Admissibility of Evidence

Introduction
The term ‘admissibility of evidence’ means that the evidence must basically be
relevant, material and competent in the eyes of the law and which has a full
proof of validity that it can be admitted in the court. Admissible evidence
should be testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that in a court of law
it may be introduced as a fact finder usually for a judge or jury to establish or
to bolster a point put forth by a party whose proceedings are going on. All the
evidence is not admitted in the court, only those evidences are admitted which
have a legal base or have reliable content. The evidence which is unfair in
manner and unreliable cannot be put before the court; it would be held invalid.
Evidence is introduced before a judge as it brings the power in the case
solving and brings an important element in the case.

According to Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the term admission is
defined as a statement either oral or documentary or contained in electronic
form which suggests the proof to  any fact in issue or relevant fact, which is
made by any of the persons to bring a case in favor of them. In an ordinary
sense, the term admission means power or permission to enter, admittance,
entrance, access, the power to approach. In the legal sense, acquiescence or
concurrence in a statement made by another and distinguishable from a
confession in that an admission presupposes prior inquiry by another, but a
confession may be made without such inquiry. A fact, point, or statement
admitted; as the admission made out of Court is received in evidence. 

The term ‘evidence’ is defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In
the general sense, the term evidence means facts or observations presented
in support of an argument which brings the valid point before the court which
shows the proof. In the legal sense, the term evidence can be stated as
anything admitted by a Court to prove or disprove the alleged matters of fact
in a trial. 

Types of evidence
There are various kind of evidence as mention under Indian Evidence Act,
1872;
1. Oral evidence– According to Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 oral
evidence refers to evidence which is confined to the words spoken by mouth. It
is sufficient to be proved without any documentary evidence provided it is
creditworthy. The chapter IV of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the
provisions of oral evidence. These are the evidence which a person is giving by
himself or heard.
2. Documentary Evidence- Documentary evidence is stated under Section 3 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such type of documentary evidence which is
permitted by the Court of Law for inspection. Thus, all the documents
permitted by the Court for inspection can be termed as documentary evidence.
3. Primary evidence- According to Section 62, primary evidence is considered to
be the most superior class of evidence. Such evidence is an original document
that needs to be submitted before the court for inspection. Moreover, it is
admissible without any prior notice. Such evidence must be presented before
the court before the secondary evidence. Moreover, secondary evidence can be
presented only in the absence of primary evidence by explaining the reason for
the absence of such evidence.
4. Secondary Evidence- According to Section 63, secondary evidence is
considered to be an inferior type of evidence. It implies that even after
producing secondary evidence one needs to produce primary evidence in order
to fill in the gaps. Such evidence can be presented in the absence of the primary
evidence; however, the notice of the same is to be given.
5. Real evidence- Real evidence is also known as material evidence. It is tangible
evidence that the court can examine for itself. It is presented before the court by
inspection of a physical or material object. Such evidence is not derived from a
document or witness. However, such evidence needs to be supported by a
witness, preferably an expert witness who can explain the significance of
evidence.
6. Hearsay evidence- Hearsay evidence is when a person has not particularly
himself seen or heard something in the happening of that event but got the
knowledge of a certain happening of an event from someone else. This kind of
evidence is the weakest kind of evidence and is admissible only if it is backed
up by strong evidence and can be proved.
7. Judicial evidence- Judicial evidence is evidence which is put forth before the
Court in proof or disproof of facts before it. This is the evidence which is
produced directly in front of the magistrate. The statements provided by the
witnesses are also termed as judicial evidence.
8. Non judicial evidence- The Non-judicial evidence is the evidence which is
done outside the Court and not in the front of any judicial administration. This
evidence is only admissible if it could be proved in the Court later as judicial
evidence.
 9. Direct evidence- Direct evidence is the kind of evidence which establishes a
particular fact. This evidence plays a vital role in deciding the matter in a
particular issue. For example, a testimony delivered by witnesses.
10.Indirect evidence- This kind of evidence is not a definite proof but a general
idea of what possibly could have happened in a given circumstance. This
evidence attempts to prove the facts contained in the issue by providing other
facts and affords an instance as to its existence.
11.Electronic evidence- The electronic evidence is a type of virtual evidence. In
today’s world we all know people are generally active on social media
platforms so there is continuous monitoring of all the activities and events
taking place in a particular area by the guards and policemen via CCTV
cameras and other devices. The footages or snaps or call records obtained from
sources that are authentic in nature and can be produced before the Court to
prove the defendant guilty and are relevant and admissible are termed as e-
evidence. Examples of electronic evidence are data stored in a computer
system, information transmitted electronically through any communication
network, etc.

Conditions of admissibility of evidence in the court

According to Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, it states that the
Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit. Statements
made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for
information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions. There are
basically the two factors that are important while determining the evidence is
admissible or not:

1. Relevant– First of all the evidence must be relevant with the facts of the case
and also the evidence shall prove or disprove an important fact in the criminal
case. If the evidence doesn’t satisfy or relate to a particular fact, it is considered
“irrelevant” and is therefore inadmissible and is also not permissible in Court.
2. Reliability- Secondly the evidence must be reliable which means that the
evidence must support the credibility of a source that is being used as evidence.
This usually applies to witness testimonies. The reliability of evidence is
mainly tested if the evidence is fair and has a lawful base which the judge can
rely upon in the court. The evidence should not be vague in the eyes of the law
then it shall not be admitted.
Factors determining the inadmissibility of evidence

Unfairly Prejudicial 

The unfair prejudicial means that if evidence is unfair or unlawful and also it
was put before the court to convict based on past history rather than on
evidence about the case in hand. The evidence which is unfairly harmful,
detrimental, injurious, or biased towards the case without establishing any
proper fact and outraging the jury or the judge without providing any material
fact but conjecture is often excluded from the Court proceedings.

Wastes Time 

There are certain instances when the advocates while representing their
clients often provide such evidence or witness which automatically waste the
time of the Court. Such witnesses or evidence are excluded from a Court
proceeding as it wastes the time of the court. For example, it is a waste of
time for the Court if the advocate produces twenty separate people to prove
that the accused is an honest person. 

Misleading 

Evidence which can take away the attention of the jury or the judge from the
existing issue of the case such evidence is considered as misleading
evidence in the eyes of law and cannot be admissible in the court.

Expert Testimony

The expert testimony is only approved or admitted in the court if originally

given by an expert and not by a layman. A layman cannot provide expert
testimony because a layman’s testimony is not admissible in the court.