All One Needs To Know About Indian Evidence Act

Introduction

Evidence is the “Key” on which a court needs to render a decision. Without evidence there can be no proof. The Law of Evidence is a significant part of any branch of the judicial system. In India, the enactment of the Indian Evidence Act changed our judicial system completely. No codified laws relating to evidence existed; which enriched our judicial system from the provision of rules and regulations for ascertaining the shreds of evidence.

In 1870, Sir James Fitz James Stephen was entrusted with the task of codification of rules of law of evidence. Thereafter “The Evidence Act” came into force on 1st September 1872. The Evidence Act, identified as Act no. 1 of 1872 has 11 chapters and 167 sections. It applies to all judicial proceedings in the court, including the court-martial as well. However, it does not apply to affidavits and arbitration.

This was a crux of the background of the Indian Evidence Act. But as this article is mainly focused on what ‘Everyone’ needs to know about the Indian Evidence Act; the audiences mainly focus on this article are the laymen or the common people without the technical expertise of the law. Therefore, it is to simplify what evidence is; its importance in our day to day life, the concepts on which the evidence depends; and to what extent the evidence is applicable in the court of law.

Evidence and The Act

Evidence is the material placed before a court to assist a Judge to decide the matter. It is to be noted that the Judge‟s decision is limited to the evidence placed before them. Therefore, the party needs to provide as much relevant evidence as possible to support their case. Finding proof is a challenging task. Criminals work hard to remove all traces of evidence; and some of it may even come to light after the case decision is done. If there are no laws governing evidence, anything may pass off as such; and it is nearly impossible to know when a case is definitively solved and closed. Therefore, there are strict rules that regulate the nature of evidence, the quality and the authenticity of the evidence.

The Indian Evidence Act is mainly divided into three parts. It is impossible to state every aspect of the Indian Evidence Act as it is a very vast subject. But there is an attempt to explain the various important factors for formation of evidence, acceptability of evidence in the court, eligibility for giving evidence, and its application in the court of law.

Part I

This part holds basis on the facts; their relevance, the importance of their relevance to form part of the evidence or their significance to count as evidence.

Relevancy of Facts

The word “relevant” means that any two facts in question hold a relation to each other such that, according to the common course of events, one, either taken by itself or in connection with other facts, proves or renders probable the past, present or future existence or non-existence of the other. Thus, “relevant” means acceptable in evidence. If evidence is to be admitted at court, it must be relevant, material, and competent. To be considered relevant, it must have some reasonable tendency to help prove or disprove some fact. It need not make the fact certain; but at least it must tend to increase or decrease the likelihood of some fact.

For example, In 2007, a TV news channel NDTV carried a report relating to a sting operation. The report concerns itself with the role of a defense lawyer and the special public prosecutor in the ongoing sessions trial in what is commonly known as the “BMW Case”. The said channel telecast the video recording of the sting operation for national viewers attacking their professional integrity and competence.

The Delhi High Court, on its motion, initiated a contempt of court proceeding. The court held the alleged non-adherence to journalistic norms falling within the domain of journalists, broadcasters and their disciplinary bodies; for the Evidence Act, the court’s concern lies with the relevancy of collection of material in the sting operation. A private agency carrying out a sting operation, without any sanction from anyone, is considerably objectionable and unethical. After examination of the original clips from the video recording; the court further held that there is no doubt about the relevance of contents of the original from the video footage.

Admissibility of Evidence

Admissibility means that only the relevant facts are admissible or acceptable in the court of law. Two basic factors are considered when determining whether evidence is admissible or not:

• Relevant – The evidence must prove or disprove an important fact in the case. If the evidence doesn’t relate to a particular fact, it is considered “irrelevant” and is therefore inadmissible.
• Reliable – Reliability refers to the credibility of a source that is being used as evidence. This usually applies to witness testimony.

It is very important to differentiate between relevancy and admissibility. Admissibility of evidence is strictly based on law whereas relevancy is based on logic and probability. Admissibility declares whether evidence is admissible or not; whereas relevancy declares whether the given facts are relevant to the facts in question.

For example, witnesses may testify to their observation during an event; but in some situations they may also testify about statements heard outside of court (that weren’t made under oath). Such statements are generally not admissible because they’re not as reliable as statements made in court and under oath.

Circumstantial Evidence

It is one of the established principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. 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 offense whereas the latter does so by placing circumstances which lead to an irresistible inference of guilt.

For example, in a case where the accused was alleged to have killed his wife and three children by pouring petrol on them and setting them on fire, the accused had suddenly disappeared from the scene after the incident. He tried to defend himself; he gave an explanation that he rushed to Delhi as his sister was suffering from cancer and was critical. This defense was not believed; the accused was not able to explain his conduct of going to Delhi by car instead of taking a flight when enough cash was found in his car.

Motive

Motive is that which makes a man to do a particular act. It is something that prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain acts to achieve that intention. The motive for commission of an offense is of particular importance only in cases of purely circumstantial evidence; for motive itself would be a circumstance which the court would have to consider.

For example, motive is inherent in dowry death. In a bride burning case, the parents of the deceased did not agree to transfer and register the land in the name of the son-in-law. They wanted to register the same in their daughter’s name instead. It was held that there was a strong motive for the accused-husband and the mother-in-law to commit the crime.

Preparation

Preparation consists of devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of a crime. Preparations on the part of the accused to accomplish the crime charged, or to prevent its discovery, or to aid his escape, or to avert suspicion from himself are relevant to the question of his guilt. Preparation in itself is no crime, but when accompanied with an offense committed thereof, it becomes relevant.

For example, 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. Here, procuring poison is no crime but when the poison is administered to murder B, it becomes relevant.

