Hello friends, in this Article we will learn about the Definition, Meaning and Types of ‘Evidence’ which is a very important subject of judicial adjudication. What is Evidenae, what is its Definition in the Act, why oral evidance and documentary evidence are important in the law of evidance. In this article, an attempt has been made to explain the evidence method in easy language, hope you will like this article

Evidence Method An Introduction

The Method of Evidance has a very important place in the adjudication of justice, because the main basis of the decision in any case is the evidance, therefore the modern judicial system is an evidance based system. Giving the definition of evidense method, Prof. Salmond said that any fact which has the force of proof is Evidense.

Evidence is a means or tool by which the honorable judge gives a decision by believing about the truth or falsity of the matter related to the matter because without evidense it is not possible to decide. In this way, due to the important place of Evidense in the administration of justice, it can also be called the backbone of the judicial system.

The general rule of Evidense is that “When the parties do not agree then the truth should be ascertained from the evidense and whether the matter is civil or criminal, their decision depends on the evidense only. In Section 60 of the Indian Evidense Act, the best proof, direct evidence has been considered. The law of evidense is an abstract and difficult subject which is still progressive and the rules of evidense are based on common sense and human experience.

In the case of ‘Ramjas vs. Surendranath’, the Hon’ble Court said that “The law of Evidense paves the way for the courts, it propounds such rules so that the administration of justice can run smoothly and the study of such an important subject is inevitable.” (AIR 1980 Allahabad 385)

Meaning & Definition

The word ‘Evidence’ is derived from the Latin word Evidere which means – to clearly ascertain or ensure or prove. In simple words, the meaning of evidense is to clearly prove, show or determine a fact by legal means by the court.

The word evidense also means such an object or means by which a disputed fact is proved, in addition, such an object or thing which can clarify the disputed question before the court is evidence.

Definition of evidence as per section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 –

The word “evidence” means and includes –

(a) all those statements; Statements which the court permits or requires to be made by witnesses before it in relation to the matters of fact under investigation are called oral evidense.

(b) all documents (including electronic records) produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents being called documentary evidense.

In the Indian Evidence Act, no literal definition of evidence has been given and only two types of evidence have been told, oral and documentary evidense.

Definition of evidence in law

Different definitions of evidence have been given by the jurists which are as follows –

According to Phipson – the word evidence under judicial proceedings refers to “facts, testimonies and documents which are validly used to prove or disprove the fact under investigation.”

According to Taylor – All those legal means except argument, by which any thing or fact is proved or disproved, are called evidence and whose truth is presented for judicial investigation.

According to Salmond – any fact or statement which has the power to give proof is called evidense, that is, the facts having proof force are called evidence.

It is worth mentioning here that the probative force can be of any quantity or extent, such as – criminal state of mind, motive, weapon, dying declaration, statement of eyewitness to homicide etc. are presented as evidence.

According to the well-known jurist Bentham – such a fact, when present in front of the mind, the truth or falsity of another fact is known, is called evidence and the witness is the eyes and ears of justice.

According to Osburn dictionary – Evidense refers to all those legal facts or means by which an attempt is made to prove or disprove a fact.

Evidence Act does not apply

The Indian Evidense Act does not apply to –

Affidavit –

he Indian Evidence Act does not apply to affidavits, because affidavits do not come under the definition of evidense, being not covered by section 3 and being excluded by section 1.

According AIR 1968, Calcutta 532 – Affidavit is not evidence under the Evidence Act unless it is ordered by 19 S.P.C. not permitted by That is, such affidavit can be considered as evidense, which is so required by the court.

The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to affidavits, it does not mean that an affidavit given by a living person will be evidence without his presence in the witness room and it is admissible evidense under section 32. The statement must be worth having. (AIR 1949 MP 689)

According to Munir Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan – Evidense in judicial proceedings in the case of a living person must be given by the presence of the witness in the witness room and unless permitted by law, an affidavit cannot take its place.

Arbitration proceedings

The Evidense Act does not apply to the proceedings before an arbitrator, the reason being that the parties present a case before the arbitrator for the purpose of speedy disposal of their case by summary proceedings and in that case, like a regular suit, a long- Do not have to take elaborate action.

Haj Ibrahim Kasam Cochin Wala v. Northern India Oil Industries Ltd. The Supreme Court in 2007 expressed the view that “the Evidence Act does not apply to arbitral proceedings”. Arbitrators are liable to act according to the principles of natural justice, but they are not bound by the law of evidence.

