brought to the knowledge of the court by
inspection of a physical object and not by
information derived from a witness or a
document.
 Types of Evidence
 Hearsay Evidence– Hearsay Evidence is very
weak evidence. It is only the reported evidence
of a witness which he has not seen either heard.
Sometime it implies the saying of something
which a person has heard others say.  witness
has neither personally seen or heard, nor has he
perceived through his senses and has come to
know about it through some third person
 Nexus and Credibility
 Types of Evidence
 Judicial Evidence– Evidence received by
court of justice in proof or disproof of facts
before them is called judicial evidence. The
confession made by the accused in the court is
also included in judicial evidence. Statements of
witnesses and documentary evidence and facts
for the examination by the court are also Judicial
Evidence.
 Types of Evidence

 Non-Judicial Evidence– Any confession

made by the accused outside the court in the
presence of any person or the admission of a
party are called Non-Judicial Evidence, if proved
in the court in the form of Judicial Evidence.
 Types of Evidence
 Direct Evidence– Evidence is either direct or
indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence which
is very important for the decision of the matter
in issue. The main fact when it is presented by
witnesses, things and witnesses is direct,
evidence whereby main facts may be proved or
established that is the evidence of person who
had actually seen the crime being committed and
has described the offence.
 Eye witness
 Case Law
 Vikram v. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2007 SC
1893
 Where the eye-witnesses were examined in the
Court two and half years latter, some
contradictions or even omissions to state the
incident in great details by itself would not lead
to a conclusion that the appellants had been
falsely implicated in the case.
 Case Law
 State of U.P. v. Krishna Master,AIR 2010 SC
3071
 Generally in oral evidence of crime normal
discrepancies exist. They are due to errors of
observation , mental disposition, shock and
horror at the time of incident. Such
discrepancies do not make evidence unreliable
unless they go to root of matter.
 Case Law
 Inimical Witness-The testimony of eye-
witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the
ground of being inimical to the accused persons.
 Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari v. State of
Maharashtra ,AIR 2008 SC 161
 There were enmity between witnesses and
accused person.
 Previous police complaint.
 Case Law

 Absence of Injury on eye-witness to crime

 Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana,AIR 2011 SC
2719
 Merely because there is absence of injury on the
person of the eye-witness, his presence at the
place of occurrence does not become doubtful.
 Types of Evidence
 Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect
Evidence– There is no difference between
circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence attempts to prove the
facts in issue by providing other facts and
affords an instance as to its existence.
 Case Laws
 Durga Prasad Singh v. Ram Dayal
Chaudhari,ILR 38 Cal.153
 FIR is not a substantive peace of evidence.
 It can be used to corroborate the evidence of
the person lodging the same.
 State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai AIR
2003 SC 2053.
 Examination of witness through Video
Conferencing has been approved.
 Case Laws
 Ram Singh v. Ramsing (Col.) AIR 1986 SC 3
 Justice Fazal Ali laid down the following tests
regarding the admissibility of tape-recorded
version.
 The voice of the speaker must be identified by
the maker of the record or other person
recognizing his voice.
 Tape recorded statement must be relevant.
 The voice of the particular speaker must be
clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted
by other sounds or disturbances.
 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is divided into 3
parts, 11 chapters and comprises of 167 sections.
 Part-I answers the question ‘what facts may or
may not be proved?’ (Ch.I & II – Ss-1 to 55) 
Part-II deals with ‘what sort of evidence is to be
given of these facts?’ (Ch.III – VI Ss-56 to100)
 Part-III covers ‘by whom and in what manner
the facts are to be proved?’ (Ch-VII to XI; Ss-
101 to 167)  Sec-5 to 55 deal with
RELEVANCY and  Sec-56 to 167 deal with
the ADMISSIBILITY.
 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT
 The Indian Evidence Act,1872 came into force
on 1st. September, 1872. It applies to the whole
of India except J & K. It applies to all judicial
proceedings in or before a court, including court
martials.
 Affidavits ii) Arbitration proceedings. The
provisions of this Act are not applicable to
Departmental Inquiries / Domestic
Inquiries/Commissions of Inquiries /
Administrative Tribunals
 Interpretation Clause
 Sec.3. “Court”-Includes all Judges and
Magistrate and all persons ,except arbitrators,
legally authorized to take evidence.
 Sec.391 of Cr.P.C., Order 41,R.27 of C.P.C.
 Fact- Fact means and includes-
 (1) Anything, state of things, or relation of
things, capable of being perceived by the senses
 (2) Any mental condition of which any person
is conscious.