Conduct

Guilty mind begets guilty conduct. Conduct is taken as evidence because it is always guided, before or after, by what one has done. The conduct should be such which is affected by the facts or affects the facts. It doesn’t include statements until these statements are associated with conduct.

For example, in a leading case, a person named Abdullah had murdered a prostitute, aged between 15 and 20 years. He had slit her throat with a razor but the girl helped identify him by her conduct which was her hand gestures agreeing to questions asked. The defendant pleaded that this amounted to a statement but the learned judge held it to be subsequent conduct and prosecuted Abdullah for her murder.

Common Intention / Conspiracy / Confession

A conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Conspiracy consists of a combination or agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. This refers to things said or done by a conspirator about common intention. Anything said, done, or written about the common intention is admissible in evidence. The evidence of a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator on the principle that the thing is done, written, or spoken was something done in carrying out the conspiracy and was receivable as a step in the proof of the conspiracy.

For example, where four accused persons were alleged to have conspired together to commit offenses of abduction and murder of children, a confession by one of them in respect of what the other accused persons did in reference to their common intention was admissible as evidence as much against the confessing accused as against the others.

Admissions

Admissions are statements that attach a liability, as inferred from the facts in issue or relevant facts, to the party who made such statements. If such admissions are true and clear, they are the best proof of the facts admitted. A person’s conduct may also be taken as an admission.

For example, a woman registered the birth of her child but did not enter the name of the father or his profession. The court said that either she did not know who the father was or she was admitting that the child is illegitimate. In either case, there is an admission of adultery and admissible evidence of adultery.

Part II

This part is mainly concerned with the types of evidence which can be used as proof in the court of law.

Oral Evidence

Oral evidence is spoken evidence given by a witness in court, usually on oath. The oral evidence must be direct oral evidence which means where a person is a witness of fact, his testimony in the court is regarded as direct evidence who relies upon his belief as to what he saw and heard. That is,

• Seen fact: A fact which could be seen, the evidence must be of a witness who says he saw it.
• Heard Fact: A fact which could be heard, the evidence must be of a witness who says he heard it.
• Perceived by any other sense: A fact which could be perceived by any other sense or manner, the evidence must be of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or that manner.

For example, the testimony of persons who saw the pitiable condition of a young woman in her in-laws home where she met her death was held to be relevant.

Documentary Evidence

Documentary evidence means all documents produced before the court for inspection. It is a type of written proof that is offered at a trial to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact that is in dispute. They may be letters, contracts, deeds, licenses, certificates, tickets, or other writings.

The contents of documents must be proved either by the production of the document which is called primary evidence or by copies of the contents, which are called secondary evidence. Where there is documentary evidence, oral evidence is not entitled to any weight.

• Primary Evidence

Primary evidence is the evidence which the law requires to be given in the first place. The original document itself is produced for the inspection of the court. It is the best evidence.

For example, original documents such as diaries, speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, records, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, etc.

• Secondary Evidence

Secondary evidence is evidence which may be given in the absence of the primary evidence/better evidence when a proper explanation is given of the absence of that better record.

For example, copies made from the original, certified copies, newspaper reports, carbon copy, etc.

Electronic Evidence

Electronic/Digital evidence is any information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court may use at trial. We distinguish two basic types of evidence.

1. Data stored in computer systems or devices.
2. Information transmitted electronically through communication networks. Computer documents, emails, text and instant messages, transactions, images and Internet histories are examples of information that can be gathered from electronic devices and used very effectively as evidence.

Part III

This part deals with the effect of the evidence on its production before the court.

Burden of Proof

This expression refers to a party’s duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge, and includes the burden of production (providing enough evidence on an issue). The burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the happening of the issue and not upon the party who denies it.

For example, A desires a court to give a judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. Here A must prove that B has committed the crime i.e. the burden to prove lies on A.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof possible. This standard of proof requires the party to show that there is a high probability that the thing being asserted is true. It requires clear and convincing evidence.

For example, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction of a criminal defendant.

Witnesses

These are the persons who have seen an event, typically a crime or accident, take place or have knowledge of the same. They are competent to give their testimony before the court regarding the matter in issue. There are various types of witnesses like child witnesses who are below 18 years, an expert witness who has deep knowledge of a specific subject, and a character witness who is aware of the character of the party in the case. Their testimony before the court may be deposed as evidence after considering its relevancy to the case.

Conclusion

The Indian Evidence Act is a very vast subject. Evidence plays a vital role in each and everyone‟s life and everyone is bound to record and maintain evidence as a safety measure. Any argument can be best proved if it is supported by reasonable evidence. It is attempted to through light on the major concepts that everyone ought to know about evidence and its applicability.

For landlords and tenants the leave & license agreement may form evidence if there is an issue in their relationship. For companies and employees the employment agreement or other contract entered between both may be of evidentiary value. In data theft crime, the electronic devices used may form the evidence or the cyber expert tried as a witness, his expert opinion may also form a part of the evidence. In a murder case, the instrument used for the murder or the fingerprints found on it may form part of the evidence.

The Indian Evidence Act is considered very important in India. This is because our country follows the Due Process of Law Model (steps are taken according to the procedure devised by law). The fact that India follows the due process model means that theoretically the discretionary powers of the Judge is very large. To prevent the Judge from being arbitrary in nature while admitting evidence of a case, it is imperative that the Judge is made subject to a standard set of guidelines that is to be followed across the board. This fact of denying the Judge the misuse of his discretionary powers is all the more important in the present times when corruption is rampant in our country. Therefore, this Indian Evidence Act is objectively used to give true justice so that corrupt elements cannot subvert the justice system.