Top Banner

of 13

Types of Evidences

Oct 11, 2015

Download

Documents

Types of Evidences as per Indian Law
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript

Seedling School Of Law And GovernanceJaipur National University

types of evidences

Subject : law of evidence

Submitted To Submitted By:Mr. Brajesh Gupta shubham solanki(Assistant Professor) ba.llb (hons)AcknowledgementI would like to express profound gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) V.S. Mani, for his invaluable support, encouragement, supervision and useful suggestions throughout this research work. His moral support and continuous guidance enabled me to complete my work successfully. His intellectual thrust and blessings motivated me to work rigorously on this study. In fact this study could not have seen the light of the day if his contribution had not been available. It would be no exaggeration to say that it is his unflinching faith and unquestioning support that has provided the sustenance necessary to see it through to its present shape. I express my deep sincere gratitude towards my parents for their blessing, patience, and moral support in the successful completion of this assignment I express my gratitude to my all teachers and friends who has supported and encouraged me during my study at Jaipur National University, Jaipur

SHUBHAM SOLANKI

Table of ContentsAcknowledgement2What is Evidence?3Categorically Division of Evidence:4A.Oral Evidence5B.Documentary Evidence-6C.Real Evidence9D.Hearsay Evidence-9E.Direct Evidence-10Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Evidence-10Digital evidence12Conclusion13

What is Evidence?The word Evidence is derived from the Latin word evidere which means to make clear to view or sight, to discover clearly, to make plainly certain, to certain, to ascertain, to prove.Evidence indicates that which exhibits, makes clear or discover the truth of the facts or points in issue either on one side or the other.[footnoteRef:1] Law of Evidence means through argument to prove or disprove any matter of fact.[footnoteRef:2] [1: According to Sir Blackstone] [2: According to Sir Taylor ]

Governing Law: Indian Evidence Act, 1872.Provision regarding Definition: Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 3 provides that Evidence means and includes (1) All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence;(2) All the documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called documentary evidence;Critical Analysis of the Definition given under the Act:The term Evidence has been defined under the Act in a very narrower sense because this broadly categorize this in only two categories only-(1) The statement of witnesses.(2) Documents produced before the court including electronic records.The Apex Court of India the Honble Supreme CourtIn Sivrajbhan v. Harchandgir[footnoteRef:3]held that The word evidence in connection with Law, all valid meanings, includes all except agreement which prove disprove any fact or matter whose truthfulness is presented for Judicial Investigation. [3: Sivrajbhan v. Harchandgir (AIR 1954 SC 564)]

Court further opined that at this stage it will be proper to keep in mind that where a party and the other party dont get the opportunity to cross-examine his statements to ascertain the truth then in such a condition this partys statement is not Evidence.Furthermore the term evidence means anything by which the alleged matter or fact is either established or disproved.[footnoteRef:4] [4: Indian Evidence Act, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 21stEdition, Nagpur]

The author supports the view that A thing that makes the thing in question evident to the court is evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that although the evidence Act divides evidence on into two kinds only but it is also important to emphasize that this does not mean that there cannot be any other kind of evidence. E.g. 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 the parties. But in a way it is a document.Categorically Division of Evidence:As mentioned above the concept of the evidence is very broad in nature. While India has very strict rules about what can be introduced as evidence when trying to establish the guilt or innocence of a person. Different kinds of evidence are evaluated differently there worthiness depends upon their applicability in the court and surrounding circumstances of the case.An overview of various types of evidence that are commonly presented in a criminal trial is given below:A. Oral EvidenceRelated Provision: Section 59 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.Note: Which provide that All facts, except the [contents of documents or electronic records] contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence.Definition provision of oral evidence:- Sec 3 The meaning of expression Oral evidence is given along with the definition of the term evidence in Sec 3. This first part of the provision which defines evidence deal with oral evidence it says: - All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witness in relation to the matter of four under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence.Oral evidence is evidence which is confined to words spoken by the mouth. What fact may be proved by oral evidence :- Oral evidence may suffice to prove possession oral evidence of credible would be sufficient to prove a little by prescription.Weightage to the Oral Evidence:- where oral evidence is conflicting and where documentary evidence does not help on in coming to a decisive conclusion the duly proper course is to see what are the admitted fact in case and what case the circumstance deducible from the can be no doubt this can be the true method of arising a correct conclusion.Oral evidence is a much less satisfactory medium of proof than documentary proof. But justice can never be administered in the most important cases without resorting to it. In all civilized systems of jurisprudence there is a presumption against perjury.Related Case:- Ashok Kumar Rout & Etc V/S State Of BiharFacts of the Case :- Admissibility of oral evidence faction of statement and truth of statement of all hearsay statement and truth of statement of all hearsay statement is not inadmissible. There is distinction between proving the faction of statement and proving truth of statement. It is admissible if such evidence proposes to establish only the faction of statement made by other person and not the truth of statement. Guidance of informant only proposed to establish Fact which was given to him by eye witness. Therefore, it is admissible and it cannot be rejected.Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribed the provision of recording oral evidence which prescribes that the all those statements which the court permits or expects the witnesses to make in his presence regarding the truth of the facts are called Oral Evidence. Oral Evidence is that evidence which the witness has personally seen or heard. Oral evidence must always be direct or positive Evidence is direct when it goes straight to establish the main fact in issue. The facts judicially noticeable and facts admitted are need not to be proved.Where oral evidence is credible and cogent, medical evidence is to contrary is inconsequential. Only when medical evidence totally improbable oral evidence, adverse inference can be drawn. Evidentiary value of the oral testimony of an eye-witness cannot be diluted by reason of non-production of any document in support of a claim contrary to the oral testimony.If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds in which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds - Provided that the opinion of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatise if the author is dead or cannot be found or has become incapable of giving evidence or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.B. Documentary Evidence- Documentary evidence is defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act as: All documents produced for the inspection of the court such documents are called documentary evidence.The Reason behind producing Documentary Evidence:The purpose of producing documents is to rely upon the truth of the statement enclosed therein. This involves, When the document produced in the court, the examination of three questions: (i) Is the document genuine, (ii) What are its contents, and (iii) Are the statements in the document true?In a case like this it is the documentary evidence that would show the actual attitude of the parties and their consciousness regarding the custom is more important than any oral evidence.All evidence comes to the tribunal either as the statement of a witness or as the statement of a document, i.e., oral or documentary evidence.It has been pronounced that the word document used under evidence Act should not be interpreted restrictively. The word means something which shows or teaches and is evidential or informative in its character. Position in India: In India the rule is the same as in England. The section means that there no other method allowed by law for providing the contents of a document except by the primary or the secondary evidence.Where admissions were made in a written statement by the plaintiffs predecessors-in-interest which was filed in several judicial proceedings regarding the rights in the suit property, a certified copy of the written statement was held to be admissible in proof of the settled rights to the property.Where the document carried adhesive stamps which belonged to a period prior to six months from the date of purchase, the court said that such document could not be attached in evidence. it would have been admissible if it was not creative of any rights in favour of any party and merely recorded something.An unregistered family settlement deed was held to admissible strictly for collateral purposes only.

Amendment in the concept through the courts judgment: Concept1: E-records to be admissible as documentary evidence. (Sections 3, 65A, 65B) Primary Evidence State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, SAR Gilani & Ors. (AIR 2005 SC 3820)It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the Court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service providing Company can be led into evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak to the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance of the requirements of Section 65B which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely Sections 63 and 65.Above all, the printouts pertaining to the call details exhibited by the prosecution are of such regularity and continuity that it would be legitimate to draw a presumption that the system was functional and the output was produced by the computer in regular use, whether this fact was specifically deposed to by the witness or not. M/s. P. R. Transport Agency v. Union of India (AIR 2006 ALLAHABAD 23)Thus, the acceptance of the tender, communicated by the respondents to the petitioner by e-mail, will be deemed to be received by the petitioner at Varanasi or Chandauli, which are the only two places where the petitioner has his place of business. NESTLE S.A. and ANR v. ESSAR INDUSTRIES and ORS. (I.A.No.3427/2005 in CS(OS) No.985/2005 )The plaintiffs in the instant case seek to prove the electronic data already on record and the updated electronic data under Sub-section 1 of Section 65B after complying with the provisions of Sub-section 4 by filing affidavit of an officer accompanied by the requisite certificate.

