Law of Evidence

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Introduction
• The ends of a law are met by establishing the rights, duties and
liabilities of particular person(s) before the court. The basic law
which defines the rights and liabilities of a person is called the
substantive law (e.g. Indian Penal Code). However, in order to
establish the applicability of a specific substantive law, it is
necessary to follow certain procedures in the court of law (e.g.
Criminal Procedure Code) and also there are certain rules of
law which deal with the mode of proof of the existence or
non-existence of those rights, duties and liabilities (e.g. Indian
Evidence Act).
Facts in Issue (Section 3)
• The Indian Evidence Act is partly procedural and partly substantive.
The basic purpose of the Indian Evidence Act is to lay down the rules
pertaining to the proving or disproving the existence of certain facts
which are called the ‘Facts in Issue’.
• Whenever a particular matter comes before the court, the liability of a
party to the case depends upon the existence or non-existence of
certain facts.
• E.g. A is accused of the murder of B by shooting. In the given
situation, the liability of A to be punished under section 302 of IPC
depends upon the proving of the fact that ‘A caused the death of B by
shooting at him with the intention of causing death’ or that ‘A shot at
B with the knowledge that his act is so imminently dangerous that it is
in all probability likely to cause death and that A did not have any
excuse to incur that risk’ etc.
• The given facts in the above case are the facts in issue. The proving
or disproving of a fact in issue will render A liable under Section 302,
IPC or will absolve him of any liability under section 302 of IPC
Relevant Facts
• However, in order to establish the above, the court has to gather
information regarding the other facts. The net effect of all the other
facts (called relevant facts) is to prove or disprove the facts in issue.
There might be multitude of facts which surround a given fact in
issue. But every fact will not be relevant. So, the court first has to
examine as to what facts will be relevant and then the court has to be
satisfied as to the truthfulness of the relevant facts. The proof as to
the veracity of the relevant facts has to be given. This proof can be
given either by some oral evidence or some documentary evidence.
In certain situations, the court may itself presume or take judicial
notice of certain facts. Another question is regarding ‘who has to
prove’ a fact i.e. upon whom does the burden of proof lie. Also, in the
cases of oral evidence, there is the question as to who can be
witness and how he has to be cross-examined so as to establish the
veracity of his statement.
Arrangement of Evidence Act
• The Object of Legal Proceedings is determination of rights and
liabilities which depends on facts – connected with the issues
(section 5 – 16) and admission section (7 – 31)
• Fact (S-3)- Fact In Issue and Relevant to the issue which may be –
statements by person who cannot be called as witnesses (S-32 - 33),
statements under special circumstances (S-34 - 39), Judgement in
other cases (S40 - 44), Opinions (S-45 - 51) and Character (S-45 -
51)
• Facts may be Judicially noticed (Ch.3) or presumed (Ch V and VII),
Proved by oral evidence (CH IV) and proved by documentary
evidence (CH V) – Primary or Secondary Evidence (S-61 - 66),
Attested or Unattested (S67 - 73), Public or Private doc. (S74 - 78),
Sometimes presumed to be genuine (S78 - 90) and Exclusive of oral
evidence or documentary evidence (CH VI S-91-99)
• Fact if given by witnesses (Ch IX) they must testify, subject to rules
as to examination (Ch X). Consequence of mistake defined (Ch XI)
Improper admission or rejection of evidence.
 • The Evidence Act is divided into three parts comprising Eleven
Chapter
1. Part 1 consists of two chapters (1&2) dealing with definitions
and relevancy of facts.
2. Part II comprises Chapter III to V which provide for proof of
facts by oral or documentary evidence
3. Part III embodies Chapter VI to XI which contains rules for the
production of evidence in court, the effect of presumption and
the duties of the court in dealing with the evidence produced
before it.
 Law does not admit every fact which is
logically relevant
• There are two fundamental principles of the law of evidence. What is
relevant may be proved; but everything that is relevant may not be
admissible as evidence. This admissibility of evidence is tested on
the basis of the ‘true value’ of the relevant facts. For ex., certain
facts, though relevant are excluded under evidence act,
1. Facts similar to but specially connected with each other would be
excluded, unless it is an experimental case.
2. Similarly, hearsay evidence, that is, the assertion regarding the
existence of any fact by any person who is called as a witness is
generally excluded
3. Evidence regarding the opinion of others regarding the existence or
non-existence of a fact is generally excluded, though in some
exceptional cases, it may be admitted
4. The fact that any person’s character is such as to render certain
conduct imputed to him probable or improbable is also excluded
 Cardinal Principle of Law of Evidence
• The cardinal principle of the law of evidence, namely that
evidence must be confined to the matters in issue, is qualified
by the following two fundamental principles:
1. Evidence should be given on fact in issue and relevant fact.
Hearsay evidence is not to be admitted
2. In all cases, the best evidence must be given
• The act makes an attempt to define positively and enumerate
what are relevant facts. The concept of relevancy is laid down in
section 11 of the act; facts which are inconsistence with facts in
issue or relevant facts, or those which render highly probable or
improbable the fact in issue, are themselves relevant.
• A fact is relevant only when it has a tendency of making the
existence or non-existence of the facts in issue highly probable
in the opinion of the Court
The Law of Evidence attempts to Answer
1. What kind of facts may be proved in order to establish the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue?
2. What kind of proof is to be given to those facts?
3. Who is to give that proof?
4. How is that proof to be given?