Sachin Jain Student of Sem.

V – LLB
Innovative Institute of Law

Subject-Law of Evidence Laws

Section – A

1 Fact in issue and relevant facts.

Answer:

Fact in issue simply means “the disputed facts“. In litigation or proceedings,

generally, one-party claims that certain facts exist, while the other party denies
the existence. In this case, the fact that it is claimed by one party but denied by
the other party is called a fact in issue. In other words, the controversial fact
is the fact in issue.

The relevant facts are facts that are not in dispute/issue, but they are related to
facts that are in dispute/issue. But the connection must be real or logical. To be
relevant, the facts in question must be logically connected to the facts at issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 What do you mean by the term Res Gestae ?

Answer:

Res gestae contains facts that are part of the same transaction. It is, therefore,
appropriate to examine what a transaction is, when it begins and when it ends. If
any fact does not connect to the main transaction, it is not a res gestae and
therefore inadmissible. Res gestae includes elements that completely fall outside
the definition of modern hearsay, such as circumstantial evidence of a state of
mind, so-called “verbal acts“, verbal parts of acts, and certain non-verbal
behavior.

The facts that can be proved as a part of res gestae must be facts other than those
in question but must be linked to them. Although hearsay evidence is not
admissible, it may be admissible in a court of law when it is res gestae and may be
reliable proof. The reason behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such a
statement that for concoction there is hardly any time. Such a statement must,
therefore, be concurrent with the acts that constitute the offense or at least
immediately thereafter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 What is Extra-judicial Confession?

Answer:
Sachin Jain Student of Sem. V – LLB
Innovative Institute of Law
Extra-judicial confessions are those which are made by the accused elsewhere than
before a magistrate or in court. It is not necessary that the statements should
have been addressed to any definite individual. It may have taken place in the form
of a prayer. It may be a confession to a private person. An extra-judicial
confession has been defined to mean ‘a free and voluntary confession of guilt by a
person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than
judge or magistrate seized of the charge against himself’. A man after the
commission of a crime may write a letter to his relation or friend expressing his
sorrow over the matter. This may amount to confession. Extra-judicial confession
can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of
credibility.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Distinguish between Legal and logical relevancy.

Answer:

"Every fact that is legally relevant is also logically relevant but every logically
relevant fact may not be necessarily legally relevant."

The main problem is deciding which fact is legally relevant as well as logical in
nature. A fact may be logically relevant to a particular case but there is no
guarantee that it will be legally admissible in the courts. So all the evidences
that are to be produced in the courts have to pass two hurdles it has to be both:

1. logically relevant and

2. legally admissible at the same time.

When a fact is connected with another fact, it is logically relevant but it is

relevant if the law declares it to be relevant. If it is not declared by the law to
be relevant, it is not admissible in evidence. "Every fact that is legally relevant
is also logically relevant but every logically relevant fact may not be necessarily
legally relevant." Under the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be relevant to another
when it is relevant under the provisions of Sections 6 to 55 of Evidence Act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 What is Alibi ?

Answer:

Alibi is a Latin word, which means elsewhere. It is used when the accused takes the
plea that when the occurrence took place he was elsewhere. In such a situation the
prosecution has to discharge the burden satisfactorily. Once the prosecution is
Sachin Jain Student of Sem. V – LLB
Innovative Institute of Law
successful in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused who takes the
place of alibi to prove it with absolute certainly. An alibi is not an exception
envisaged in the IPC or any other law. It is a rule of evidence recognized by
Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts inconsistent with fact in issue are
relevant. However it cannot be the sole link or sole circumstance to bare
conviction. When one fact is necessary to the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, but strikingly absent in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution case certainly will fail. Because, an alibi the relevancy of which is
totally inconsistence with hypothesis that the accused had committed an offence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section B

5 Define Dying declaration. Discuss its evidentiary value.

Answer:

Dying Declaration is a statement made by the person while he was dying and states
the reason for his death. The statement given by the dying person can be
circumstantial or tells the cause for his death. Hence, the only statement given
just before the death of a person is called Dying Declaration. The person who is
conscious of Compos Mentis and knows that death is about to happen can make a
declaration and state the cause of his death and that statement will be Admissible
and treated as Evidence in the Court. Declaration made by the deceased person can
be in oral, written and by conduct.

