Q1) Define Admission and Explain the relevancy of Admissions in Civil Cases

Meaning of Admission: The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the existence or truth of a
particular fact". But In the Evidence Act, the term 'Admission' has not been used in this wider sense. It deals with
admissions by statements only oral or written or contained in an electronic form. Admission plays a very important
role in judicial proceedings. If one party to the suit or any other proceeding proves that the other party has admitted
his case, the work of court becomes easier. An Admission must be clear, precise and not vague or ambiguous.
Definition of Admission: According to 17 of Indian Evidence Act, "An admission is a statement, oral or documentary
or [contained in electronic form (Amendment w.e.f. 17/10/2000)] which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue
or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned."
Admission, under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), is a statement in oral, documentary, or electronic form by a party
to the case or his authorised agent or by the other parties the statute permits. The statement must be indicative of
some inference relating to the matter in dispute or a related fact.
By admission the person agrees that the fact asserted by the other party is true. Admission of fact in court helps in
dispensing with the production of evidence during judicial proceedings. Admission includes confession as well,
but confession refers to the admission of guilt by the person.
Admission is not a conclusive proof - An admission is the best evidence against the party making it. Admission must
be voluntary. Admitted fact is presumed to be true until the presumption is rebutted by the other party, or if it varies
with the circumstances which it was made. However, an admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted but
it may operate as estoppel (Section 31 of IEA). One can adduce evidence to rebut the admission and disproof it.
Admission must be clear, specific, and unambiguous and in the own words of the person making it. An admission must
be read in its entirety and no statement out of context can constitute admission of any fact.

Relevancy of Admissions in Civil Cases - In civil proceedings, the evidence is generally produced in the form of
government documents such as leases, sale deeds, rent agreements, gift deeds, etc. The general rule in a civil
proceeding is that the burden of proof lies on “the person who claims must prove”. In a civil trial, the legal burden of
proving a fact lies on the party who claims that fact. If the defendant denies the allegations and finds a positive
default such as “counterclaim”, then in that case the burden of proof shifts towards the defendant. However, at first,
the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in civil proceedings, after that it will shift to the defendant.

Section 23 provides that in civil cases, no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that
evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together
that evidence of it should not be given. Under the Explanation to the section, nothing in this section shall be taken to
except any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to
give evidence under section 126.

The admission is said to be relevant when the facts are so related as to render the existence or non-existence of other
facts probable according to a common course of events or human conduct. Nothing which is not relevant may be
adduced as evidence as per the law. In the common-law countries, the evidence is both ascertained and
simultaneously restricted by the assertions of the parties.

No admission is relevant in civil cases, if the parties agreed to an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given
or the court can infer that the parties agreed to a condition not to give evidence (Section 23 of IEA). This provision
excludes admissions by word or conduct made by parties in the course of negotiations to settle litigation, from
evidence in the court. Mediatory settlement in adalats is an example of this. But this section does not prevent any
lawyer from disclosing any communication with the client in matters of illegal matters or questions of fraud (Section
23 of IEA).
Q2) What is mean by Burden of Proof? Explain the law relating to Burden of Proof.

Burden of proof is a legal standard that requires parties to demonstrate that a claim is valid or invalid based on facts
and evidence presented. Burden of proof is typically required of one party in a claim, and in many cases, the party
that is filing a claim is the party that must demonstrate that the claim is valid and carry the burden of proof.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• The burden of proof is a legal requirement that determines the viability of a claim based on the factual evidence
produced.
• Typically, the onus for burden of proof lies with the party initiating or filing a claim.
• Burden of proof is used extensively in cases involving insurance claims or lawsuits involving financial
malfeasance.
• The intended goal of burden of proof is to ensure that legal decisions are determined based on facts rather than
conjecture, supporting all parties in fairness.
• In civil cases, the ruling is based on a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. more than 50% of the evidence
provided must point to something useful in determining whether the case should proceed.
Understanding Burden of Proof
The burden of proof requirement is designed to ensure that legal decisions are made based on facts rather than by
conjecture. As a result, the party bringing a case or lawsuit to court must often back up their claims with facts and
evidence, physical or otherwise.
As in all civil cases, the ruling is based on a preponderance of the evidence—i.e. more than 50% of the evidence
provided must point to something useful in determining whether the case should proceed. Burden of proof and
collection of evidence is part and parcel that lawyers engage in as part of their business.
In insurance, it is used in the courts to determine whether a loss is covered by an insurance policy. Typically, the
insured has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a loss is covered under the policy, while the insurer has the
burden of proof to demonstrate that a loss was excluded under the terms of the policy contract.
Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act - “Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability
dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to
prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”
Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act - “On whom burden of proof lies.—The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies
on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.”
Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act - “Burden of proof as to particular fact.—The burden of proof as to any particular
fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof
of that fact shall lie on any particular person.”
Section 104 of Indian Evidence Act - “Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.—The burden
of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the
person who wishes to give such evidence.”
Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act - “Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.—When a person
is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the
General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any
other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence
of such circumstances.”
Burden of proof in case of Civil Cases - When a person files a civil proceeding, it contains two things within it. The first
one is the facts of the case and the second one being the legal reason. The burden of proof in such cases is upon the
person who files such civil suit known as the plaintiff.
Burden of proof in case of Criminal Cases - Generally, the most important rule is that a person is innocent until proven
guilty. Hence, it is the duty of the prosecution to convince the court the accused has committed a crime which means
that the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution mainly. The burden of proof may change if and when the accused
claims one of the exceptions to the crime, claims or states something.
Case Laws - Savithri Vs Karthyayani Amma – Each party had to prove its allegations
In this particular case there was a question of execution of a will and it being executed by coercion. The court held that
each party had to prove its allegations which means the one alleging that the will was executed by coercion has to
prove the same.
Q3) Explain the Relevancy of the Judgements of Court of Justice.
The actual meaning of judgement under the code of civil procedure, 1908. The section 2(9) of CPC defines it as a
decision which is given by the judges in a court regarding the rights, duties and liabilities of an individual. The basic
theory of law is whether the previous judgements or the following judgements are not relevant, as every case is
decided by its own facts. The judgement depends upon the facts of the case of particular parties and not by the
references to the judgement of other cases.
Judgment is of two types: –
1. Judgement in rem: – When a judgment is given on a particular subject matter, it will not only remain between the
two parties but also be applicable to the entire world.
2. Judgement in personam: – When a judgment is given on a subject matter, it will remain between the parties. It
means the judgment will be against an individual.
‘’Relevancy of judgement,” it means that every judgement is based upon the facts of each particular case. If we
understand it in a simple way, it says that each and every case has its own importance. The judgement of each case is
based upon the subject matter and it is not necessary that the judgment of one case is interrelated with another case.
A civil judgement is not relevant to a criminal trial though arising out of the same fact. A judgement in a civil case for
defamation is not relevant to criminal prosecution. The previous judgment is not relevant to the subsequent case.
More importance is given to the facts of the cases and on the basis of which judgement is given.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The law may be divided into 2 parts i. e. substantive law and procedural laws.
Substantive laws are those laws which define the right, duties, punishments and offences for the same. The existence
of proof or evidence is necessary in procedural law. The Indian Evidence Act was originally passed by the Imperial
Legislative Council in 1872 in India, during the British Rule. It contains a set of rules and provides, inter alia, how a fact
is to be proved.
It includes sections regarding the judgment of court of justice when relevant from Section 40 to Section 44 which talks
for the same.
Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trail (Section 40) - Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section
40 defines that, the existence of any judgment, will be relevant even in a second trial. Here the rule of ‘res judicata’
applies. It simply means that if any judgement which prevents the court from giving attention to such a suit or petition
then it will be a relevant fact.
Relevancy of certain judgements in probate, etc., jurisdiction (Section.41) - A final judgment, order or decree of a
Competent Court, in exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or to
take away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or
to be entitled to any specific thing not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence
of any legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Section 41 deals with what is known
as judgement in rem, which not only bind the parties at the representatives to it, but also are binding as against the
whole world.
Relevancy and effect of judgements, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Section 41 (Section 42) -
According to Section 42, Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41, are relevant if they
relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry; nut such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive
proof of that which they state.
Judgements etc other than those mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant ( Section 43) - Section 43 Provides,
that Judgments, orders or decrees other then those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the
existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant, under some other provision of this Act.
Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgement, or incompetency of court, may be proved (Section 44) – The general rule
is, a judgement of a competent court shall be binding on the parties operating as Res Judicata in subsequent
proceedings between the same parties. Section 44 contains exception to this rule. According to Section 44, a
judgement is liable to be annulled /impeached on the ground of a) of want of Jurisdiction; b) fraud ; and c) collusion.
