EVIDENCE

Evidence Law Made Easy

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872

SUMMARY OF  THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

RELEVANCY OF FACTS (SS 1-55)

Proof of Facts (SS 56-100)

Recording Evidence by the Civil Court

Recording evidence By the Criminal Court

  • Evidence before the Quasi-Judicial Body
  • Evidence under Departmental Inquiry
  • Evidence before Statutory Commission

Devider

Following five  materials are Relevant for the purpose of Evidence and  could be proved 

  1. Facts connected with the  other facts (ss 6-16)
  2. Statements about the Facts(ss 17-39)
  3. Decisions about the Facts(ss 40-44 )
  4. Opinion on or about the Facts( ss 45-51)
  5. The Character of a person concerned or connected with the facts
Due to Judicial notice or  Legal Presumption, few matters are exempted from proof although they may be the subject matter of the above five materials within ss 6-51.

The above facts are called Evidence under section 3 ⇑


Facts could be proved either –
  1. Orally – (Direct viewership)  or
  2. through some concrete materials, such as

a) by written documents ( Original or Copied or Certified )

b) by electronic/ digital material ( Original  with Certification)

c) any other concrete materials ( the actual material )

by the method of Examination under oath in a court of law.

The Logic adopted in the Evidence Act is:-

  1. Some facts Exist
  2. the existence of the Facts must be proved
  3.  The Facts existed have been proved

A breaking of the above chain resulted in Disprove / not prove / dismissal of the Plaint or Acquittal of the accused.


For indirect evidence to prove a fact, following standard has been adopted by judicial fiction:-

  1. proof beyond reasonable doubt in case of criminal prosecution
  2. the standard of probability for civil prosecution

Devider

Extract from – FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE )

Rule 104. Preliminary Questions

(a) IN GENERAL. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.

(b) RELEVANCE THAT DEPENDS ON A FACT. When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the
proof be introduced later.

(c) CONDUCTING A HEARING SO THAT THE JURY CANNOT HEAR IT.
The court must conduct any hearing on a preliminary question so that the jury cannot hear it if:
(1) the hearing involves the admissibility of a confession;
(2) a defendant in a criminal case is a witness and so requests;
or
(3) justice so requires.

(d) CROSS-EXAMINING A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE. By testifying on a preliminary question, a defendant in a criminal case does not become subject to cross-examination on other issues in the case.

(e) EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY. This rule does not limit a party’s right to introduce before the jury evidence that is relevant to the weight or credibility of other evidence.

(As amended Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec.
1, 2011.)


Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains
on the party who had it originally.
(As amended Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)


Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
(As amended Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Rule 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence  Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:
• the United States Constitution;
• a federal statute;
• these rules; or
• other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.
  Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
(As amended Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially   outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:

unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
(As amended Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)


Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge

A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703.
(As amended Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 25, 1988, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)


STATEMENT. ‘‘Statement’’ means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.

DECLARANT. ‘‘Declarant’’ means the person who made the statement.

HEARSAY. ‘‘Hearsay’’ means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.


Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

(a) IN GENERAL. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
(b) EXAMPLES. The following are examples only—not a complete list—of evidence that satisfies the requirement:
(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert Opinion About Handwriting. A nonexpert’s opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation.

(3) Comparison by an Expert Witness or the Trier of Fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact.

(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.

(5) Opinion About a Voice. An opinion identifying a person’s voice—whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording—based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged
speaker.

(6) Evidence About a Telephone Conversation. For a telephone conversation, evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to:
(A) a particular person, if circumstances, including selfidentification, show that the person answering was the one called; or
(B) a particular business, if the call was made to a business   and the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.

(7) Evidence About Public Records. Evidence that:
(A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or
(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.

(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations.
For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:
(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;
(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be;
and
(C) is at least 20 years old when offered.

(9) Evidence About a Process or System. Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.

(10) Methods Provided by a Statute or Rule. Any method of authentication or identification allowed by a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(As amended Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Devider