The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Enactment:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was enacted during British India to consolidate and codify the law of evidence.
It applies to all judicial proceedings in or before courts in India, including civil, criminal, and quasi-judicial proceedings, unless the law provides otherwise.
Objective:
To define what evidence is admissible in court.
To provide rules for proof of facts, relevance of facts, burden of proof, and presumptions.
To ensure uniformity and clarity in the law of evidence across India.
1. Structure of the Act
The Act is divided into three parts:
Relevancy of Facts (Sections 1–55)
Proof (Sections 56–100)
Estimation of Evidence (Sections 101–167)
2. Key Provisions
A. Relevancy of Facts
i. Facts in Issue (Section 3)
A fact in issue is a fact that is directly in dispute in the case.
Only facts in issue and relevant facts are admissible as evidence.
Case Example:
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – Facts about the accused's intention and prior conduct were considered relevant to prove the charge of murder.
ii. Facts Admissible (Sections 6–55)
Connected facts: Facts that form part of the same transaction are relevant (Section 6).
Facts necessary to explain or introduce facts in issue (Section 7).
Res gestae (Section 6, 8, 10): Facts that are part of or occur simultaneously with the main event can be admitted.
Case Example:
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gandhi – Statements made during a crime (res gestae) were admitted to prove the chain of events.
iii. Admission and Confession
Admissions (Sections 17–23): Statements by parties which are against their interest can be used as evidence.
Confessions (Sections 24–30): Voluntary confessions are admissible; however, confessions made under threat, inducement, or promise are not admissible.
Case Example:
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – Confession obtained under police coercion was held inadmissible.
iv. Statements by Persons Who Cannot be Called as Witnesses
Statements made by deceased persons, or persons who are unable to testify due to mental or physical incapacity, may sometimes be relevant.
Case Example:
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India – Statements by persons no longer available were admissible if they fulfilled certain reliability criteria.
B. Proof of Facts
i. Burden of Proof (Sections 101–114)
General rule: The burden of proving a fact lies on the party who asserts it (Section 101).
Exceptions: Certain facts, like ownership of documents, are presumed unless disproved.
Case Example:
State v. Satpal Singh – Burden of proof was on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ii. Presumptions
Legal Presumptions (Sections 4–4A, 114A–114B):
Courts may presume facts in certain circumstances, e.g., presumption of innocence or legitimacy of a child.
Case Example:
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh – Presumption of culpable homicide required proof by the prosecution to rebut it.
iii. Documentary Evidence (Sections 61–90)
Primary and secondary evidence rules for documents.
Public documents have special weight; certified copies are admissible.
Case Example:
Surendra v. State – Secondary evidence admissible only if primary evidence unavailable for justifiable reasons.
iv. Expert Evidence (Sections 45–51)
Opinions of experts (e.g., doctors, engineers) are relevant in matters requiring specialized knowledge.
Case Example:
Dr. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu – Expert medical evidence on injuries was crucial in determining cause of death.
v. Oral Evidence (Sections 59–60)
Oral evidence must be direct (what the witness personally saw or heard).
Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless exceptions apply (e.g., res gestae).
C. Estimation of Evidence (Sections 165–167)
The Act gives courts discretion to appreciate the weight and credibility of evidence.
Courts evaluate both oral and documentary evidence and decide how much weight to give each fact.
Case Example:
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh – Conflicting evidence was weighed, and the credibility of witnesses was assessed.
3. Special Provisions
Evidence of Character (Sections 52–55)
The character of a person is relevant in certain cases, e.g., criminal proceedings.
Estoppel (Sections 115–116)
Prevents a party from contradicting their previous statements or conduct when the other party has relied upon it.
Presumption as to documents (Sections 76–90)
Courts may presume authenticity of official records, certified copies, and electronic records (after amendment).
4. Judicial Principles
Relevance is key: Only facts relevant to the case can be admitted (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gandhi).
Admissibility vs. Credibility: Even admissible evidence may be rejected if it lacks credibility.
Confessions must be voluntary: Coerced confessions are invalid (Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar).
Expert opinion is advisory: Courts are not bound by expert opinions but can consider them (Dr. Subramanian v. TN).
Burden of proof on the prosecution: In criminal cases, the burden lies on prosecution to prove guilt (State v. Satpal Singh).
5. Importance and Modern Relevance
The Act provides a uniform framework for evidence in Indian courts.
It has been amended to accommodate digital evidence, electronic records, and scientific proof.
Courts rely heavily on the Act to determine admissibility, relevance, and weight of evidence.
6. Summary Table of Key Sections and Their Application
| Section | Topic | Application / Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Facts in issue | K.M. Nanavati v. Maharashtra |
| 6, 10 | Res gestae | State of UP v. Rajesh Gandhi |
| 24–30 | Confessions | Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar |
| 45–51 | Expert opinion | Dr. Subramanian v. TN |
| 101 | Burden of proof | State v. Satpal Singh |
| 61–90 | Documentary evidence | Surendra v. State |
| 115 | Estoppel | Applies in civil matters for consistency of statements |
Conclusion:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the backbone of the Indian legal system for judicial proceedings. It defines:
What is admissible and what is not.
How facts should be proved.
How courts should evaluate evidence.
Judicial interpretations have strengthened principles like voluntariness of confessions, burden of proof on prosecution, expert evidence, and reliability of documents.
RELATED Blog
0 comments