Evidence Act And Admissibility Rules
1. Introduction to Evidence and Admissibility
Evidence refers to information presented in a court to prove or disprove a fact in issue. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governs what evidence is admissible and the manner in which it is presented.
Admissibility refers to whether a particular piece of evidence can legally be considered by a court in proving a fact. Not all evidence is admissible — it must satisfy certain conditions laid down by law.
Key principles:
Relevance (Sections 5–55 of Evidence Act)
Competence of witnesses (Sections 118–134)
Voluntariness and authenticity
Exclusionary rules (Sections 24–30, Sections 65 onwards)
2. Types of Evidence
Oral Evidence (Sections 59–60) – Evidence given by word of mouth by a witness in court.
Documentary Evidence (Sections 61–90) – Includes writings, records, and other documents.
Circumstantial Evidence – Indirect evidence that suggests a fact but doesn’t directly prove it.
Hearsay Evidence (Generally inadmissible: Section 60, exceptions in Sections 32–33) – Statements made outside court.
3. Rules of Admissibility
A. Relevance of Facts
Section 5: Evidence must be relevant to the facts in issue or relevant facts.
Case Law: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts: In a murder case, the accused’s possession of the victim’s belongings was challenged as irrelevant.
Held: Possession of stolen items immediately after a crime is relevant circumstantial evidence.
Case Law: Queen-Empress v. Kallu (1891) ILR 18 Cal 433
Fact: Prior acts of assault were used to show intent.
Held: Prior acts can be relevant if they establish motive or intent (Sections 6 & 8).
B. Competence of Witnesses (Sections 118–134)
Every witness must be competent and capable of understanding questions and giving rational answers.
Section 118: All persons are competent witnesses except as otherwise provided.
Case Law: Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1951 SC 156
Held: Children below a certain age may testify if they understand truth vs falsehood.
Case Law: Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
Held: Even an accused can be a competent witness; competence is separate from credibility.
C. Statements of Co-accused (Section 30)
Confessions of one accused can be used against another accused if they are partners in crime.
Case Law: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Held: Statements of one accused cannot be used against another unless part of the same transaction/crime.
Case Law: Nikhil Dey v. State of Maharashtra (1998) CriLJ 2601
Held: Co-accused statements are admissible if they form part of the same series of events.
D. Confessions (Sections 24–30)
A confession is admissible if it is voluntary and not under threat or inducement.
Section 24: Confession obtained under inducement, threat, or promise is inadmissible.
Case Law: Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 578
Held: Police inducement renders confession inadmissible.
Case Law: State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 6 SCC 60
Held: Voluntary confessions made to a magistrate are admissible.
E. Dying Declarations (Section 32)
Statements made by a person who believes they are about to die are admissible as an exception to hearsay.
Case Law: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898
Held: Dying declaration is admissible if the declarant is conscious and believes death is imminent.
Case Law: K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 1266
Held: Dying declaration must be voluntary and free from tutoring.
F. Expert Evidence (Section 45)
Experts may give opinions on matters requiring specialized knowledge.
Case Law: Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee v. State of W.B. AIR 1951 Cal 320
Held: Medical and forensic experts can testify about injuries, cause of death, etc., to assist the court.
Case Law: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Held: Expert evidence is admissible to establish facts beyond common knowledge, but court is not bound by it.
G. Documentary Evidence
Section 61: Must be produced to prove contents unless secondary evidence is allowed (Sections 63–65).
Case Law: Brij Mohan Lal v. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 1413
Held: Originals must be produced unless there is a valid reason to rely on secondary evidence.
H. Exclusion of Evidence
Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible.
Case Law: State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar (1967) 1 SCR 660
Held: Confessions obtained through illegal means or torture cannot be used.
4. Key Takeaways
Only relevant facts are admissible.
Competence and voluntariness of witnesses are crucial.
Exceptions like dying declarations, expert opinions, and co-accused statements are carefully regulated.
Evidence must be authenticated and original documents preferred.
Courts balance the probative value vs prejudicial effect.
RELATED Blog
0 comments