Interpretation
Illustrations
Clause
 (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a
certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
 (b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.
 (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
 (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a
certain intention, acts in good faith or
fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a
particular sense, or is or was at a specified time
conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
 That a man has certain reputation , is a fact.
 Fact

 Fact means an existing things

 Physical and Psychological Facts-A horse, a
man, are physical facts.
 Psychological Facts- The sensation or
recollection of which man is conscious , his
desires , his intentions in doing particular
acts,etc.
 Positive Facts-Existence of certain state of
things
 Negative Facts-Non existence of it.
 Interpretation Clause
 “Relevant”-One fact is said to be relevant to another 
when the one is connected with the other in any of the 
ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating 
to the relevancy of the facts.
   Logically  relevant-When  a  fact  is  connected  with 
other fact
  Legally relevant-If the law relevant it to be relevant.
 Interpretation Clause
 “Facts in Issue”-Any fact from which, either 
by itself or in connection with the other facts, 
the existence, non-existence, nature or extent 
of any right , liability or disability, asserted or 
Interpretation Clause

denied in any suit or proceedings. 
 No list is given in Evidence Act of the Facts in
Issue. The Court has to frame in every case.
 Fact in Issue
 A is a cashier in a factory. It is his duty to bring
money from bank and distribute it to the
labourers. A case under sec.409,I.P.C., “Criminal
Breach of Trust” is started against him. The case
against him is that he brought Rs.25,000 from
the bank and misappropriated Rs.13,000 out of
it. A says in his defence that he brought the
case from the bank and as he was to go on leave
that day, he according to the direction of the
Manager of the company , handed over
Rs.25,000 to B,the Assistant Cashier.
 Fact in Issue
 Order XIV,Rule 1,C.P.C. lays down that “issues
arises when a material proposition of fact or law
is affirmed by the one party and denied by the
other”.
 Sec.6 of Indian Evidence Act-Facts forming
part of the same transaction.
 Sec.7.Facts which are occassion,cause or effect
of the facts in Issue
 Relevant Facts
 Sec.8.Motive,preparation, conduct of a party.
 Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain the facts in
Issue
 Sec.10.Things said or done by conspirators.
 Sec.11.Facts inconsistent with facts in issue.
 Sec.12. Facts helping in estimate of damages
 Sec.13.Transaction creating right
 Sec.14.Facts stating of mind or body
 Relevant Facts
 Sec.15.Facts showing whether act is intentional
or accidental
 Sec.16.Existence of course of business
 (Sections 17 to 23 and 31)-Admission
 Sections(24 to 30) –Confession
 Sections(32-33)-Statements of persons who are
dead or cannot be found
 Sections(34-39)-Statements made under special
circumstances.
 Relevant Facts
 Sections-40 to 44(Judgments)
 Sections-45 to 47-Opinions of experts and
others
 Sections-48-49- Opinions as to the existence of
customs and usages
 Section-50-Opinion on relationship
 Section-52 to 55-Charactor
 Exaggeration in Evidence
 Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC
1979
 If the witness exaggerates evidence , it does not
make it completely unreliable. The Court has to
separate grain from chaff.
 Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery
to a story , however, true in the main. It has to
be appraised in each case as to what extent the
evidence is worthy of credence.
 Proof
 Proof of Drunkenness-
 George Kutty v. State of Kerala ,1992 Cr LJ
1663 (Ker)
 Blood or urine test is not a must for proving the
charge of drunkenness. Drunkenness is a
question of fact and smelling of alcohol,
unsteady gait, dilation of pupils, incoherent
speech would all be relevant considerations.
 Last Seen Theory
 State of UP V. Satish 2005 (3) SCC 114
 The last seen theory comes into play where the
time-gap between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were last seen alive
and the deceased is found dead is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused
being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. Even in such a case, the Courts
should look for corroboration.
 Standard of Proof in Civil and
Criminal Cases
 In Civil cases,mere preponderance of
probability
 Criminal Proceedings – Much higher degree of
proof is needed before the person is convicted.
 In Civil cases the burden may lie on either of
the parties.
 Proved
 Sec.3.Proved-A fact is said to be proved when,
after considering the matter 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.
 Proved
 Proof- It must mean such evidence as would
induce a reasonable man to come to the
conclusion- Bhano v. Babu Singh, 1998 Cr LJ
4768(Raj), Facts must be proved by the best
evidence available.
 Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
perfect proof , which may sound artificial.
 Inder Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.,) AIR 1978
SC 1091
 Conjecture and Surmise
 Circumstantial Evidence-Chain and
Connectivity
 The court must keep in mind that there lies a
long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and
‘must be true’.
 Civil Cases and Criminal Cases
Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus
 False in one thing, false in everything
 It is neither sound rule of law or a rule of
practice.
 This maxim does not apply to criminal trial
because the court has to disengage the truth
from falsehood.
 Hari Chand v. State of Delhi,AIR 1996 SC 1477
 It is well settled law that evidence may be
accepted partially or in the whole.
 Proved
 Letters of married woman to her father
apprehending danger.
 Mass Killing by Mob- Overt act-Participation in
Crime.
 Rajendra Kumar v. State of UP., 1998 Cr LJ
3293
 Medicial opinion about husband conduct
towards wife dying burns.
 He tried to hold her by his hands and prevented
her from going out of room.
 Sole Witness
 A conviction can be based on the single
testimony of an eye-witness if the witness is
wholly reliable and his statements inspires full
confidence.
 Bachchu v. State of U.P., 1999 Cr LJ 1967 (All).
 In a case of bribery , corroboration of the
evidence of the complainant need not be a
direct. It can be by circumstantial evidence also.
 Mode of Obtaining Evidence
 Pushpadevi M Jatia v. M L Wadhawan AIR
1987 SC 1748
 Relevant evidence can be taken into account
irrespective of the methods by which it was
obtained.
 DNA Test

 Divorce
 Adultery
 Property Dispute
 High Court has an inherent power .
 Case Law
 Mavada Venkateswara Rao v. Oleti Vana
Lakshmi, AIR 2008 AP 195
 The property in dispute was the self acquired
property of the mother. The suit for partition
was filed by the plaintiff(daughter). The son was
defendant. He stated that the plaintiff and her
brother were destitute and not born to his
mother. As such they had no right of
inheritance. The court said that the maternity of
the parties was thus disputed. The court directed
both the parties to undergo DNA test.
 Contradictory Statement
 Murugan v. State , 1993 Cr LJ 1259
 Where the statement of an injured eye witness
before the police and thereafter before the court
were contradictory, it was held that his
testimony was not reliable.
 State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh AIR 1997 SC
2780
 Where the postmortem report was prepared
jointly by two doctors , examination of one of
them who had done major work was held to be
sufficient.
 Variance between Medical Evidence and Circumstantial
Evidence
 State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik,1995 Cr LJ
483 (SC)
 The domestic servant killed three members of
the family , the fourth (the witness) managed to
save herself by locking herself in the bathroom.
She heard voices which clinchingly showed the
involvement of the domestic servant. Her
evidence , though not direct, was that of
circumstances surrounding the transaction. It
was relevant and sufficient to support
conviction.
 State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji
Naik Naik,1995 Cr LJ 483 (SC)
 Where the doctor conducting autopsy was not
in a position to give definite opinion regarding
the cause of death, it was held that the court
could convict the accused on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.
 Disproved
 Sec.3.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 ‘not proved’ indicates a state of mind
between two states of mind “proved and
disproved” when one is unable to say precisely
how the matter stands.
 May Presume-Shall Presume-
Conclusive Proof
 May Presume-Sec.4. Whenever it is provided by
this Act that the Court may presume a fact , it
may either regard such fact as proved, unless
and untill it is disproved, or may call for
 Shall Presume-Sec.4.Whenever it is directed by
this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it
shall regard such fact as proved, unless and untill
it is disproved.
 May Presume-Shall Presume-
Conclusive Proof
 Conclusive Proof-When one fact is declared by
this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the
Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the
other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to
be given for the purpose of disproving it.
 A presumption means a rule of law that Courts
and Judges shall draw a particular inference from
a particular fact, or from particular evidence,
unless and untill the truth of such inference is
disproved.
 Case Law
 Umashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh,AIR 2001
SC 3074
 It was alleged against an eighteen year old
student that he had passed a fake not of Rs.100
to a shop keeper and 13 more such notes were
recovered from him, it was held by the Supreme
Court that the presumption thus created was not
sufficient to prove the mens rea requirement
under s.489-B ,IPC, that he knew or had reason
to believe that notes in question were forged or
counterfeit.
 Nirmal Das Bose v. Mamta Gulati AIR 1997
All 401
 A marriage certificate issued under the Special
Marriage Act is a conclusive evidence of the
solemnization of marriage under the Act and
also compliance of formalities and signatures of
parties and witnesses. The genuineness of the
compliance procedure is a different question. It
remains questionable.
 RELEVANCY OF FACTS
 From section 5 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts.
 Sec.5.Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding
of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue
and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be
relevant and of no others.
 Illustrations- A is tried for the murder of B by beating
him with a club with the intention of causing his death-
 A’s beating B with the club,A’s causing B’s death by
such beating,A’s intention to cause B’s death.
Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra,
(2012) 11 SCC 685
 Where the entire evidence of eyewitnesses was
not accepted by the High Court, it was held by
Supreme Court that the accused cannot be
convicted for an offence under s.302 Indian
Penal Code merely on the basis of the post-
mortem report. The post-mortem report should
be in corroboration with the evidence of
eyewitnesses and cannot be an evidence
sufficient to reach the conclusion for convicting
the accused.
 Relevancy of Facts forming part
of same transaction
 Sec.6.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 or at
different times and places.
 A is accused of the murder of B by beating him.
Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-
standers at the beating, or so shortly or after it as
to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
 Relevancy of Facts forming part
of same transaction
 A is accused of waging war against
the [ Government of India] by taking part in an
armed insurrection in which property is
destroyed troops are attacked and goals are
broken open. The occurrence of these facts is
relevant, as forming part of the general
transaction, though A may not have been
present at all of them.
 Relevancy of Facts forming part
of same transaction
 A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part
of a correspondence. Letters between the parties
relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and
forming part of the correspondence in which it is
contained, are relevant facts, though they do not
contain the libel itself.
 The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B
were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to
several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery
is a relevant fact.
 Relevancy of Facts forming part
of same transaction
 Res gestae- The Things done(including words
spoken in the course of a transaction)

 But in the nineteenth century, the borrowing of 
the concept of res gestae from English
Law offerean exception to this rule. Res gestae is
 based on the belief that because certain stateme
nts are made naturally,
spontaneously, and without deliberation during t
he course of an event, they carry a high degree o
f redibility and leave little
 Case Law
 Rattan v. Reginam-
 which dealt with the admissibility of the
statement of a telephone operator who received
a call from the deceased minutes before she was
allegedly murdered by her husband. The Council
characterised the statement as original evidence
of 'verbal facts', as opposed to hearsay evidence,
as the object of admitting the statement was not
to establish the truth of the statement made, but
merely to establish the fact that it was made. 
 Newspaper Report
 All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v.
State Election Commission,AIR 2007 NOC
1801 (Mad-FB)
 A newspaper report can be relied on by the
Election Commission while deciding a petition
in connection with repolling. In similar
circumstances the High Court can also rely on
newspaper reports.
FACTS-OCCASSION-FACT IN
ISSUE
 Sec.7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or
effect of facts in issue
 Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect,
immediately or otherwise, of relevant facts, or
facts in issue, or which constitute the state of
things under which they happened, or which
afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or
transaction, are relevant.
 Illustrations
 The question is, whether A robbed B.
  The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B
went to a fair with money in his possession, and
that he showed it or mentioned the fact that he
had it, to third persons, are relevant.
  The question is whether A Poisoned B.
  The state of B’s health before the symptoms
ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A,
which afforded an opportunity for the
administration of poison, are relevant facts.
Annasuyamma v. State of Karnataka , 2002 Cr
LJ 4401 (Kant)
 Property recovered from accused by the
deceased, murder of the deceased. The court
said that unless it could be conclusively
established that the property was with the
deceased at the time of the offence , the
question of property would not be good enough
to establish nexus with the murder.
 Motive -Preparation
 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conduct
 Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a
motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant
fact.
  The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party,
to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or
proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein
or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an
offence against whom is subject of any proceeding, is
relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by
any fact ins issue or relevant fact, and whether it was
previous or subsequent thereto.
 Illustrations
 (a) A is tried for the murder of B.
 The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that
A had murdered C, and B had tried to had
extort money from A by threatening to make his
knowledge public, are relevant.
  (b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of
money. B denies the making of the bond.
 the fact that, at the time when the bound was
alleged to be made, B required money for a
particular purpose, is relevant.
 Illustrations
 (c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.
  The fact that, before the death of B, A procured
poison similar to that which was administered to B, is
relevant.
  (d) The question is, whether a certain document is the
will of A. 
 The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged
will, A made inquiry into matters to which the
provisions of the alleged will relate that the consulted
vakils in reference to making the will, and that he
caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which he
did not approve, are relevant.
 Illustrations
 (e) A is accused of a crime.
  The facts that, after the commission of the
alleged crime, he absconded, or was in
possession of property of the proceeds of
property acquired by the crime, or attempted to
conceal things which were or might have been
used in committing if, are relevant.
 Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 Cal 482

 Previous threats, previous altercations, or

previous litigations between parties are admitted
to show motive.
 Sarojini v. State of M.P 1993 AIR SCW 817
 It was held that pre-marital demand of dowry
and its non-compliance are relevant facts to
establish motive. In a bride burning case , the
parents of the deceased did not agree to transfer
and register the land in the name of their son-in-
law.
 Distinction between Admissibility and Relevancy
Admissibility Relevancy

Admissibility is not based on Relevancy is based on logic and

logic but on strict rules of law probability
The rules of admissibility are The rules of relevancy are
prescribed after section 56 of described under Sections 5-55
Evidence Act,1872

The admissibility declares The rules of relevancy declares

whether certain type of relevant what is relevant
evidence are admissible

Modes of admissibility of Under Evidence Act the rules of

relevant evidence relevancy means relevant
evidence. They may be
admissible or not