Evidentiary Value:

There is no doubt that the dying declaration is admissible in court under section
32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. and there is no compulsion while making of dying
declaration to take an oath, but the truth of the statement can be determined by
the cross-examination. The court has to ascertain necessary measures to check the
sanctity of the statement made by the deceased. As in India law, it was presumed
that the man who is going to die, not meet his maker with a lie on his lips this is
because, when the person is at his bed end all the desire and greed of person come
to an end so probably there is no motive to lie. After that, the court must be
satisfied with the condition that the deceased must be in a fit state of mind while
making the statement. After all the measures assured by the court and satisfied
that the statement is made voluntarily and true then it will be sufficient to
accept the statement to finding conviction even without the corroboration.
Sachin Jain Student of Sem. V – LLB
Innovative Institute of Law
In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, Apex Court laid down the following principles
related to dying declaration:

1. There is no absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be the sole
basis of conviction unless corroborated. A true & voluntary declaration needs no
corroboration.
2. A dying declaration is not a weaker kind of evidence than any other piece of
evidence.
3. Each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances
in which the dying declaration was made.
4. A dying declaration stands on the same footing as other pieces of evidence & has
to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances & with reference to the
principle governing the weight of evidence.
5. A dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the
proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, &, as far
as practicable in the words of the maker of the declaration stands on a much
higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which
may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory & human character.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section C

11 Discuss the Doctrine of Estoppel under evidence act.

Answer:

Doctrine of Estoppel is that provision which prohibits a person from giving false
evidence by preventing them from making contradicting statements in a Court of Law.
The objective of this doctrine is to avert the commission of fraud by one person
against another person. This doctrine holds a person accountable for false
representations made by him, either through his words or through his conduct.

Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 incorporates the meaning of estoppel
as when one person either by his act or omission, or by declaration, has made
another person believe something to be true and persuaded that person to act upon
it, then in no case can he or his representative deny the truth of that thing later
in the suit or in the proceedings. In simple words, estoppel means one cannot
contradict, deny or declare to be false the previous statement made by him in the
Court.
Sachin Jain Student of Sem. V – LLB
Innovative Institute of Law
The following conditions are to be satisfied in order to apply the doctrine of
estoppel:

1. The representation must be made by one person to another person.

2. The representation made must be as to facts and not as to the law.
3. The representation must be made as to an existing fact.
4. The representation must be made in a manner which makes the other person believe
that it is true.
5. The person to whom the representation is being made must act upon that belief.
6. The person to whom the representation would be made should suffer a loss by such
representation.

There are following types of Estoppels:

1. Estoppel by Silence or Acquiescence

2. Employment Estoppel
3. Reliance-based estoppels:
a. Promissory estoppel, without any enforceable contract a promise has been made
by one party to another.
b. Proprietary estoppel, where the parties are litigating the title to land.
4. Estoppel by deed
5. Estoppel by record
6. Estoppel Against Minor
7. Estoppel by deed

Estoppel against Government

In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of U.P., it was held that the government
was bound by its promise & was liable to exempt the appellant from sales tax for a
period of three years commencing from the date of production.

Estoppel against the private parties

Taking note of section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, which would be the governing
law for deciding on the disputes between the parties, it can be held that
promissory estoppel also applies in cases of dispute between private parties. It
was held in the case, "Century Spinning and Mfg Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal
Council" by Supreme Court, the concept of promissory estoppel also applies to
private individuals/ entities.

No Estoppel can be made against Statutes

In Jatindra Prasad Das Vs. State of Orissa & others,9 Orissa High Court, held that:
Sachin Jain Student of Sem. V – LLB
Innovative Institute of Law
"There can be no estoppel against statutes and the Statutory Provisions and
therefore, the said statutory provisions cannot be ignored on the grounds of an
earlier administrative decision or precedent."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. What do you mean best evidence rule?

The best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such
as a document or recording is presented, only the original will be accepted unless
there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used. This rule has its
origins in the late 1800s. With the advent of electronic communications, there has
been some argument about how the best evidence rule should be applied, and whether
or not it is relevant.

It is said that the best evidence is the original evidence. If someone writes a
letter, for example, and someone else makes a copy, the copy may have errors if it
was made by hand, or the copying process might somehow interfere with the letter.
For example, a poor photocopy could obscure details of the handwriting, while a
digital copy might alter the color and could also be manipulated by someone with
skills.

For this reason, if it is at all possible, courts want to see the original
evidence. If the original is destroyed or inaccessible for some reason, a copy will
be accepted. However, the copy must be proved by a witness who can testify as to
the contents and confirm that it is an accurate copy of the original. In the letter
example above, for example, a lawyer might call upon the person who wrote the
letter to ask if the copy is indeed a copy of the letter that person wrote, and to
confirm that the copy has not been manipulated.

The term “best evidence rule” is misleading. The rule applies only to writings,
recordings, and photographs – and only when proving their contents. There is no
general rule requiring the “best evidence.” A party generally is not required to
introduce real evidence in order to prove its case.

Sections 91 to 100 are based upon the principle that the best evidence must
always be given, and the acceptance of the fact that no matter how good a person’s
memory may be, the best evidence of the content of a document is the document
itself. The principle does not demand the largest amount of evidence – it simply
requires the best evidence and since this is documentary evidence, oral evidence is
excluded. And this paper deals with these sections in a concise and precise manner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------