Conclusion – The chapter of Judgement of Curt of Justice , when relevent from Section 40 to Section 44 based on
Doctrine of Res Judicata and Doctrine of autre fois convict, means same person can not be convicted for the same
offense twice. It is also known as doctrine of double geopardy as contemplated under article 22(ii) of the Indian
Constitution.
Q4) Discuss the various Presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act.
Presumptions are broadly Classified into three groups :
1) Presumption of Fact or Natural Presumption
2) Presumption of law or Artificial Presumption
i) Rebutable
ii) Irrebuttable or Conclusive
3) Mixed Presumptions (Presumption of Fact and law both)
1) Presumption of Fact or Natural Presumption : - Sections 86 - 88, 90,, 113A and 114 lay down the provisions relating
to Presumption of Fact or Natural Presumptions as stated below. these principles are generally rebuttable.
Section 86. Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records
Section 87. Presumption as to Books, Maps and Charts
Section 88. Presumption as to Telegraphic Messages
Section 90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old
Section 113A. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women
Section 113B. Presumption as to dowry death
2) Presumption of law or Artificial Presumption: Presumptions of law or artificial presumptions are inferences or
propositions established by law.
Presumptions of law are of two kinds:
i) Rebuttable
ii) Irrebuttable or Conclusive
i) Rebuttable Presumptions of law: - These kinds of presumptions arise when presumptions of law are certain legal
rules, defining the amount of evidence requisite to Support a particular allegation, which facts being proved, may be
either explained away or rebutted by evidence to the contrary but are conclusive in absence of such evidence. For
example, A man is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. A child is born in a legal wedlock shall be presumed
legitimate and one who questions his legitimacy must disprove it.
Following are the Examples of this presumptions :
Section 107.Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years.
Section 108.Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.
Section 102.On whom burden of proof lies.
ii) Irrebuttable or Conclusive: - These Presumptions are those legal rules which are not outcome of any evidence that
the fact is otherwise. Section 82 of Indian Penal Code is the well-known instance of an irrebuttable presumption of
law which provides that nothing is an offense which is done by a child under 7 year of age. Section 115, 116 and Section
117 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with the rule Estoppel which are the examples of irrebuttable presumptions.
Following are the Examples of this presumptions :
Section 115. Estoppel
Section 116. Estoppel of tenant and of license of person in possession
Section 117. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee
3) Mixed Presumptions (Presumption of Fact and law both): - Mixed presumptions of law and Fact are mainly
confined to the English law of real property so it is not necessary to presume subject here.The Indian Evidence Act has
made some provisions for the presumptions of fact and the presumptions of law. In certain sections of the Evidence
Act, it has been provided that the court may presume certain facts. In some other sections, The court shall presume a
fact has been used. There are certain sections in which it is said that a certain fact is conclusive proof of a certain
another fact. Section 4 of the Evidence Act controls these sections and gives a direction to courts as to how proceed
under those sections of the evidence act.
Case Law - In Tukaram v State of Maharashtra [10], This case was decided on considering the facts of Mathura Rape
Case and while adjudicating the case the Court justified the need and necessities of such presumptions. The Court also
explained that Presumptions has a wider scope as they don’t only help the victim in the fast trial but it also helps in
giving direction to the case. Therefore such presumption can effectively help the judiciary in providing quick and
complete justice to the society. According to Stephen presumption is mandatory, not permissive presumption and
especially permissive is dealt in Section 90 of the evidence act. Permissive presumption means it is on the court
discretion whether to believe or not to believe.
Q5) Explain the law relating to competency and compellability of witnesses
Under the Evidence Act, everyone is presumed to be competent to give evidence and any competent witness can be
compelled to give evidence. However, the presumption of competence can be rebutted if a party can demonstrate
that the person lacks capacity. The act also sets up exceptions to this rule.
A person not competent - A person is not competent to give evidence about a fact if they do not have the capacity to
understand or answer questions about the fact and this incapacity cannot be overcome. This may be because of mental
or physical disability because the person is a very young child or for any other reason.
Competence is not to be confused with credibility. A witness does not lack competence simply because they have poor
powers of observation or an imperfect memory. Competence refers to a person’s ability to function as a witness.
A person may be competent to give evidence about some matters but not others.
The issue of whether a person is competent to give evidence is for the judge to decide in the absence of the jury, on
the balance of probabilities.
Unsworn evidence - At common law, a person is only competent to give evidence if they can give sworn evidence.
This means they must be capable of understanding the nature of the oath or affirmation. However, under Section 13
of the Evidence Act, a person who is not competent to give sworn evidence because they do not understand the
obligation to tell the truth can give unsworn evidence.