The facts which are admissible The facts which are relevant are
are necessarily relevant not necessarily admissible
 Relevancy
 Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain or introduce
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
any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or
fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or
relevant fact happened, or which show the
relation of parties by whom any such fact was
transacted, are relevant in so far as they are
necessary for that purpose.
 Illustrations
 The question is, whether a given document is
the will of A.
 The state of A’s property and of his family at the
date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.
 (b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful
conduct to A;B affirms that the matter alleged to
be libelous is true.
 The position and relations of the parties at the
time when the libel was published may be
relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue
 Case Laws
 Noor Mohammad v. Emperor AIR 1944 Sind
93
 Noor Mohammad was tried for abducting
Mst.Saidan. Once during the investigation
Mst.Saidan was being taken to the police station.
Noor Mohammad was loitering in the way. On
Seeing Noor Mohammad,Mst.Saidan once cried
out to her brother Kasim that this man was one
of her abductor.kasim tole headconstable who
was with them and the head constable forthwith
arrested him.
Rahan Lalu v. Emperor AIR 1938
Sind.97.
 The prosecution case was that Rahan Lalu killed
his wife on one morning with an axe. Their son
a child of 5 years was beside them. He made a
cry and his cry attracted the witnesses who
found Rahan with an axe in his hand and his
deceased wife near him.
 Test of Identification Parade
 The identification of the accused either in test
identification parade or in the Court is not a sine
qua non in every case if from the circumstances
the quilt is otherwise established.
 Many a times crimes are committed under the
cover of darkness when none is able to identify
the accused.
 Test of Identification Parade
 Mulla v. State of UP (2010) 3 SCC 508
 “The identification parades are not primarily
meant for the court. They are meant for
investigation purpose”.
 There are two purposes namely-Enable
witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused
whom they suspect is really one who was seen
by them in connection with the commission of
crime.
 Investigation authority-Suspect is a real person.
 Test of Identification Parade
 Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra ,
AIR 2000 SC 160: 2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).
 If the test identification parade regarding
accused was not conducted properly and
suffered from unexplained delay, he is entitled to
benefit of doubt.
 Test of Identification Parade
 Mullagiri Vajiram v. State of Andhra
Pradesh,AIR 1993 SC 1243.
 When conviction was based on evidence of eye
witness and not on identification parade it
cannot be set aside on ground that identification
was not reliable.
 Test of Identification Parade
 Raj Nath v . State of Uttar Pradesh, 1988 Cr LJ
422: AIR 1988 SC 345.
 If there is unexplained and unreasonable delay
in putting up the accused persons for a test
identification the delay by itself detracts from
the credibility of the test.
 Role of Conspirator
 Sec.10. Things said or done by conspirator in
reference to common design
 Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or
more persons have conspired together to commit an
offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or
written by any one of such persons  in reference to
their common intention, after the time when such
intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a
relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to
be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the
existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of
showing that any such person was a party to it.
 Procured arms in Europe.
 Case Law
 State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde
AIR 2000 SC 1691
 There was no doubt that there was reasonable
ground to believe that four of the accused
conspirators had conspired to commit the
offence of abduction and murder of children
involved in the case.
 Accused had spoken to each other in reference
to common intention.
 Case Law
 Bhagwandas v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC
878.
 Anything written by a conspirator will not be
admissible against him or others if it is not done
in reference to the common intention of the
conspiracy.
 Section.11. When facts not otherwise relevant
become relevant.
 Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-

