Download Importance of Evidence in Indian Judicial System: Law Perspectives and more Assignments Law of Evidence in PDF only on Docsity!
UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW
BBALL.B. (Hons.) Semester – VI Mid-Sem Examination April- SUBJECT NAME: Evidence Law (BBL604) Total Marks: 30 Time: 09:30 – 5: Name- Adeeba Ghani Enroll No- 20180401006 Semester- VIth
1. Give a detailed account of Evidence and its relationship with the substantive and procedural laws? The Law of Evidence is an integral part of every branch of the judicial system, regardless of nation, implying that the position of evidence is a crucial statute in any country. However, in terms of India, the enactment of the Indian Evidence Act has fully transformed our judicial system, since there were previously no codified laws relating to evidence. The Indian Evidence Act has enriched our judicial system by providing rules and regulations for determining the shreds of evidence. Despite the fact that the India Evidence Act is based on English law, it is not entirely detailed, and it is also a ‘Lex Fori' law, which refers to the law of the land in which court proceedings are held. The word "proof" comes from the Latin word "evidencia." which means ‘to show clearly, or to discover, or to ascertain or to prove.’ The Evidence act came into force from 1st September 1872 applies to all over India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The limitation of this act does not end here, as it is not applicable to army & naval law, disciplinary acts and all the affidavits. It is well known that the Law of evidence is Procedural Law and it only applies to court proceedings but it also has a feature in its some part which makes it as Substantial Law. The primary objective of any Judicial System irrespective of any state is to administer justice and protect the rights of the citizens. For administering justice, every judicial system has to consider the facts of the cases and has to extract the correct facts for complete justice; and there the importance of procedural law comes into existence which laws different rules in checking the value of the facts produced by the law offender and by the victim. The complete ‘ corpus juris’ i.e, a body of laws, is divided into two categories:
- Substantive laws- Which mean a set of rules and regulations that govern the society.
- Adjective laws- These are the set of rules and regulations which deals with the law governing procedural aspects such as evidencing, pleading etc. Evidence and its relationship with the substantive and procedural laws Evidence is crucial in both procedural and substantive law. The procedure for the case is determined by procedural law, while substantive law regulates how the facts of the case should be treated and decides the crime charge. In all legal proceedings, substantive law defines a person's rights as well as how he or she is supposed to act in accordance with a social standard. As a result, procedural and substantive law decide the various aspects of a case where testimony plays an important role in determining fact in order to determine justice. EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL LAW: Procedural law is the branch which governs the process of litigation. Process of a trial of criminal/civil laws in India are governed by three pillars:
- The Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC)
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC) / Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA In this case, the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) is a comprehensive procedural rule that governs the conduct of every trial in India. This procedure entails gathering evidence, interrogating the accused, and so on. Proof can come from a variety of places, ranging from witness interviews to inanimate object analysis. Investigation is a part of procedural law, and proof is crucial. Electronic proof is also appropriate. Oral, documentary, and true evidence are the three types of evidence. The comments made by witnesses in court may be considered oral proof. Documentary proof refers to documents created for review in a court of law. In course of judicial proceedings, objects produced in a court are the real evidence. The object of evidence is to prove or disprove something (the alleged fact) in a court of law. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regulates the processing of "evidence" in India, and it is one of the pillars for conducting trials. Oral evidence is discussed in Section 60 of Part III, while documentary evidence is discussed in Section 3 of the IEA. After the act was amended, this provision was expanded to cover electronic documents. Though the Evidence Act specifically mentions the types of evidence, Chapter XXIII Part A and Part B5 of the CrPC deal with the method of documenting evidence and the Commission for the investigation of witnesses, respectively.During the proceeding, the statement made by the victim and accused plays the utmost important role as a part of the production of evidence before the court of law to prove or disprove. Hence, evidence plays an important role during the proceeding of the court as well as in trials.
