INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT 1872
Subtitle
Definitions : Evidence :
"Evidence" means and includes-
Oral Evidence.--
(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 .
Somawanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151
Documentary Evidence.--
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court are called
documentary evidence .
Classification of evidence :Primary and Secondary evidence
It may be oral and documentary evidence .
Primary evidence is an evidence which a person has personally seen or witnessed
or heard or gathered by his senses.
It is called direct evidence as opposed to hearsay.
In case of primary evidence, if the petitioner does not produce original copy then no
primary evidence can be stipulated to prove the guilty of accused;
Secondary Evidence :
Secondary evidence means that which can be given in absence of the primary
evidence. Where a copy of the document or recollection of the witness who has
read the original document are tendered in evidence they will be called secondary
evidence of the document.
Where the original has been destroyed or lost, and when party has made diligent
search for it and exhausted all sources and means available for its production then
the secondary evidence is admissible; Sattamma v. Ch. Bhikshapati Goud, AIR 2010
AP 166.
Oral evidence :
Oral evidence is the evidence, which is confined to words spoken by mouth or
gestures. Oral evidence, when reliable, is sufficient without documentary evidence
to prove a fact or title. Where a fact which can be proved by oral evidence, it is not
necessary that the statement of the witness should be oral. Thus, a dumb person
may be testified by signs or by writing. The facts, can also be proved by oral
evidence.
Oral evidence includes not only the one adduced by examining the witnesses, on
behalf of such party, but also the cross-examination of witness by the opposite
party, in relation to it; Nandam Mohanamma v. Markonda Narasimha Rao, AIR 2006
Hearsay evidence :
It may be called indirect, second-hand or derivative evidence. It is a statement
made to the Court by a witness who has not seen the happening of the transaction
or facts, but heard that something had happened. Thus, it means that which a
witness does not say of his own knowledge but says that another has said or
signified to him. The courts do not normally take such evidence much seriously.
Expert evidence :
The law of evidence is designed to ensure that, the Court, considers only that evidence which enables it to reach a reliable
conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear testimony
of the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person. Thus, there is a
need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be
not within the Courts knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved is highly specialised and perhaps even esoteric, the
central role of expert cannot be disputed.
Rules of Expert Evidence
1. Expert must be within a recognized field of expertise.
2. The evidence must be based on reliable principles.
3. Expert must be qualified in that discipline; Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., MANU/SC/1641/2009 : AIR
2010 SC 806 (See also Errors, Medicine and the Law by Alan Merry and Alexander McCall Smith, 2001 Edn., p. 178, published by
Cambridge University Press, London.
Classification of evidence :The evidence is classified into the
following :
1. Documentary evidence :
Direct evidence is the evidence directly about the real point in issue. It is the
testimony of the witnesses as to principal fact to be proved, e.g., the evidence of a
person who says that he saw the commissions of the act which constitutes the
alleged crime. It also includes the production of an original document. Direct
evidence is generally of a superior cogency.
The presumptive proof when the fact itself is proved by direct testimony.
2. Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial Evidence:
Justice Fletcher Moulton once had, in respect of circumstantial evidence, observed
proof does not mean rigid mathematical formula since, that is impossible.
Again Lord Justice Coleridge observed, the circumstantial evidence is like a
grassamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with
the merest of touches. He had further observed that such evidence may be strong
in parts but it may also leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may
escape.
Rules of Circumstantial Evidence
(i) The facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence
must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It if conviction rests solely on
circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the
accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not
to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused; Raghav Prapanna Tripathi
v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(ii)All the link in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
they exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused;
The inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and is incapable of explanation
upon any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt;
Proof of circumstantial evidence:
Four things are essential to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence:
(a) that the circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
(b) that all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of accused;
(c) that the circumstances must be of conclusive nature and tendency;
(d) that the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis except the one
proposed to be proved; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, 1992