  (1) If they are inconsistent with any fact is issue

or relevant fact; (2) If by themselves or in
connection with other facts they make the
existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or
relevant fact highly probable or improbable
Illustration 
 (a) The question is, whether A committed a
crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that,
on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.
 Alibi
 The plea of absence of a person ,charged with
an offence, from the place of occurrence at the
time of the commission of the offence is called
the plea of alibi.
 Rajindra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2007 SC at
p.2791.
 No finding of plea of alibi can be recorded by
the High Court for the first time in a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
 Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Statement recorded-In
admissible.
 Case Law
 Binay Kumar and Other v. State of Bihar AIR
1997 SC 321
 It was held by Supreme Court that, it is basic
law in the criminal case in which the accused is
alleged to have inflicted physical injury to
another person , the burden is on prosecution to
prove that the accused was present at the scene
and has participated in the crime.
 Encounter Cases
 Suit for Damages
 Sec. 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to
Sec. 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to
enable Court to determine amount are
relevant
 In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact
which will enable the Court to determine the
amount of damages which ought to be awarded,
is relevant.
 Contract or tort- In an action for libel,the other
defamatory statements by the defendant ,
whether made before or after the
commencement of the suit, are admissible for
 FACTS-CUSTOM
 Sec.13-Facts relevant when right or custom is in
question.
 Where the question is as to the existence of any right
or custom, the following facts are relevant.
  (a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in
question was created, claimed, modified, recognized,
asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its
existence;
  (b) Particular instances in which the right or custom
was claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in which its
exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
 Illustrations
 Illustration
  The question is, whether A has a right to a
fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A’s
ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s
father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s
father, irreconcilable with the mortgage,
instances in which A’s father exercised the right,
or in which the exercise of the right was stopped
by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.
 Custom
Subramanian Chettiar v.Kamnappa Chettiar,AIR
1955 Mad.145.
A custom is a particular rule which has existed
from the time immemorial and has obtained the
force of law in a particular locality.
Valid Custom-immemorial-reasonable-Without
any interruption-
Private Custom-General Custom-Local Custom
Caste or Class Custom
 Person State of Mind
 Sec.14. Facts showing existence of state of
mind, or of body or bodily feeling
 Facts showing the existence of any state of
mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith,
negligence, rashness, Ill will or good-will
towards any particular person, or showing the
existence of any state of body or bodily feeling,
are relevant, when the existence of any such
state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in
issue or relevant.
 Illustrations
 (a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods
knowing them to be stolen, It is proved that he
was in possession of a particular stolen article. 
 The fact that at the same time, he was in
possession of many other stolen articles is
relevant, as tending to show that he knew each
and all of the articles off which he was in
possession to be stolen.
 Illustrations
 (b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to
another person a counterfeit coin which, at the
time when he delivered it, he know to be
counterfeit.
 The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was
possessed of a number of other pieces of
counterfeit is relevant. The fact that A had been
previously convicted of delivering to another
person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it
to be counterfeit is relevant.
 Accidental or Intentional
 Sec. 15. Facts bearing on question whether
act was accidental or intentional
 When there is a question whether an act was
accidental or intentional,  or done with a
particular knowledge or intention, the fact that
such act formed part of a series of similar
occurrences, in each of which the person doing
the act was concerned, is relevant.
 Accidental or Intentional
 (a) A is accused of burning down his house in
order to obtain money for which it is insured.
  The facts that a lived in several houses
successively, each of which he insured, in each
of which a fire occurred, and after each of which
fires. A received payment from a different
insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show
that the fires were not accidental.
 Accidental or Intentional
 A is employed to receive money from the
debtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a
book showing the amounts received by him. He
makes an entry showing that on a particular
occasion he received less than he really did
receive.
  The question is, whether this false entry was
accidental or intentional.
  The facts that other entries made by A in the
same book are false, and that the false entry is in
each case in favor of A, relevant.
 Moti Lal Roy v. Panch Bihi Industrial Bank Ltd.,
AIR 1946 Cal . 440
 The accused who was entrusted with collection
of money from the debtors of a bank ,collected
a certain amount from a debtor and did not
credit it in the cash book of the bank. To Charge
under section 408,IPC,his defence was that there
was no misappropriation but owing to pressure
of work he forgot to credit the amount in the
cash book. To prove dishonest intention on his
part evidence was led in of another instance of a
similar omission by him to credit an amount
collected from another debtor.
 Existence of Course of Business
 Sec.16. Existence of course of business when
relevant-When there is a question whether a particular
act was done, the existence of any course of business,
according to which it naturally would have been done,
is a relevant fact.
 (a) The question is, whether a particular letter was
dispatched.
  The facts that it was the ordinary course of business
for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the
post, and that that particular letter was put in that place
are relevant.
 Budha v. Bedariya AIR 1981 MP 76