It has been observed that, “the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence is fundamental”.Furthermore, the Indian Evidence Act, under chapter IV regulating oral evidence, stipulates, “Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct”. Therefore it’s clear that the person contrary to hearsay must have personally seen or heard the fact in question. However, this cannot by any stretch of imagination, be extended to mean that direct evidence of hearsay evidence would be admissible as a circumstance to establish a fact however there are a few cases which are the exceptions to this rule and admissible in a Court of law. The main exceptions are as follows:
- Res Gestae;
- Admission and Confession;
- Dying Declaration and;
- Evidence given in formal proceedings; 1. RES GESTAE The Black Law Dictionary defines res gestae as, “ things done .” Under Evidence law, words and statements regarding res gestae are admissible under the hearsay exception.The IEA, under S. 6 defines res gestae as connected with the facts in issue as, “facts which form part of the same transaction” irrespective of occurrence[17]^ wherein the word ‘transaction’ can be interpreted in several ways. Furthermore, the Courts have also observed that; “the statement of law in section 6 of the Evidence Act is usually known as Res Gestae. The literal meaning of the word ’res’ is everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject matter or status .” In this scenario, once the statement is made, it may be further proved during the legal proceedings by another person appearing as a witness wherein the aforesaid statement is a part of the same transaction. For instance, where the witness arrived at the scene of the crime on hearing firing; and saw the injured who conveyed the assailant’s identity therein was admissible under S. 6 since it was a part of the same transaction which in the instant case was the act of shooting[19]. Herein, it is noteworthy that res gestae as defined in S. 6 is further expounded and illustrated in sections 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the Act and hence should be read with them simultaneously[20]. This sections scope lies in its ambiguity. 2. ADMISSION AND CONFESSION Admissions and Confessions are defined under S. 17 – 23 and S. 24 – 30 respectively. Admission is a statement which provides inference to any fact in issue or relevant
fact. Confession, on the other hand, is a person's admission of guilt in a court of law. Confession, unlike admission, is not specified by the IEA. The provisions pertaining to the same, namely S. 24 – 30, describe the various provisions pertaining to confessions, such as cases where they are irrelevant—caused by inducement, danger, or promise; or a police officer—confessions in police custody, and others. When a person makes an extrajudicial or out-of-court admission of responsibility or confession of guilt, the evidence may be proven by the person to whom the statement was made.
- DYING DECLARATION In the case of, Muthu Kutty and Anr. v. State by Inspector of Police, T.N. the Apex Court held that, “The law regarding dying declaration is that it is an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence elaborated in section 60 of the Evidence Act.” There are some situations where people can’t be called to the court as a witness. These statements are mostly of deceased persons given to any other person when it relates to cause of death. The circumstances in which such other person appears before court as a witness testifying as to what he heard, in such special circumstances hearsay may be declared as relevant. 4. EVIDENCE GIVEN IN FORMAL PROCEEDINGS S. 33 of the IEA provides for the usage of statements given by a particular witness in former proceedings as evidence of the truth of the facts stated further, in subsequent proceedings in the same case, wherein the said victim has died or is unable to appear before court. Other than the aforementioned there are some other specific exceptions to the rule of hearsay. S. 35 defines, “ relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty ”. Herein statements in public documents are relevant statements and though the person may not be alive their previously made ones, are admissible in Court. Furthermore, entries in books of accounts under S. 34 as well as opinions of experts provided under S. 45 – 51 are admissible as well. 3. What is a confession and how do you distinguish about the confession and admission in law relating to evidence in India? As its word "confession" is not specified or expressed anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, the inference explained in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act also applies to confession in the same way. Section 17 specifically states that any declaration, whether oral or written, presented for the consideration of any conclusion to the fact in issue or related facts in a civil proceeding is known as confession.
In, Balwinder Singh v. State the Supreme Court has mentioned some guidelines in the form of deciding the case that in the case of extrajudicial confession it the court must check for the credibility of the person making the confession and all of his statements shall be tested by the court to conclude whether the person who made the confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise a person who is not so trustworthy then his statements cannot be used for making any inference to prove the guilt of the accused. 3) Retracted Confession The Accused person who confessed earlier and later denied such confession does not destroy the evidentiary value of the confession as originally recorded. The Supreme Court has stated that a Retracted confession may form the basis of a conviction if it receives some general corroboration from other independent evidence. But if the court finds that the confession originally recorded was voluntary, it should be acted upon. In Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court, in this case, lifted that a retracted confession has enough values to form any other legal grounds to establish any conviction only if the Court satisfies that it was true and was on someone’s own will. But the Court has to testify that the conviction cannot be solely be made on such confession until and unless they are corroborated. 4) Confession by co-accused Section 30.Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for the same offense. When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offense, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. The Supreme Court in the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana , held that the confessions made by the co-accused do not have much evidentiary value and they cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore the confession made by the co-accused can only be used to corroborate the conclusion drawn out by other probative evidence.
Difference between Confession and Admission The litmus test distinguishes the different terms of statements which are confession and admission. The litmus test suggests that confession is some statements which itself is complete in the conviction of the accused the statements alone has the value of convicting the accused, and when there is need of some supplementary or secondary evidence to prove the conviction of the accused then it is an admission. S. No. Confession Admission
The confession is something which is made by the person who is charged with any criminal offences and such statements may infer any reasoning for concluding or suggesting that he is guilty of a crime. When any person voluntarily acknowledges the existence of any facts in issue or facts.
The concept of confession usually deals with the criminal proceedings and there is no such specific section defining confession. The concept of admission usually deals with the civil proceedings and section 17 specifically deal with the definition of admission.
If the confessions are purposefully and are made on someone’s own will then it may be accepted as conclusive of the facts confessed by the confessor. Admissions may be operated as estoppels because they are not conclusive as to the facts admitted by the person who in his statement admit some facts.
Confessions are always used or go against the confessor of the statements. Admissions may be used with respect to the person who has admitted any facts or statements under the exception of Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Confessions confessed by more than one person jointly for the same offence can As it is previously observed that admission cannot be used against the person who is