In order to give unsworn evidence, a witness must:
Be told of the importance of telling the truth;
Be told that they may be asked questions they do not know the answer to and to tell the court if this occurs;
Be told that they should not feel pressured to agree with statements that are not true.
A person not compellable - There are a number of situations provided for under the Evidence Act where a person is
not compellable as a witness.
Reduced capacity - Under Section 14, a person is not compellable as a witness if the court considers that there would
be a substantial cost or delay involved in ensuring that the person understands and can answer questions and there
has been adequate evidence given on the matter by other persons.
Defendants - A defendant is not compellable to give evidence against a co-defendant.
Family members - A person who is the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of the defendant may object to being
required to give evidence for the prosecution. The person who makes such an objection must not be required to give
the evidence if the court finds that: there is a likelihood it would harm the person or their relationship with the
defendant; and that harm outweighs the desirability of having the evidence given.
In determining this, the court must consider the offence for which the defendant is being tried, the nature of the
evidence the person is expected to give and whether any other evidence on the matters is available. It must also
consider the relationship between the person and the defendant and whether giving evidence would require them to
disclose matters told to them in confidence.
State officials - Under Section 15, the following persons are not compellable to give evidence:
• The sovereign;
• The governor-general;
• The Governor of a state;
• The Administrator of a Territory;
• The head of state of another country.
Members of parliament are also not compellable to give evidence if doing so would prevent them from attending a
sitting of parliament or a meeting of a committee of parliament.
Compelling a person to give evidence - When a party requires a person to give evidence, they issue a subpoena for
the person to attend court on a particular date. A person who has been issued with a subpoena must attend court on
the specified date and if they fail to attend, the court may issue a warrant for their arrest. If a person who receives a
subpoena to give evidence believes they are not a compellable witness, they must attend court and indicate this to
the court.
A person who is a compellable witness must answer all the lawful questions put to them. Refusing to answer a lawful
question may result in a charge of contempt of court.
Case Law - In case of Neelam Katara v. Union of India & Ors.[xii](14.10.2003), The Delhi High Court stated that the
competent authority (Member Secretary, Delhi Legal Services Authority) on receiving a request from the witness shall
determine whether the witness requires police protection and to what extent and for what duration.
Q6) Accomplice is untrustworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. Explain
Accomplice is a bit of confusing and varying in nature as sometimes it would make a double opinion both in the form
of positive and negative sense. The term Accomplice first appears in section 114 illustration (b) under the Indian
Evidence Act 1872 which says that An accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars
and subsequently again in section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it defines Accomplice shall be a competent
witness against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice.
Thus the two sections under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is somewhat contradictory in sense and that makes a
confusion to draw out a final conclusion. If an accomplice desires to give evidence or depose anything before a criminal
judicature, he cannot be simply discarded or thrown out from the eyes of a criminal trial rather he should be
considered as a competent witness but it is very pertinent and vital for a criminal court to testify him before any
judgment or order is passed by such court on the words of an accomplice.
However sometimes it is also seen that the court is not able to put reliance on the words of an accomplice as for his
changing nature as like a ‘chameleon’ changes in the due course of nature. If a person who is found to be giving
evidence as a witness against his co-friend accused , then there may be a serious probability that he can also betray
the court by miss-guiding the judicature. But still the procedural law entailed under the criminal procedure code gives
a special provision under section 306 i.e Tender of pardon to an accomplice.
The section states with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly
concerned in or privy to an offence to which the section applies, the chief judicial magistrate or metropolitan
magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into or the trial of the offence and the magistrate of the first
class inquiring into or trying the offence at any stage may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making
a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every
other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof.
However subsequently again under section 307 criminal procedure code which provides for Power to direct tender of
Pardon it states that At any time after the commitment of a case but before the judgment is passed, the court to which
the commitment is made may with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been
directly or indirectly concerned, in or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.
However both the section implies that a criminal court may presume that an accomplice is a competent witness and
the court may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making full and true disclosure of the circumstances
of the case.
The criminal procedure code does not make an effort to elaborate the concept of accomplice and does not employ
the word “approver” in any of the above provision. As per the dictionary meaning Accomplice is a person who is also
somehow involved in the crime with any other person in the commission of the crime, whether as principal or
accessory. In the case of Shankar vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 4 SCC 478 , it was held by the court that an accomplice
is a person who participates in the commission of the actual crime charged against an accused.