 A person refusing a registered letter sent by

post cannot afterwards plead ignorance of its
contents. Similarly, if a letter is put into post
office , that is prima facie evidence , till rebutted,
that the addressee received it in due course.
Dr.Kripa Ram Mathur v. State of
UP AIR 2001 SC 3071
 The procedure adopted by selection committee
showed that the selection was made on merit and
ranking to selected candidates was given accordingly.
Merely because, the state failed to produce marks
obtained by each candidate at such a belated stage, it
could not be said that selection process was not based
on comparative merit of candidates appearing before
Selection Committee. Appellant challenged the merit
list after success it was held by Supreme Court that the
presumption of genuineness of official would also
apply.
 R v. Ewing (1983) 2 All ER 645
 The accused was charged with forgery. One of
the issues was whether he had drawn a certain
sum of money from his bank account. For
proving this, the prosecution adduced a
computer print-out showing the state of the
accused ‘s bank account. It was held that the
print-out was relevant because it was a
document which was or formed part of a record
relating to any trade or business.
 Admission
 Sec.17. Admission defined
 An admission is a statement, [oral or
documentary or contained in electronic form],
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.
 Admission
 Very Important role in Judicial Proceedings
 Sec. 18. Admission- by party to proceeding or his
agent
 Statements made by party to the proceeding, or by an
agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under
the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly
authorized by him to make them, are admissions. By
suitor in representative character — Statements made
by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative
character, are not admissions, unless they are made
while the party making them held that character.
 Admission
 Sec.19. Admissions by persons whose
position must be proved as against party to
suit
 Statements made by persons whose position or
liability it is necessary to prove as against any
party to the suit are admissions, if such
statements would be relevant as against such
persons in relation to such position or liability in
a suit brought by or against them, and if they are
made whilst the person making them occupies
such position or is subject to such liability.
 Illustrations
 A undertakes to collect rents for B.
 B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to
B.
 A denies that rent was due from C to B.
 A statement by C that he owned B rent is an
admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if
A denies that C did owe rent to B.
 Admission
 Sec. 20. Admissions by persons expressly
referred to by party to suit
 Statements made by persons to whom party to
the suit has expressly referred for information in
reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
 Illustration
 The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B
is sound.
 A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about it"
C’s statement is an admission.
 Admission
 Kedar Nath Bejoria v. State of West
Bengal,AIR 1954 SC 660
 The rules of admissibility are the same for the
trial of civil and criminal cases. Whatever the
agent does, within the scope of the authority
binds his principle and is deemed his act.
 Relation of master and servant relationship
must be strictly proved.
 Admission
 Venkata v. Bhashya 22 Mad.553
 Admissions by Pleaders,attorneys abd counsels
in civil cases.
 Krishna Swami v. Rajya Pal,18 Mad 73
 An admission of law,where it is erroneous, by
the vakil is not binding on the client.
 Ram Sahai and Others v. Jai Prakash and
others AIR 1973 MP 147.

 A person who had the power of attorney for

the tenant accepted the arrears of rent. This
acceptance was made binding upon tenant
because this was the statement of person
referred by plaintiff.
Admission-Substantive Evidence
 Vishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad,AIR 1974
SC 117
 Where in a civil suit a party produces documents
containing admissions by his opponent , which
documents are admitted by the opponent’s counsel and
the opponents enters the witness box it is not
obligatory on the party producing those documents to
draw in cross-examination the attention of the
opponent to the said admission ,before he be permitted
to use them for the purpose of contradictiong the
opponent
 Clear and unambiguous.
 Admission
 Sec. 21. Proof of admissions against persons
making them, and by or on their behalf
 Admissions are relevant and may be proved as
against the person who makes them, or his
representative in interest; but they cannot be
proved by or on behalf of the person who
makes them or by his representative in interest.
 Illustrations
 A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing
them to be stolen.
  He offers to prove that he refused to sell them
below their value. A may prove these statements,
though they are admissions, because they are
explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in
issue.
 Illustrations
 The question between A and B is, whether a
certain deed is or not forged. A affirms that it is
genuine, B that it is forged. 
 A may prove a statement by B that the deed is
genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that
the deed is forged ; but A cannot prove a
statement y himself that the deed is genuine, nor
can B prove a statement by himself that the deed
is forged.
 Admission

 Shri Krishna v. Kurkshetra University AIR 1975

SC 376.
 Any admission made in ignorance of law or
under duress cannot bind the maker of the
admission
 Admission
 Sec.22. When oral admissions as to contents
of documents are relevant
 Oral admissions as to the contents of a
documents are not relevant, unless and until the
party proposing to prove them shows that he is
entitled to give secondary evidence of the
contents of such document under the rules
herein after contained, or unless the geniuses of
a document produced is in question
 Admission
 A executed a deed of mortgage in favour of B.
B files a suit for possession of the property
mortgaged on the basis of that mortgage.
During the trial A denied the execution of the
mortgage. Now in this case B cannot prove by
oral evidence that he had before some persons
admitted that he had mortgaged the property to
him. B can prove the execution of the mortgage
and can get possession of the property only
when he files that deed of mortgage in the court
and proves it.
 Admission

 Sec. 22A. When oral admission as to contents

of electronic records are relevant
 Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic
records are not relevant, unless the genuineness
of the electronic record produced is in question.
 Admission
 Sec. 23. Admission in civil cases relevant
 In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made
either upon an express condition that evidence of it is
not to be given, or under circumstances from which the
Court can infer that the parties agreed together that
evidence of it should both be given.
 Explanation – Nothing in this section shall be taken to
exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil from
giving evidence of any matter of which he may be
compelled to give evidence under section 126.
 Party in compromise and peace.
 Admission
 Shiv Ram v. Sh Charn AIR 1963 Raj.126.
 An admission must be used either as a whole or
not at all. An admission made by a person
cannot be split up and part of it used against
him. It must be accepted as whole. But if there is
other evidence which disproves a part of
admission, the other part may be relied upon.
 Confession
 The word confession has not been defined in
the Indian Evidence Act.
 Mr.Justice Stephen quoted that : 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.
 Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer,Narcotic
Control Bureau,Thirivanathapuram,AIR 2007
SC 794 at p.796.
 A confession which is voluntary and free from
any pressure can be accepted.
 Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565

 The question was whether the appellant who

was a pakistani national and was caught alive in
Bombay Terror attack and was charged with
serious crimes including collecting arms with the
intention of waging war against Government of
India,commission of terrorists act,criminal
conspiracy to commit murder,robbery/dacoity
with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
and causing explosions punishable under the
Explosives Substances Act,1908 had made the
 Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565

 He replied that thought of making confession

came to him when he was arrested by police. He
then added that he had absolutely no regret of
whatever he had done.
 He said that he wanted to set an example to
others to follow-
 He was a hero in his own eyes and the
confession statement made by him was
voluntary and truthful.
 Confession
 Ammini and Others v. State of Kerala,AIR
1998 SC 260
 The accused sustained injury. He was examined
by the doctor before whom he stated that the
cause of injuries. It was held to be not
confession. The statement was not hit by
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
 Confession
 Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1999 SC
3062
 Extra Judicial Confession
 clear
 Alleged confession made by large number of
persons before panchayat was more in general
and vague form therefore no reliance could be
placed on such confession.
 Confession
 C.K.Ravindran v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC
369
 Consumed liqour
 Revealing facts
 It was outcome of consumption of liquor by
both the witness as well as accused.
 Retracted Confession
 A retracted confession is a statement made by
an accused person before the trial begins , by
which he admits to have committed the
offence , but which he repudiates at the trial.
 Police officer-Investigation
 undue influence of police
 Confession
 Sec.24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or
Sec.2
promise when irrelevant in criminal proceedings
 A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in
a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession
appears to the Court to have been caused by any
inducement, threat for promise, having reference to the
charge against the accused person, proceeding from a
person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the
Court, to give the accused person grounds, which
would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by
making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil
of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings
against him.
 Illustrations
 A is charged with murder of B. He makes a
statement that he committed the crime. This will
amount to confession. Again he may state, “I
and B both were taking bath in a tank.” B
abused me severely. I was angry so I got hold of
his neck and drowned him in the tank. Here the
accused substantially admits the facts which
constitute the offence so his statement amounts
to confession.
 Case Law
 Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam,AIR
2007 SC 848 at p.853.
 A confessional statement not retracted even at a
later stage of the trial and even accepted by the
accused in his examination under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. can be fully relied upon.
 Sec.313.Power to examine the accused.
 Judicial Confession
 Judicial Confessions are those which are made
before a magistrate or in court in the due course
of legal proceedings.
 Sec.164 of Criminal Procedure Code
 At the committal proceedings before the
magistrate or at the trial before Sessions Judge,
A may confess his guilt. All these are judicial
confessions.
 Extra-Judicial Confession
 Extra judicial confession are those which are
made by the accused elsewhere than before a
magistrate or in court. An extra judicial
confession can be made to any person or to the
body of persons.
 Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2012 SC
2435 at p.2441
 It is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be
examined by the court with greater case and
caution.
 Extra Judicial Confession

 Extra Judicial Confessions are proved by calling

the person as witness before whom the extra
judicial confession is made.
 It is unsafe to base conviction on extra judicial
confession.
 Proof of Judicial Confession
 Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC
159
 Under Section 80 of the Evidence Act a
confession recorded by magistrate according to
law shall be presumed to be genuine. It is
enough if the recorded judicial confession is
filled before the court. It is not necessary to
examine the magistrate who recorded it to prove
the confession. But the identity of the accused
has to be proved.
 CONFESSION TO POLICE
 Sec.25. Confession to police officer not to be
proved
 No confession made to a police officer shall be
proved as against a person accused of any
offence.
 Untrustworthy
 To avoid the danger of admitting a false
confession.
 Confession

 Husaniya v. Emperor,AIR 1936 Lah 380

 Section.25 of the Indian Evidence Act makes
no distinction between a confession made
before investigation and a confession made after
investigation. It is confession to a police officer
made at any time which is not admissible.
 Confession
 Police officer must not only have power to
make investigation of crime but to file a report
against criminal and to have the power to
prosecute the criminal.
 Unless and until a person has power to make
investigation and frame charge against accused
under section 173 of Cr.P.C., he cannot be
called a police officer within the meaning of
Section 25 of Evidence Act.
 Confession
 Sec. 26. Confession by accused while in
custody of police not to be proved against
him
 No confession made by any person whilst he is
in the custody of a police officer, unless it be
made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate, shall be proved as against such
person.
Confession
 R. v. Lester ILR(1895)
 The accused was being taken in a tonga by a
police constable. In the absence of constable,
the accused confessed to the tanga driver that he
had committed the crime. The confession was
held to be in police custody as the accused was
in the custody of constable and it made no
difference of his temporary absence.