Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Introduction
- Sir james stephen
- Not exhaustive law :- means it does not purport to contain all rules of
evidence, for the interpretation of the section of the Act, the court can look
to the relevant English law but cannot import English law which is
inconsistent.
- It Cames into force on 1 Sep 1872
- Three main principle
(a) Evidence must confined to the matters in issue.
(b) hearsay evidence must not be admitted.
(c) The best evidence must be given in all cases.
- It applies to all judicial proceeding in or before any court, including court
martial except under Army Act, Navy Discipline Act and Air force Act, but
not to affidavit, non to proceeding before any arbitrator.
- Judicial proceeding :- A judicial proceeding is on in the course of which
evidence is or may be legally taken on oath.
- Execution proceeding a is Judicial proceeding
- but contempt proceeding is not Judicial proceeding
- Proceeding under Income tax is not Judicial proceeding
- Proceeding under Industrial Tribunal is Judicial proceeding
- Act does not apply to "affidavit" because the deponent's assertion of facts
and the basis of his personal knowledge does not constitute 'evidence'
Exception = (1) Order 19 of CPC (2) Sec 295-297 of Crpc.
- arbitrators must follow the principles of natural justice but not bound by
the law of evidence.
- Lex fori = Law of evidence is the les fori i.e. law of the forum (or court) in
which a case is tried (Law of the place of the action)
1
,case - [Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 sec 60]
Held where a evidence is taken in one country in aid of a suit or action
(proceeding in another country, either on ordinary commission or with the
assistance of the local court, the law applicable to the recording of evidence
would be the law prevailing in the country where the proceeding (case) is
going on.
- Before passing of the Indian Evidence Act, the rules of evidence were
governed by the rules of English common Law, Hindu law & mohammedan
laws and the rule of equity, justice & good conscience.
but sec 2 (1) of Indian evidence Act repealed all those rules of
evidence. This section was also repealed in 1938.
Imp.
- Factum probandom - principal facts means what is proved.
Factum probans - evidentiary facts, through which it is proved.
- In criminal matters- the allegations in the chargesheet constitute the facts
in issue.
In civil matters- The process of ascertaining facts in issue is known as
framing issue
The issue of fact' under C.P.C is equal to the 'facts in issue' of the evidence
Act.
Relevant Facts:-
Relevancy implies relationship and such relationship with the facts in issue
as convinces or has a tendency to convince the judge as to the existence or
otherwise of the facts in issue.
Evidence:-
It means anything by which the alleged matter or fact is either
established or disproved.
The definition of evidence used the word document of the statement but
problem occured when the things are neither document or a statement like:-
Example (1) - when the judge inspects the scene of occurrence and draws a
chart of it that is also evidence though it is neither an oral statement of a
witness nor a document produced by parties. But in a way it is a document
It cames under the "The matter of fact under inquiry"
case - Haricharan Kurmi v/s state of Bihar
2
,Circumstances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do
amount to evidence in that generic sense(applicable to entire class)
Example (2) - Statements of parties under examined otherwise than as
witnesses, material object other than document etc are not evidence
according to sec 3, but these are the matters which the court may
legitimately consider.
Imp. - Appreciation of Evidence :-
when the court has to examine the reliability quotient of the evidence
produced this in called appreciation of evidence.
case - ganesh.k.gulve v/s state of Maharashtra [AIR 2002 SC 3068]
Evidence is required to be appreciated to find out what part of it represents
the true and correct state of things. It is the function of seperating the grain
from the chaff.
-Holroyd J. "It is better that 10 guilty man should escape, rather that one
innocent should suffer"
- [Razik Ram v/s Jaswant Singh]
The same evidence which may be sufficient to regard a fact as proved in a
civil suit may be considered insufficient for a conviction in a criminal action.
- logical relevant
e.g. = A confession to a police officer may appear to be
logically relevant, but it is not legally relevant.
- legally relevant : Section 6-55 deals with facts which are legally
admissible and relevant.
- If irrelevant evidence is so mixed up with relevant evidence that it cannot
be seperated, the whole of the evidence should be rejected.
Imp.= relevancy of section - 6 to 55
Admissibility sec 56 onwards.
Relevancy is the genies, admissibility is a species.
(1) - Sec 120-126 though are relevant but are not admissible.
3
, (2) - oral statements which are hearsay may be relevant, but are not
admissible
(3) - Evidence in terms elicited from a witness in cross-examination as to his
character to find out his credibility is admissible although it may have
nothing to do with the facts of the case means not relevant as not fall in any
sec 6-55 of evidence Act.
the oral statements which are hearsay may be relevant, but not being direct
evidence, are not admissible.
= Evidence obtained by undesirable methods
The relevant evidence remains relevant even if it was obtained by
improper or unlawful means.
- [Pushpa devi v/s M.L. wadhawan] Air 1987 SC 1748
SC held that the only exception to this rule, if improper methods have been
used to obtain evidence for it & the judge is of the view that the prejudicial
effect of such evidence would be out of proportion to its evidentiary value,
the judge may exclude it.
- The impact on the fairness of the proceedings is the crucial determining
factor.
Kinds of Witnesses or Evidence
1. Direct evidence:- Any fact which without the intervention of any other
fact, proves the existence of a fact - in - issue. Direct evidence is generally
of a superior cogency
ex:- (1) who says that he saw or heard
(2) Document original
2. Circumstantial evidence:-
It is the testimony of a witness to other relevant facts which the fact in issue
may be inferred.
It is not a secondary evidence; it is merely direct evidence applied indirectly.
4
Introduction
- Sir james stephen
- Not exhaustive law :- means it does not purport to contain all rules of
evidence, for the interpretation of the section of the Act, the court can look
to the relevant English law but cannot import English law which is
inconsistent.
- It Cames into force on 1 Sep 1872
- Three main principle
(a) Evidence must confined to the matters in issue.
(b) hearsay evidence must not be admitted.
(c) The best evidence must be given in all cases.
- It applies to all judicial proceeding in or before any court, including court
martial except under Army Act, Navy Discipline Act and Air force Act, but
not to affidavit, non to proceeding before any arbitrator.
- Judicial proceeding :- A judicial proceeding is on in the course of which
evidence is or may be legally taken on oath.
- Execution proceeding a is Judicial proceeding
- but contempt proceeding is not Judicial proceeding
- Proceeding under Income tax is not Judicial proceeding
- Proceeding under Industrial Tribunal is Judicial proceeding
- Act does not apply to "affidavit" because the deponent's assertion of facts
and the basis of his personal knowledge does not constitute 'evidence'
Exception = (1) Order 19 of CPC (2) Sec 295-297 of Crpc.
- arbitrators must follow the principles of natural justice but not bound by
the law of evidence.
- Lex fori = Law of evidence is the les fori i.e. law of the forum (or court) in
which a case is tried (Law of the place of the action)
1
,case - [Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 sec 60]
Held where a evidence is taken in one country in aid of a suit or action
(proceeding in another country, either on ordinary commission or with the
assistance of the local court, the law applicable to the recording of evidence
would be the law prevailing in the country where the proceeding (case) is
going on.
- Before passing of the Indian Evidence Act, the rules of evidence were
governed by the rules of English common Law, Hindu law & mohammedan
laws and the rule of equity, justice & good conscience.
but sec 2 (1) of Indian evidence Act repealed all those rules of
evidence. This section was also repealed in 1938.
Imp.
- Factum probandom - principal facts means what is proved.
Factum probans - evidentiary facts, through which it is proved.
- In criminal matters- the allegations in the chargesheet constitute the facts
in issue.
In civil matters- The process of ascertaining facts in issue is known as
framing issue
The issue of fact' under C.P.C is equal to the 'facts in issue' of the evidence
Act.
Relevant Facts:-
Relevancy implies relationship and such relationship with the facts in issue
as convinces or has a tendency to convince the judge as to the existence or
otherwise of the facts in issue.
Evidence:-
It means anything by which the alleged matter or fact is either
established or disproved.
The definition of evidence used the word document of the statement but
problem occured when the things are neither document or a statement like:-
Example (1) - when the judge inspects the scene of occurrence and draws a
chart of it that is also evidence though it is neither an oral statement of a
witness nor a document produced by parties. But in a way it is a document
It cames under the "The matter of fact under inquiry"
case - Haricharan Kurmi v/s state of Bihar
2
,Circumstances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do
amount to evidence in that generic sense(applicable to entire class)
Example (2) - Statements of parties under examined otherwise than as
witnesses, material object other than document etc are not evidence
according to sec 3, but these are the matters which the court may
legitimately consider.
Imp. - Appreciation of Evidence :-
when the court has to examine the reliability quotient of the evidence
produced this in called appreciation of evidence.
case - ganesh.k.gulve v/s state of Maharashtra [AIR 2002 SC 3068]
Evidence is required to be appreciated to find out what part of it represents
the true and correct state of things. It is the function of seperating the grain
from the chaff.
-Holroyd J. "It is better that 10 guilty man should escape, rather that one
innocent should suffer"
- [Razik Ram v/s Jaswant Singh]
The same evidence which may be sufficient to regard a fact as proved in a
civil suit may be considered insufficient for a conviction in a criminal action.
- logical relevant
e.g. = A confession to a police officer may appear to be
logically relevant, but it is not legally relevant.
- legally relevant : Section 6-55 deals with facts which are legally
admissible and relevant.
- If irrelevant evidence is so mixed up with relevant evidence that it cannot
be seperated, the whole of the evidence should be rejected.
Imp.= relevancy of section - 6 to 55
Admissibility sec 56 onwards.
Relevancy is the genies, admissibility is a species.
(1) - Sec 120-126 though are relevant but are not admissible.
3
, (2) - oral statements which are hearsay may be relevant, but are not
admissible
(3) - Evidence in terms elicited from a witness in cross-examination as to his
character to find out his credibility is admissible although it may have
nothing to do with the facts of the case means not relevant as not fall in any
sec 6-55 of evidence Act.
the oral statements which are hearsay may be relevant, but not being direct
evidence, are not admissible.
= Evidence obtained by undesirable methods
The relevant evidence remains relevant even if it was obtained by
improper or unlawful means.
- [Pushpa devi v/s M.L. wadhawan] Air 1987 SC 1748
SC held that the only exception to this rule, if improper methods have been
used to obtain evidence for it & the judge is of the view that the prejudicial
effect of such evidence would be out of proportion to its evidentiary value,
the judge may exclude it.
- The impact on the fairness of the proceedings is the crucial determining
factor.
Kinds of Witnesses or Evidence
1. Direct evidence:- Any fact which without the intervention of any other
fact, proves the existence of a fact - in - issue. Direct evidence is generally
of a superior cogency
ex:- (1) who says that he saw or heard
(2) Document original
2. Circumstantial evidence:-
It is the testimony of a witness to other relevant facts which the fact in issue
may be inferred.
It is not a secondary evidence; it is merely direct evidence applied indirectly.
4