The main target and objective behind section 306 of the criminal procedure code, 1973 is to understood in a wider
sense. It has been seen that many a times when a crime is committed in a very crafty and cagey manner so as no clue
or evidence can be traced for its investigation or detention, pardon is granted to the accomplice for apprehending and
detecting the other offenders, so that the court may reach to a conclusion. The main target of section 306 criminal
procedure code was to ensure that criminals who were charged with heinous and grave crimes, do not evade or escape
punishment and thus in this way the prosecution uses the instrument of tending pardon to accomplice on a condition
that he will give evidence against the former partners in the crime. It is then he is known as an accomplice for turning
as a witness or an approver against his crime partners.
Case Law - Lachi Ram v. State of Punjab - the accused was charged with murder and was convicted on the evidence of
an approver corroborated in material particulars. On the question whether proper tests were applied in applied in
appreciating the approver’s evidence the Supreme Court held: “It was held by this Court in Sarwan Singh case that an
approver’s evidence to be accepted must satisfy two tests”.
Q7) Discuss the law relating to exclusion of oral by documentary evidence.
The term evidence has come from the Latin word “evident” which means “to show clearly” or to prove. Evidence
contains everything that is used to reveal the truth or facts. In law the person on whom the burden of proof lies has
to produce the evidence before the court of law. It is also important that the evidence which is produced before the
court should be true.
The types of evidence are as follows:
• Direct evidence- It refers to the evidence directly about the real point in the issue. It is the declaration of the
observer as to key certainty to be demonstrated.
• Circumstantial evidence- “Proof does not mean hard mathematical formula since it is impossible”.
However if the witness while giving evidence says that he is only able to recognize that he heard the shot, then arrived
on the scenes after some time and saw the gun in hands of the defendant with fumes coming out, the proof is
circumstantial as the circumstances may be different from what he perceived.
• Real evidence- Real evidence means any tangible object which is presented before the court as proof.
• Expert evidence- The law of evidence is drafted to make sure that, the court only considers the proof that allows
them to reach a valid conclusion.
• Hearsay evidence- This evidence is also called as indirect, derivative or second- hand evidence. In this type of
evidence, the witness tells the court about what he had heard from somebody but has not seen anything.
• Primary oral evidence- Oral evidence means that any announcement which is made by an observer in the court,
who has personally seen the act, heard it and was present there.
• Secondary evidence- The evidence which is given in the absence of primary proof is called secondary evidence.
• Oral evidence- When the proof is restricted to spoken words or by gestures or motion then it is termed as oral
evidence. Oral evidence, when reliable, is adequate without narration or written proof to demonstrate a reality or
fact. Where a reality can be demonstrated by oral proof, it isn’t essential that the announcement of the observer
ought to be oral. Accordingly, a speechless individual may give evidence by signs or by composing.
• Documentary evidence- Any evidence which is present as a document before the court in order to demonstrate
or show a reality. The content of documentary evidence can be separated into three sections:
1. How the subject matter of document can be demonstrated?
2. How the record is to be proved to be authentic? and
3. How far and in what instance oral evidence is excluded by documentary evidence?
• Positive and negative evidence- By positive evidence the existence of reality can be proved and by negative
evidence non-existence of reality can be proved. The people and the court should keep in mind that negative
evidence does not act as a good evidence.
• Substantive and Non-substantive evidence- Substantive evidence are those evidences on which the court is
dependent for the decision of a case.
• Prima facie and conclusive evidence- Prima facie evidence is accepted valid at a first instance and demonstrates
a fact in the absence of contradictory evidence.
• Pre-appointed and casual evidence- The law prescribes this type of evidence in advance which is necessary for
the demonstration of certain facts or for the formation of certain instruments.
• Scientific evidence- Scientific proof is proof which serves to either support or counters a logical hypothesis or
speculation. Such proof is required to be exact proof and translation as per logical strategy.
• Digital evidence- Digital evidence was recognized in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. M/s. C-Net
Communication India Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 957. In this case, the Supreme Court held that “digital
electronic” would mean that decoder is multiple outputs, input and logical circuits that changes coded input into
a coded output.
• Electronic evidence- This proof can likewise be as electronic record delivered in court. The proof, even in criminal
issues, can likewise be, by method for electronic records. This would incorporate or comprise of video
conferencing.
• Tape record evidence- The tape itself acts as direct evidence, what the person has said can be recorded and can
be presented before the court. Any previous statement made by a person can be tape-recorded and if in the end,
the person changes his statement before the court then the tape-recorded statement can be presented before
the court in order to test the veracity of the witness.