Commission

The law of evidesc is not applicable in the judicial proceedings before the commissioners appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Penal Code, the commissioner can summon the witnesses and record their evidenc. (V.P. No. Order 26, Rule 16, 17 and Section 284-289 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) so that if he considers necessary, he can make his report on the basis of such evidance.

It is clear from the above description that the law of evidance is a procedural law which, inter alia, lays down how a fact can be proved.

Types of Evidence Under the Indian Evidence Act — Types of Evidence Under Evidence Act

Types of evidence in law

Types of evidence which are described in detail –

(i) Oral Evidence –

Oral evidenc is such evidenc which is given by a person by his own mouth while being present in the court. It includes all the statements which the court permits to be made by the witnesses in the case pending before it. Such evidenc is expected to be direct and such evidence can also be of a relative. This evidence is so dynamic that it gives shape to the ecological and documentary evidenc.

In the case of ‘Israr vs. State of Uttar Pradesh’, the Supreme Court said that – Merely being a relative of a witness or being interested in him cannot be a reason for his evidence to be considered unreliable. (AIR 2005 SC 249)

(ii) Documentary Evidence –

When a document is presented in the court as evidence to prove or disprove a fact, in which letters, marks or pictures are described, then it is called documentary evidence. goes. In documentary evidence, evidence is produced before the court through or in the form of a document, it occupies an important place in the law of evidance.

Documentary evidance is more reliable than being in written form, hence it plays a major role in proving a particular fact. Documents should be presented before the court in original form only, but in the absence of original, its copy can also be presented. Documentary evidance can be proved by primary evidance or secondary evidance.

For example – production of school record or birth certificate issued by any government body before the court to prove the date of birth of a person is called documentary evidenc.

(iii) Primary Evidence –

This is such an evidance which is considered to be the best in the eyes of the court and such evidance is also relied upon the most. Primary evidance refers to documentary evidenc. Primary evidence means “the production of the document itself for the inspection of the court”. When the original document related to a case is presented before the court, it is called primary evidenc.

Example – ‘A’ executes a sale deed in favor of ‘B’ for Rs.5,000 but ‘A’ refuses to give possession of the plot and no sale deed is drawn up. B sues in the Court for possession and produces a sale deed in his favour, the original sale deed being primary evidenc.

(iv) Secondary Evidence –

When primary evidence is not available in a case, then secondary evidence is resorted to, it is also called secondary evidance. This evidence is less reliable, the reason for this may be that, this evidence is a copy or copy of the original document.

It is difficult and impossible to present an original document for inspection in the court after it is destroyed, or lost, or it is at a distant place, or it is deposited under loan in any bank, body, in this situation The court recognizes the copy or copy of that document as secondary evidance. This evidence is of a lower level than primary evidence.

Secondary evidence includes the following –

(a) certified copies of the original documents

(b) copies made by mechanical process of the original document

(d) transcripts of documents

(e) oral evidance of the contents of an original document given by a person who has seen the document himself.

(v) Direct Evidence –

Direct evidance has an important place in the law of evidence. Direct evidence is the evidance of a fact which has been perceived by the witness with his own eyes and such a person himself gives his evidance by being present in the court. It has been said under section 60 that every oral evidance must be direct.

Direct evidence means oral evidence before the court by a witness about the truth or falsity of the facts or facts in question. In general words, when evidenc is given by a person who has seen, heard, experienced the incident related to the case with his own eyes, then such evidence is called direct evidenc. Direct evidence is also called conclusive evidence.

For example – ‘A’ is accused of murdering ‘B’. ‘C’ is produced in evidence in Court who states that he saw ‘A’ murder ‘B’. This is direct evidence.

(vi) Circumstantial Evidence –

When direct evidence is not available to prove a fact, then in such a situation some circumstances are resorted to, which are facts or evidenc present around the incident, from whose observation it is known. whether an event has actually happened or not. This is called circumstantial evidenc or evidence of relevant facts.

In circumstantial evidence, the evidenc is not directly related to the main facts of the incident but to such other facts from which the facts in question can be inferred.

Circumstantial evidenc is direct evidence of a series of facts other than the event in question which the witness himself has seen, circumstantial evidence includes ancillary events. For example, in the incident of shooting, seeing the criminal carrying a gun in the neighborhood before the incident is a subsidiary incident which is related to the shooting.

For example – ‘A’ is accused of murdering ‘B’. A long-standing enmity between ‘A’ and ‘B’, seeing ‘A’ running to the woods after the incident, his clothes being stained with blood, etc., are circumstances which point to the murder of ‘B’.

According to Pebby – Circumstantial evidence is a good evidance, because the witness can lie, but the circumstances cannot.

According to the case of ‘Chatar Singh Vs State of Haryana’ – The accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided it is corroborated by other evidence. (AIR 2009 SC 378)

In the absence of direct evidance, the essence of the offense has to be proved by circumstantial evidence and two things are essential for its admissibility –

(a) the circumstances to be proved beyond doubt

(b) the circumstances to be closely related to the main event.

(vii) Real Evidence –

Such evidance which is presented before the court in such a way that the judge or magistrate himself infers the right thing from his senses by looking at it, is called real evidence.

Physical evidence is also called material evidance, which is presented by physical objects that are presented for the inspection of the court.

In his foreword, Stephen, the framer of the Act, said that “the condition of a material thing is proved more often by material evidence than by documents, therefore there is no reason to distinguish between oral and physical evidance”.

For example – ‘A’ is accused of killing ‘B’ with a sword. That sword and the bloodstained clothes of ‘A’ and ‘B’ are produced before the court. Court can infer murder by looking at sword and clothes.

(viii) Hearsay Evidence –

When a person says whatever he says according to the information received from another person, then it is called hearsay evidance, it is also called ‘Hearsay evidence’. This is evidence of little importance and weak nature. Which is less trusted by the court.

In the legal sense, it is one of those types of evidance which is based on the ability and truthfulness of another person and not based solely on the basis generated by the statement of a witness. This has been considered inconsistent evidance, making it inadmissible.

In the case of Babuli Vs. State of Orissa, it was said that the witnesses should give only those evidance which they themselves have heard or seen, the onus is not on them but on the court to infer it. (AIR 1974 SC 775)

This evidence is given by a person who –

(a) has not seen the incident with his own eyes

(b) has not heard any fact or thing with his own ears

Example – ‘A’ is accused of having committed a theft in ‘B’s’ house. ‘C’ is produced in court as a witness, who says that he did not see the incident himself, but that he heard from ‘F’ that ‘A’ had committed a theft in ‘B’s house’. Is. This evidence of ‘C’ is hearsay evidance .

(ix) Judicial Evidence –

Every oral and documentary evidence presented in the capacity of the court is called judicial evidence. Judicial evidance is always the evidence presented before the court.

(x) Extra-judicial Evidence –

Such evidence or statement which is made at a place other than the court or to any other person is called extra-judicial ‘evidance’.

For example – ‘A’ confesses to his friend ‘B’ that he had assaulted ‘C’. This is extrajudicial evidence. Rumblings in sleep can also be extrajudicial evidence.

In the case of (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Paltan Mallah) it was said that extrajudicial evidance also includes confession. But such extra-judicial confession is not considered material. (AIR 2005 SC 733)

(xi) Police witness –

Police witness means the evidance of a police officer. When for any reason the independent witness is not present, the court may carefully examine and scrutinize the evidance of the police witness and if it is reliable, the conviction may be based on such evidance.

(xii) Interested witnesses –

The interested witnesses usually include the relatives, friends, relatives etc. of the party and such evidance has been considered reliable.

According to the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh – Merely being interested in a witness, his evidance cannot be considered unreliable. (AIR 2009 SC 1)

Similarly, in the case of ‘Takdeer Samshuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat’, it has been said that – interested witness means such a witness who has a direct interest in getting the accused convicted. (AIR 2012 SC 37)

(xiii) Chance Witness –

Such a witness who has accidentally reached the place of occurrence, has been called a chance witness, such a witness has no relation with the party and the opposition. He is often an eyewitness.

(xiv) Rebel witness

Rebel witness means a witness who gives evidence against his own party, it can also be called rebel witness. The evidance of such a witness cannot be considered completely unreliable.

According to the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Harish Chand Tularam Avtade – the evidance of a hostile witness is admissible to the extent that the witness appears to be reliable. (1997 Cr. Law J. 612 (Bombay)

Apart from these, the following have been considered as types of evidance –

(i) Natural witness, (ii) Child witness, (iii) Defense witness, (iv) Criminal background witness, (v) Medical witness, (vi) Punch witness, (vii) Independent witness etc.

Importent Post –

Who is a Hindu According to Hindu law & to which persons does this method apply?

What is Regulating Act 1773? Its main provisions | Describe the features and demerits

What is Administrative law : Its Definition, Nature and scope? | Law Studys

Reference :- Indian Evidence Act 17^th Edition (Rajaram Yadav)

Disclaimer :- This notes is intended to provide information only. If you are seeking advice on any matters relating to information on this website, you should – where appropriate – contact us directly with your specific query. However, we may have made mistakes and we will not be responsible for any loss or damage of any kind arising because of the usage of this information.

What is the Definition and Types of Evidence Under the Indian Evidence Act