Evidence

& Kinds of
Evidence
w.r.t. IEA,
1872.
Lecture 3- Unit 1
Ms. Jyoti Singh
Assistant Professor,
St. Joseph’s College of
Law.
introduction
• Evidence includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of
an assertion.
• Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
• In law, the production and presentation of evidence first depends on establishing
on whom the burden of proof lays. Admissible evidence is that which a court
receives and considers for the purposes of deciding a particular case.
• There are two primary burden of proof considerations exist in law.
• First, on whom the burden of proof rests and secondly, the degree of certitude
proof must reach, depending on quality and quantity of evidence.
• The degree differs in civil and criminal cases.
• Civil cases: Balance of Probabilities, Criminal Cases: Beyond reasonable doubts.
Meaning of evidence under
section 3
“Evidence” .— “ Evidence” means and includes—
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by
witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are
called oral evidence;
(2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of
the Court], such documents are called documentary evidence
KINDS OF EVIDENCE
 classification
1. Oral and Documentary Evidence
2. Primary and Secondary Evidence
3. Personal and Material Evidence
4. Direct and Indirect Evidence
(Circumstantial Evidence)
5. Substantive and non-substantive
evidence
6. Conclusive Evidence and Corroborative
1. ORAL EVIDENCE
• Oral evidence renders to the evidence that is mainly words spoken by mouth. It is
adequate to be proved without the support of any documentary evidence, provided it has
credibility.
• Oral evidence can be divided into two categories:
Direct or primary;
Indirect or hearsay or secondary.
• Primary oral evidence is the evidence that has been personally heard or seen or gathered
by the senses of a witness. It is called direct evidence as defined by Section 60 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
• Indirect or hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in a court of law as the person
reporting the facts is not the actual witness of the facts in issues.
• However, there are some exceptions made in the case of hearsay evidence where it is
admissible in a court of law.
Documentary Evidence
• Documentary evidence is the evidence that mentions any issue described or
expressed upon any material by way of letters, figures or marks or by more than
one of the ways which can be used for recording the issue.
• Such evidence is presented in the form of a document to prove a disputed fact in
court.
• Primary documentary evidence includes the evidence that shows the original
documents as mentioned in Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of
documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as
mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Primary and secondary
evidence
• According to section 62 of IEA, primary evidence means document itself
produced for inspection of the court. It is also called original evidence. Eg:
Original Copy of registered sale deed.
• Section 63 provides for secondary evidence, which includes:
(1) Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained1;1;"
(2) Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves
insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(3) Copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(5) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has
himself seen it.
3. Personal and material
evidence
• Personal Evidence is that which is given by a human being
directly before the court. Oral evidence is personal evidence.
• Where objects are presented for inspection of the court, it is
called material evidence. Eg: Bloodstained clothes of the
deceased or accused person.
4. Direct evidence
• Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for
deciding the matter in issue.
• “Direct Evidence” is evidence that establishes a particular fact without the need
to make an inference in order to connect the evidence to the fact.
• It supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of
innocence) directly, i.e., without the need for an intervening inference. It directly
proves or disproves the fact.
• So Direct Evidence is real, tangible, or clear evidence of a fact, happening, or
thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence.
• It does not require any type of reasoning or inference to arrive at the conclusion.
• For example: Evidence provided by an eyewitness.
Circumstantial Evidence
• It is one of the established principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances.
• In Vilas Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that circumstantial evidence
can also be used to prove the guilt of the person. Direct ocular evidence is not always
necessary.
• As evidence there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.
• The only difference is that as proof, the former directly establishes the commission of the
offence while the latter does so by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of
guilt (Makbul Ahammad v. Abdul Rahaman Akand, 1953).
• In Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, 1960, the SC held that the standard in case of
circumstantial evidence is that the evidence must be fully established.
• The chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
(Deonandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar).
Sc Guidelines on circumstantial
evidence
In reference to cases where there is no direct evidence and the decision has to rest on
circumstantial evidence, the SC in a line of decisions has consistently held that such evidence
must satisfy the following the tests:
1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and
firmly established;
2. Those circumstances should directly and without any error point towards the guilty of the
accused;
3. The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape
from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused
and none else;
4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be consistent with his
innocence.
5. Substantive evidence and non-
substantive evidence
• A substantive evidence is that on which reliance can be placed
for decision of the case.
• A non-substantive evidence is used to corroborate with other
evidence to increase its credibility or discredit the same.
6. Conclusive evidence and
corroborative evidence
• Evidence that cannot be contradicted by any other
evidence.
• It is so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the
contrary.
• The evidence is of such a nature that it compels a judge to
come to a certain conclusion.
• Corroborating evidence is evidence that strengthens or
confirms already existing evidence.
• In courts, it is used to support the testimony of a witness .