C. Real EvidenceReal Evidence means real or material evidence. It refers to any matter which the court perceives itself e.g. that a man standing before a judge has got a scar on his face, objects like murder weapon, blood-stained clothes, photographs, etc. Personal evidence is that which is afforded by human agency.For example, Contempt Of Court, Conduct of the witness, behavior of the parties, the local inspection by the court. It can also be called as the most satisfactory witness.Trace evidence, such asfingerprints,glove printsandfirearmresidue, is also a type of real evidence. In amurdertrialfor example (or a civil trial forassault), the real evidence might includebiological evidencesuch asDNAleft by the attacker on the victim's body, the body itself, theweaponused, pieces of carpet spattered withblood, or casts of footprints or tire prints found at the scene of the crime.D. Hearsay Evidence- It is also called derivative or second-hand evidence. It is the testimony of a witness as to statements made out of court which are offered as evidence of their own truth. Thus, As evidence that A heard that a murder had taken place is hearsay evidence.The word hearsay is used in various senses. Sometimes it means whatever a person is heard to say; sometimes it means whatever a person declares on information given by someone else.Hearsay Evidence which ought to have been rejected as irrelevant does not become admissible as against a party merely because his council fails to take objection when the evidence is tendered. So finally we can assert that Hearsay Evidence is that evidence which the witness has neither personally seen nor heard, nor has he perceived through his senses and has come to know about it through some third person. There is no bar to receive hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.[footnoteRef:5] When a piece of evidence is such that there is no prima facie assurance of its credibility, it would be most dangerous to act upon it. Hearsay evidence being evidence of that type has therefore, to be excluded whether or not the case in which its use comes in for question is governed by the Evidence Act.[footnoteRef:6] [5: Hasmukhlal V. Shah vs Bank Of India And Ors, (1997) 3 GLR 1891] [6: K.P. Abdul Kareem Hajee And Anr. vs Director, Enforcement, (1977) 2 MLJ 47]

E. Direct Evidence- Evidence is either direct or indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence which is very important for the decision of the matter in issue. The main fact when it is presented by witnesses, things and witnesses is direct, evidence whereby main facts may be proved or established that is the evidence of person who had actually seen the crime being committed and has described the offence. We need hardly point out that in the illustration given by us, the evidence of the witness in Court is direct evidence as opposed to testimony to a fact suggesting guilt. The statement before the police only is called circumstantial evidence of, complicity and not direct evidence in the strict sense. Direct evidence presented at a trial can be an artifact (like a signed contract or the murder weapon), sometimes called real evidence. Presenting evidence about the murder weapon would mean establishing that this was the object that caused the injuries leading to the victims death. It would not necessarily establish who used the object, but it would be direct evidence about what brought about the death.More commonly, direct evidence is presented in spoken form, called testimony. Testimony consists of the witnesss descriptions, opinions, or inferences that are reasonably based on his or her own perceptions of the facts. The witness should be an eye-witness to events relating to the crime or incident at hand. Direct observations are considered among the best kind of evidence, particularly when they are supported by other peoples observations. Together, these provide the evidence used to persuade the judge and/or jury of the true facts in the case.Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Evidence- There is no difference between circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence. Circumstantial Evidence attempts to prove the facts in issue by providing other facts and affords an instance as to its existence. It is that which relates to a series of other facts than the fact in issue but by experience have been found so associated with the fact in issue in relation of cause and effect that it leads to a satisfactory conclusion. The HonbleSupreme Court[footnoteRef:7]Observed, In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that suspicion may take the place of legal proof. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance , be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In other words there can be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. [7: Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh,]

In the case ofAshok Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the HonbleSupreme Courtheld-

(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.

(2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of accused.

(3)The circumstances, taken cumulatively should from 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)TheCircumstantial Evidencein 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 inconsistent with his innocence.

Digital evidenceComputers are used for committing crime, and, thanks to the burgeoning science of digital evidence forensics, law enforcement now uses computers to fight crime.Digital evidence is information stored or transmitted in binary form that may be relied on in court. It can be found on a computer hard drive, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a CD, and a flash card in a digital camera, among other places. Digital evidence is commonly associated with electronic crime, or e-crime, such as child pornography or credit card fraud. However, digital evidence is now used to prosecute all types of crimes, not just e-crime. For example, suspects' e-mail or mobile phone files might contain critical evidence regarding their intent, their whereabouts at the time of a crime and their relationship with other suspects. In 2005, for example, a floppy disk led investigators to the BTK serial killer who had eluded police capture since 1974 and claimed the lives of at least 10 victims.In an effort to fight e-crime and to collect relevant digital evidence for all crimes, law enforcement agencies are incorporating the collection and analysis of digital evidence, also known as computer forensics, into their infrastructure. Law enforcement agencies are challenged by the need to train officers to collect digital evidence and keep up with rapidly evolving technologies such as computer operating systems.

Conclusion

Thus we can finally conclude that in order to provide justice Evidence and witnesses are very necessary and they hold a very important place in the Law. With the help of Evidence the judge reaches a verdict. The evidence heard by the court is the most important factor in determining whether the judgment will be in favour of Prosecution side or Defense side because without evidences it is very difficult to give verdict by the court.With evidences it becomes easy to give verdict by the court because it makes case easier so types of evidence are very important part of law.1