Judicial Precedents On Admissibility Of Hearsay Evidence

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Judicial Precedents on Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in Nepal

1. Definition and Legal Framework

Hearsay Evidence: Statements made outside the court offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For example, if A tells B that “C stole money,” and B repeats this in court, that is hearsay.

Rule in Nepal: Under the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Section 79 and related provisions, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, except under recognized exceptions (dying declarations, statements of co-accused, confessions, official records, etc.).

Rationale: Hearsay evidence is unreliable because the original declarant cannot be cross-examined.

2. Case 1: Ram Kumar Sharma v. State, 2051 BS

Facts:
Sharma was accused of theft. The prosecution sought to introduce a statement made by a neighbor to the police as evidence that Sharma had committed the theft. The neighbor did not appear in court.

Issue:
Can a statement made outside court (by the neighbor) be admitted to prove the crime?

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the statement was hearsay and inadmissible. Only direct testimony of the declarant in court could be considered, except under exceptions (like dying declaration, or statements recorded under special provisions).

Significance:
This case reinforced the general rule that hearsay evidence cannot be the basis for conviction in Nepal unless it falls under an exception.

3. Case 2: Laxmi Devi v. State, 2056 BS

Facts:
Laxmi Devi was charged with assault. A witness testified that a bystander had told her the accused had attacked the victim. The bystander was not present in court.

Issue:
Is the bystander’s out-of-court statement admissible?

Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that it was hearsay and inadmissible. The witness could only testify to what she personally saw or heard. Statements of third parties repeated in court are not reliable evidence.

Significance:
This case emphasized the principle of personal knowledge in testimony and limited reliance on second-hand accounts.

4. Case 3: Prakash Thapa v. State, 2060 BS

Facts:
Prakash Thapa was accused of murder. The prosecution presented the victim’s dying declaration recorded by the police before death, asserting it was hearsay.

Issue:
Can a dying declaration, recorded outside court, be admitted as evidence?

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule. Since the statement was made when the victim believed death was imminent, it was admissible, provided the court was satisfied that the statement was voluntary and reliable.

Significance:
The case confirmed the exception of dying declarations, a key exception under Nepalese law. It also emphasized careful judicial scrutiny before admitting such statements.

5. Case 4: Shyam Sundar v. State, 2058 BS

Facts:
The accused was charged with fraud. The prosecution introduced a statement recorded in a police diary by a witness, who later became unavailable.

Issue:
Can police diary statements be admitted as evidence despite being hearsay?

Decision:
The court held that statements in police diaries are generally hearsay and cannot be used to prove guilt directly. However, they may be used for cross-examination or as leads for other evidence.

Significance:
This case clarified that routine statements in official records are not automatically exceptions to the hearsay rule. Courts must examine reliability before admitting such evidence.

6. Case 5: Gita KC v. State, 2062 BS

Facts:
Gita KC was accused of embezzlement. A co-worker testified that another employee had told them Gita committed the act.

Issue:
Does a statement from a co-worker repeating what another said constitute admissible evidence?

Decision:
The court rejected the statement as hearsay. However, it noted that co-accused confessions can be exceptions if corroborated.

Significance:
This case highlighted that hearsay from third parties is inadmissible, but confessions of co-accused or parties with legal exceptions may be admitted.

7. Case 6: Krishna Bahadur v. State, 2065 BS

Facts:
Krishna Bahadur was accused of kidnapping. The victim had told a doctor about the abduction, and the doctor testified in court about the statement.

Issue:
Is the victim’s statement to a doctor admissible?

Decision:
The court ruled that statements made to medical professionals can be admissible if they are relevant and necessary for treatment (part of medical examination). This falls under an exception to hearsay, but the weight of evidence depends on credibility and corroboration.

Significance:
This case illustrates another recognized exception: statements made for professional purposes or emergencies may be admissible.

8. Key Principles from Nepali Case Law

General Rule: Hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Courts rely on direct testimony.

Dying Declarations: Exception to hearsay; must be voluntary and reliable (Prakash Thapa case).

Co-accused Confessions: Can be exceptions if corroborated (Gita KC case).

Police Diaries/Official Records: Not automatically admissible; reliability must be tested (Shyam Sundar case).

Professional Statements: Statements made to doctors or officials in emergencies may be admissible (Krishna Bahadur case).

Personal Knowledge Requirement: Witnesses must testify based on what they personally saw or heard, not what others said (Laxmi Devi case).

Summary Table of Cases

Case	Facts	Hearsay Issue	Decision	Significance
Ram Kumar Sharma	Neighbor’s statement about theft	Hearsay	Inadmissible	Reaffirmed general inadmissibility
Laxmi Devi	Bystander statement of assault	Hearsay	Inadmissible	Personal knowledge requirement
Prakash Thapa	Dying declaration	Exception	Admissible	Dying declaration exception
Shyam Sundar	Police diary statement	Hearsay	Inadmissible for guilt	Official record exception clarified
Gita KC	Co-worker repeating accusation	Hearsay	Inadmissible	Exception for co-accused confessions if corroborated
Krishna Bahadur	Victim’s statement to doctor	Exception	Admissible	Professional/emergency statement exception