Name: Ankit Gupta

Enrolment No: R450219209

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

Mid Semester Examination, March, 2021

Course: Law of Evidence Semester: IV

Program: BALLB B3 & B4 Time: 2 Hrs.
Course Code: CLCC 2008 Max. Marks: 50

Instructions: ATTEMPT ANY TWO QUESTIONS. EACH QUESTION CARRIES 25 MARKS.

S.No Question Mapped Course Outcome

Q.1 “Presumptions may be looked upon as the bats of law, flitting in the twilight, but CO2
disappearing in the sunshine of facts.”
Comment on the aforementioned statement elaborately describing the concept of
‘presumptions’ conveyed in the Act of 1872.
Ans- Before commenting on the statement I will state about presumption. Section 4 of
the Indian Evidence Act deals with three types of presumption. The presumptions are
inferences made by the court with regard to the nature of such evidence. When such
facts are assumed to exist, the party for whose benefit they are presumed to exist does
not need to discharge the burden of proof in respect of it. Presumption can be
characterized as an affirmative or negative inference to the truth or falsehood of a fact
by using a method of probable reasoning based on what is considered to be the case.
A presumption is a rule where if one fact, known as the primary fact, is proven by a
party, then another fact, known as the presumed fact, is considered to have been
proved if there is no contrary proof of the same. It is a common procedure in which
certain facts are interpreted in a uniform manner with respect to their effect as
evidence of certain other facts. It is an inference drawn from the facts that are known
and established. Presumption is a rule that is used by judges and courts to draw
inferences from a specific fact or proof, unless it is said that the inference is refused.
"Presumptions may be looked upon at the bats of law, flitting in the twilight but
disappearing in the sunshine of fact. This statement is valid because, in general,
Presumption implies a method of finding few facts on the basis of the possibility, or it
is a result of some actions in general that reinforce the possibility, and if such a
possibility has a very well-founded meaning, it is usually possible to determine the
facts. The presumption in law is the inferences which the court concludes with regard
to the presence of such evidence. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act explicitly
deals with the principle that 'the court may assume the presence of any event that it
considers likely to have occurred as a result of a common course of:
 natural events,
 human conduct, and
 public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case

Article 4 of the Indian Proof Act distinguishes between the terms "May presume" and
"shall presume." In addition, Articles 79 to 90 provide a detailed description of the
various presumptions as to the documents. Section 86 refers to certified copies of
 international judicial documents, Section 87 communicates the assumption of books,
maps and charts, Section 88 deals with the presumption related to the Telegraphic
Messages, Section 90 deals with documents aged thirty years, while Section 113 A
deals with the hardcore crime that is the presumption of death by married women and
Section 113 B deals with the presumption of death by dowry. There are two
classifications of presumptions viz. presumption of fact and presumption of law:
1. Presumption of fact: the principle of 'must believe' is used under the Presumption of
Facts. And on the basis of the concept, the court will conclude that the facts before
them are established facts unless and until the accused is refuted. The principle of
'shall assume' means that the courts are obliged to uphold and consider those facts as
having been proved by making a compulsory assumption. The principle of 'shall
assume' means that the courts are obliged to uphold and accept such facts as having
been proven by making a compulsory assumption and that the court would regard
them as having been established unless such presumption is questioned and disproved.
2. Presumption of law: the assumptions of law are those inferences and convictions
that are formed or implied by the law itself. It can also be divided into rebuttable
presumptions of law and irrebuttables presumptions of law.

Q.2 “Evidence and Proof are often used as synonyms but the latter is applied by accurate CO1
logicians, rather to the effect of evidence, than to evidence itself.”
Comment on the given statement in light of the scheme of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. Also, describe the understanding of ‘proof’ conveyed in the Act through the
terms ‘Proved’, ‘Disproved’ and ‘Not Proved’.
Q.3 ‘Relevancy’ is a precondition for ‘admissibility’ under the Indian Evidence Act, CO4
1872. Comment on the aforementioned statement in light of the relation of relevancy
and admissibility depicted in the provisions in the Act. Ensure that the response
covers the description of terms such as ‘relevant fact’, ‘fact in issue’, ‘admissible fact’
etc.
Ans- Relevancy and Admissibility are generally taken as synonyms. Evidence
might be given of the existence or non-existence of facts in the issue and of
such other relevant facts. The initial segment manages focuses to facts that
directly will in general prove or disprove facts in an issue and the subsequent
part alludes to security facts that are so indistinguishably connected with the
facts in an issue that they indirectly and presumptively will in general prove or
disprove any fact in issue. As can be seen from above, the admissibility of
proof is solely based on statute, while the relevancy is based on reasoning and
probability. Second, Admissibility declares whether or not the proof is
admissible, while the relevancy states whether the facts in question are
applicable to the facts in question.

All evidence that is admissible is relevant, however all that is relevant isn't
really admissible. Pertinence is the genus of which suitability is a species.
Consequently, oral proclamations which are noise might be relevant, however
not being direct evidence, are not admissible.

Relevancy
Relevance is a threshold condition that must be met before the court can accept
the validity of the proof. It is because of this fundamental standard of the Law
of Evidence that the terms 'relevancy' and 'admissibility' are frequent. .
Relevant facts have been characterized in Section 3 and 5 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
A fact may either be logically relevant or legally relevant. Where a fact bears
such easy-going connection to the next that it renders plausible its existence or
non-existence, it is supposed to be a logically relevant fact. For example,
where it is to be resolved whether A has set the murder weapon in the field or
not, the fact that B saw A moving towards the field with the murder weapon is
relevant.
Admissibility:
Admissibility means that the facts which are relevant are just admissible by the
Court. It is defined under section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The essential ingredients of the above section are:

1) The judge decides the questions of relevancy and admissibility.

2) At the point when a party proposes to show evidence of any fact, the
judge may ask the party to explain in what manner the fact would be
relevant.

In the new case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court
observed that "All the more frequently the expressions 'relevancy and
admissibility' are used as synonyms yet their lawful implications are distinct
and unique in relation to for usually facts which are relevant are not
admissible; so also facts which are admissible may not be relevant, for
instance, questions permitted to place in cross-examination to test the veracity
or indict the credit of witnesses, however not relevant are admissible. The
probative estimation of the evidence is the load to be given to it which has to
be judged having regards to the fact and circumstances of each case.

Section 11 is another section of the Evidence Act which deals with

admissibility. Section 11 deals with those facts which are not otherwise
relevant but rather become relevant in the event that they are inconsistent with
any relevant fact or they make the existence or non-existence of any relevant
fact exceptionally likely or improbable.