Evidence Act And Admissibility Of Evidence
ποΈ I. Introduction to Evidence and Admissibility
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the primary law governing admissibility of evidence in Indian courts. It codifies rules regarding what evidence is relevant, admissible, and how it should be proved.
The Act ensures that:
Only relevant and reliable evidence is admitted.
Illegally or improperly obtained evidence is generally inadmissible.
The rights of accused persons are protected, especially against self-incrimination.
Key Sections Related to Admissibility:
Section 3: Definition of βevidenceβ (oral or documentary).
Section 5: Evidence must be relevant to fact in issue.
Section 24-30: Confessions and admissions.
Section 32-33: Statements by deceased persons (dying declaration).
Section 45-47: Expert evidence.
Section 65B: Admissibility of electronic records.
Sections 101-104: Burden of proof.
βοΈ II. Types of Evidence
Oral Evidence (Section 59): Evidence given by a witness in court. Must be directly relevant.
Documentary Evidence (Sections 61-90): Written or electronic documents, certified copies, etc.
Electronic Evidence (Section 65B): Includes emails, digital records, CCTV footage. Must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B.
Dying Declarations (Section 32(1)): Statements made by a dying person relevant to the cause of death.
Confessions (Sections 24-30): Statements made voluntarily without inducement or threat.
π‘ III. Principles Governing Admissibility
Relevance: Only facts connected to the case are admissible. (Section 5, Evidence Act)
Reliability: Evidence must be trustworthy, not fabricated or coerced.
Legality: Evidence obtained illegally (e.g., torture, illegal search) may be excluded.
Best Evidence Rule: Original documents preferred over copies unless certified. (Section 64)
Privilege: Certain communications (lawyer-client, husband-wife) are protected.
𧩠IV. Landmark Case Laws on Admissibility
1. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
The case involved the admissibility of confessions made to police during investigation.
Held:
Confessions made to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of Evidence Act.
Only voluntary confessions made without inducement, threat, or promise are admissible.
Principle Established:
π Police-obtained confessions are not evidence; voluntary confessions to magistrates are admissible.
2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
Involved the use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests. The defense challenged admissibility under Article 20(3).
Held:
Court ruled that involuntary scientific tests violate constitutional rights.
Results of such tests are inadmissible in court.
Principle Established:
π Evidence obtained through coercion or violating self-incrimination rights is inadmissible.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
Medical records and expert reports were seized for criminal prosecution.
Held:
Evidence must be collected following proper legal procedures.
Seized medical records are admissible if inventory and certification are maintained.
Principle Established:
π Procedural compliance is essential for admissibility of sensitive records.
4. K.K. Verma v. Delhi Administration (1973)
Facts:
Evidence collected through search without warrant.
Held:
Court ruled that illegally obtained evidence is generally inadmissible.
Exception: If the evidence is discovered independently, it may be considered.
Principle Established:
π Search and seizure must follow statutory procedure for evidence to be valid.
5. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts:
Custodial death case; police obtained statements from witnesses under duress.
Held:
Evidence obtained through coercion or torture is inadmissible.
Courts stressed reliability and voluntariness as conditions for admissibility.
Principle Established:
π Coercive evidence violates Article 20 and Section 24/25 of Evidence Act.
6. K. Anbazhagan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015)
Facts:
Involved digital evidence like emails and electronic documents.
Held:
Electronic evidence is admissible under Section 65B only if accompanied by certificate ensuring authenticity.
Evidence without compliance is inadmissible.
Principle Established:
π Digital evidence requires statutory certification to be admissible.
7. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277
Facts:
Confession allegedly made to private individual under duress.
Held:
Court held that confessions must be voluntary and not obtained by threat or inducement.
Inadmissible if the accused was under fear of legal or social consequences.
Principle Established:
π Voluntariness is the key criterion for admissibility of confession.
𧩠V. Summary Table: Admissibility Principles and Case Laws
| Evidence Type | Leading Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Confession to police | State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam | Inadmissible; only voluntary confession valid |
| Involuntary scientific test | Selvi v. Karnataka | Violation of rights β inadmissible |
| Sensitive records (medical, private) | Dr. Praful B. Desai | Procedural compliance necessary |
| Illegally obtained evidence | K.K. Verma (1973) | Generally inadmissible |
| Coerced witness statements | Gurmit Singh (1996) | Reliability & voluntariness essential |
| Digital evidence | K. Anbazhagan (2015) | Section 65B certificate required |
| Confessions under threat | Mithu v. Punjab | Voluntariness essential |
β VI. Key Takeaways
Voluntariness & reliability are critical for admissibility.
Evidence obtained illegally, coercively, or without procedure is inadmissible.
Digital and electronic evidence must comply with statutory safeguards (Section 65B).
Dying declarations and expert opinions are admissible if relevant and collected lawfully.
Courts balance probative value of evidence with protection of constitutional rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments