X killed Y and within a short time, the news sensationalised the surroundings and media sources. The matter was obviously reported to the police and reached the courts. But how do courts explore whether X actually killed Y? If you are thinking that media reports may be relied upon, the answer is NO!! Courts take up the trial to explore facts of the case to decide the matter. Someone who witnessed the murder could help, the weapon used for killing could help, dying person’s confession could help, even things available at the crime scene could help. All these things mentioned sum up the evidence relevant to prove whether X killed Y, or it is someone else putting the blame on X. The Indian Evidence Act paves the way for details regarding evidence relevant and acceptable in the court of law.
The word evidence is derived from a Latin word evident or evidere, which means to prove or to show clearly. It is understandable that courts rely upon the proof, and the applicable laws give direction. One such law is the Indian Evidence Act 1872, which provides in detail regarding what kind of proof is admissible as evidence in the courts of law. In criminal cases, the process of collecting evidence commences just after the FIR is registered with the police officials. In civil proceedings, the parties involved have to produce relevant evidence supporting their case on their own. Usually, there is no state authority like police to assist collection of evidence in civil matters.
Whenever there is an argument, there is a need for things, facts, information, etc. to prove the point being argued for. It has roots in logical reasoning and common sense to ascertain things as to whether, why and how they happen. Even ancient India run by Dharma gave importance to ‘saakshya’ which means evidence, to ascertain the truth. In order to establish the truth, it is crucial to recall the circumstances, the things and people proving the series of events in an act, since nobody could go back to the past to witness the scene all over again. The traces of evidence are evident during the Muslim dynasty as well.
Coming back to the present day Evidence Act, 1872, the same was enacted during British rule in India accredited to Sir James Fitz James Stephens. Although it was introduced by the English government, the same still fits into the modern legal system in India. The past 75 years of independence and evolution of law witnessed several developments in the law of evidence through amendments and case laws.
Particulars |
Details |
Name of the Act |
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 |
Came into force on |
September 1, 1872 |
Preamble to the Act |
Present |
Total Parts |
3 |
Part 1 |
Relevancy of Facts |
Part 2 |
On Proof |
Part 3 |
Production and Effect of Evidence |
Total Chapters |
11 |
Chapter 1 |
Preliminary terms and their meanings |
Chapter 2 |
Regarding Relevancy of Facts |
Chapter 3 |
Facts which need to be proved |
Chapter 4 |
For Oral Evidence |
Chapter 5 |
Regarding Documentary Evidence |
Chapter 6 |
Regarding exclusion of oral by documentary evidence |
Chapter 7 |
Burden of proof |
Chapter 8 |
Estoppel |
Chapter 9 |
Regarding Witnesses |
Chapter 10 |
Regarding improper admission and rejection of evidence |
Chapter 11 |
Regarding improper admission and reflection of evidence |
Total Schedules to the Act |
One (repealed) |
Total Sections |
167 |
Various terms have been used in the law of evidence which somehow differentiate among various kinds of proofs produced before courts in India. Things that deem relevant to a case on the surface may not be admissible in the courts. There are pieces of evidence which hold more importance and reliability as compared to others. The pointers below depict categorization of proof as per the Evidence Act in India:
Direct evidence, as the name suggests, has direct relevance proving the facts in issue. It gives confirmation to a fact which does not require further inference from anyone. Examples of direct evidence include a knife with the victim’s blood, whereby the victim was killed with a sharp weapon as per reports. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence provides connecting links with the facts of the matter. Circumstantial evidence is harder to suppress and hence, are comparatively more reliable. Examples include the accused's belongings found at the crime scene.
Oral can be understood as what comes out of the mouth. Oral evidence constitutes the statements made by witnesses orally in the court of law. Contrary to that, documentary evidence includes all the documents produced before the court for inspection during a case. Examples of oral evidence are the witness statements as explained earlier, and those of documentary evidence could be a will or a promissory note.
Primary and secondary evidence are the sub-types of documentary evidence only. Primary evidence can be understood as the documentary evidence produced before the court, holding supreme value. It is the first hand and the most reliable copy of evidence. In the absence of any primary evidence, secondary evidence can be used. It is produced from alternative sources in lack of original or main source. Primary evidence does not require any prior notice to the court, but in case of secondary evidence, it can only be produced before the court after serving a prior notice.
Real evidence here is comparable with the direct evidence. Hearsay is when someone conveys words said by someone else, and the same is not admissible during trials due to lack of confirmation. When a witness gives a statement not based on his/ her personal knowledge, but on what he/ she heard from another is not direct evidence. A criminal lawyer in Kolkata may benefit from hearsay evidence of the opposition’s witness for his/ her client.
As the term suggests, judicial evidence constitutes those produced before the court to prove or disprove the facts in issue and relevant facts. Since there are other stages too like police complaint or confession before criminal lawyers. Such words by the accused outside the court in the presence of any person, or the admission of a party are not admissible in court and thus, termed as non-judicial evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act is much more than the facts and information provided here through this legal blog. Knowing the offence and its elements is not enough for someone representing a client before the court. Knowing the process, things that are acceptable as per process, stages of procedural law which restrict a certain aspect, everything has to be on tips. Specifically for criminal advocates, even if the case per se goes against your client, illegal production of evidence could tilt the case on your side. Thorough preparation of the case and knowing the applicable laws like Evidence Act is the key.