Hearsay Exclusions under Evidence Law
Hearsay Exclusions under Evidence Law
What is Hearsay?
Hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement made by a person other than the witness testifying, which is presented in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
Generally, hearsay is inadmissible as evidence because the declarant (the person who made the statement) is not present in court to be cross-examined, raising concerns about reliability.
Hearsay Rule
The Hearsay Rule excludes such statements unless they fall within certain exceptions or exclusions.
The rationale behind the exclusion is to ensure fair trial and reliability of evidence.
Hearsay Exclusions (Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule)
Certain types of hearsay statements are considered reliable enough to be admissible, or are excluded from the definition of hearsay itself. These include:
1. Statements by a Party Opponent
Statements made by the opposing party (also called admissions) are not hearsay because they are against the party’s interest.
Case law:
Pride of India Insurance Co. v. Sukhbir Singh: The court held that a statement made by a party against their own interest could be admitted as an exception to hearsay.
2. Res Gestae (Things Done or Said During the Event)
Statements made during or immediately after an event, which explain or form part of the event, are admissible.
These are considered spontaneous and thus reliable.
Case law:
R. v. Bedingfield (C.A.): The court ruled that statements made immediately after an accident, explaining the cause or what happened, are admissible under res gestae.
3. Statements Made Under the Doctrine of Spontaneous Declaration
Similar to res gestae, statements made spontaneously without time for reflection after an event are admissible.
Case law:
T. Sankaran Nair v. State of Kerala: The court admitted a spontaneous statement made by a victim about an assault as it was made under stress of the moment.
4. Statements in Public Documents
Certain statements in official or public documents are admissible as they carry inherent trustworthiness.
Case law:
K.K Verma v. Union of India: Statements in official records were admitted as evidence.
5. Expert Opinions
Expert opinions are generally not hearsay because they are based on professional evaluation rather than direct knowledge of facts.
They are admissible to assist the court in understanding technical matters.
Case law:
R. v. Turner: Expert testimony was admitted to explain the nature of evidence.
6. Dying Declarations
Statements made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause or circumstances of their death.
These are considered trustworthy because the declarant is unlikely to lie when facing imminent death.
Case law:
Queen v. Murdoch: The court allowed a dying declaration as an exception to hearsay.
7. Admissions and Confessions
Admissions by a party, and confessions to the police or others, are admissible.
They are excluded from hearsay as they are against the declarant’s interest.
Case law:
R. v. Blastland: Confessions were admitted as reliable evidence.
Summary of Hearsay Exclusions
| Hearsay Exclusion Type | Reason for Exclusion | Key Case Law Example |
|---|---|---|
| Statements by Party Opponent | Admission against interest | Pride of India Insurance |
| Res Gestae (spontaneous statements) | Immediate statements during event | R. v. Bedingfield |
| Spontaneous Declarations | Statements under stress or surprise | T. Sankaran Nair |
| Public Documents | Official trustworthiness | K.K Verma |
| Expert Opinions | Based on professional knowledge | R. v. Turner |
| Dying Declarations | Imminent death enhances reliability | Queen v. Murdoch |
| Admissions and Confessions | Against interest, hence reliable | R. v. Blastland |
Importance of Hearsay Exclusions
These exclusions balance the need for reliable evidence with the practical reality that some statements, though made outside court, carry sufficient trustworthiness.
They prevent exclusion of relevant and probative evidence while maintaining fairness in trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments