ONLINE LEGAL RESEARCH DATABASE AND LAW LIBRARY IN INDIA
This Act began by repealing (with few exceptions) the whole of the Law of Evidence then in force in India and proceeded to re-enact it in the form of code of 167 sections, which has been in operation in India since September 1872.
We must understand the following TEN words before proceed to study the Indian Evidence Act. They are TEN DIRECTIONS of the world called INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.
1. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE –
Testimony as to character, physical capacity, habit, knowledge, design or plan, intent, motive, identity, opportunity, etc., are all in the nature of circumstantial evidence, as pointing to the factum probandum. Where a conviction is sought upon circumstantial evidence alone the defendant cannot be convicted unless the state has proven beyond reasonable doubt, by facts and circumstances, all of which are consistent with each other and with his guilt, and Inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence.
2. COMPETENT EVIDENCE–
This term is used mostly as a synonym of “admissible.” By competent evidence is meant that which the very nature of the thing to be proved requires as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case.[The word “incompetent” is frequently used in stating objections to evidence and has meaning practically identical with “Inadmissible” and “irrelevant].
3. CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE–
Corroborating evidence is such evidence as tends, in some degree, of its own strength and Corroborating evidence is such evidence as tends, in some degree, of its own strength and Independently, to support some essential allegation or issue raised by the pleadings testified to by the witness whose evidence is sought to be corroborated, which allegation or issue, If unsupported, would be fatal to the case; and such corroborating evidence must, of itself, without the aid of any other evidence, exhibit its corroborative character by pointing, with reasonable certainty, to the allegation or issue which it supports. And such evidence will not be material unless the evidence sought to be corroborated it self-supports the allegation or point in issue.
4. DIRECT EVIDENCE –
Direct evidence is term commonly used to denote Direct evidence is term commonly used to denote testimony of witness asserting that he perceived with his senses the fact which is sought to be proved, as the execution of an instrument, the beating or killing of one person by another, the presence of person at given place and time, etc. In this sense, it is distinguished from circumstantial evidence, which seeks to prove an act or matter, by testimony, not that any person directly perceived the act or matter, but that he perceived other things which would render the main factor matter probable. The expression, “Oral evidence must be direct,” in Art. 62, Infra, is used in another sense, namely, that the person testifying must speak of his own knowledge as to the matters about which he gives testimony, and not recite the hearsay statements of others.
5. HEARSAY EVIDENCE–
Hearsay evidence is that which attempts to prove the event In the question, not by the assertion of one who has personal knowledge of it, but by the transmission of his extrajudicial assertion through the medium of a witness who knows not of the event, but of the former’s narration in respect to it.
6.PRIMA FACIE –
Prima facie evidence is that degree of proof which, unexplained or uncontradicted, is alone sufficient to establish the truth of legal principle asserted by a party.
7.EVIDENCE VS PROOF–
There is an obvious difference between the words “evidence” and “proof.” The former, in legal acceptation, includes the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved. The latter is the effect or result of evidence.
8.PRESUMPTION–
A “Presumption” means rule of law that courts and judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact, or from particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved. ‘SHALL’ HAS GREATER DEPTH THAN ‘MAY’
9. RELEVANCY–
Relevancy is defined to be that which conduces to the proof of the pertinent hypothesis, the pertinent hypothesis being one which if sustained would logically influence the issue. Hence it is relevant to put in evidence any circumstance which tends to make the proposition at issue more or less probable, and whatever is condition either of the existence or non-existence of relevant hypothesis may be shown, but no circumstance is relevant which does not make more or less probable the proposition at issue.
10. CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD OF AN ACCUSED–
The legislature has no power to establish rules which, under the pretense of regulating evidence, altogether prohibit a party from exhibiting his rights.
[DIGEST of the Law of Evidence by SIR JAMES FITZ JAMES STEPHEN 1918]