Exclusion of Oral and Documentary Evidence - One of the essential standards of the law of proof is that in all cases
the best proof ought to be given. Where the demonstration is exemplified in a record, the record is the best proof of
the reality. The maxim of law is “whatever is recorded as a hard copy must be demonstrated in the form of hard copy
only“.
Section 91 of the Evidence Act- Evidence in the form of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property should
be in the form of a document. This Section applies similarly to cases in which the agreement, stipends or disposition
of property alluded are contained in one document or has one record, and cases in which they are contained in a
greater number of reports that one.
Section 92- Exclusion of evidence of an oral agreement. - If any contract, grants or disposition of property which is
required by law to be in writing in form of document and if it has been proved according to Section 91, then for the
purpose of varying it, contradicting it or subtracting it parties or their representative is not required to give oral
evidence and it is not admissible.
Exceptions
Validity of document - If any contract or grant is made between the parties and fraud is done by other party or there
is a mistake of fact, or mistake of law, or the party is not competent to contract then in such circumstances oral
evidence can be given and it is admissible.
Matters on which document is silent - Oral evidence can be given when the documents are silent but subject to these
two conditions are there:
1- The oral evidence should not contradict the document.
2- In allowing the proof of oral understanding the court is to have respect the level of the custom of the record. On
the off chance that the report is formal, proof of oral understanding will not be permitted even on issues on which the
record is silent.
Separate oral agreement as condition precedent - In this situation, it is provided that if there is any condition
precedent is constituted to the existing separate oral agreement to attaching of any obligations under a document ,
then it needs to be proved.
Recession or modification - This provision permits the proof of oral agreement by which the document was either
revoked or altered. When documents are executed then parties orally agree to treat it as canceled or alter some of its
terms, such oral agreement is admissible.
Usages or customs - If there is the existence of any particular usage or customs by which incidents are attached to a
contract then it can be proved.
Relation of language to facts - If any document is written then oral evidence can be given of such a document that
what is mentioned in and in what circumstances it was mentioned and how to interpret it but it should not exclusively
contradict the document.
Section 93- Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend an ambiguous document. If the language used in the document
is defective or ambiguous, evidence cannot be given of facts which would show it’s meaning.
Section 94- Exclusion of evidence against the application of document to existing facts. When the language used in
the document is correct and when it applies correctly to the facts mentioned, evidence cannot be given that it is to be
proved that it was not meant to apply on such facts.
Section 95- Evidence as to the document unmeaning in reference to existing facts. When language used in a
document is plain in itself, however, is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, reality or situations, proof might be
given to demonstrate that it was used in an unusual or different way.
Section 96- Evidence as to the application of the language which can apply to one of several persons. At the point
when the facts are with the end goal that the language utilized may have been intended to apply to anyone, and
couldn’t have been intended to apply to multiple, of a few people or things, proof might be given of certainties which
shows the people or things, it was planned to apply to.
Section 97- Evidence as to the application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole
correctly applies. When the language used is applied partially to other existing facts and partially to other existing
facts but the whole does not apply to either of the facts mentioned. Evidence can be given to show that which of the
two it was meant to apply.
Section 98- Evidence as to the meaning of illegible characters, etc. Proof might be given to demonstrate the
significance of obscured or not ordinarily clear characters, of remote, out of date, specialized, and provincial
expressions, of abbreviations and of words utilized in an exceptional sense.
Section 99- Who may give evidence of an agreement varying term of the document? The person who is not a party
to a contract or their representative may give evidence of any fact which do not contradict with the documents.
Q8) Explain the Law relating to Examination of Witnesses.
Introduction to the Witness Examination under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872: – The witness’s testimony is
preserved in the form of responses to questions put to him. Witnesses are not allowed to give a speech in front of the
court and are only expected to answer questions. In this way, the witness’s testimony can be limited to the facts
relevant to the case. The process of questioning witnesses is referred to as his or her examination.
Following are the 3 stages of a witness’s examination
Examination-in-Chief - The examination by the party who calls a witness is referred to as a direct examination. The
testimony is first examined in chief and then cross-examined if requested by the opponent. When a witness appears
in court, he is administered an oath or affirmation. His name and address are recorded. The party calling the witness
then has the authority to question him in order to induce all material facts within his knowledge that tend to prove his
(the party calling the witness) case. This is known as examination-in-chief.
Object of Examination-in-chief - The objective of cross-examination-in-chief is to elicit the facts and to prove pertinent
facts in favour of the party who called the witnesses. The aim of his examination is, in other phrases, to obtain all facts
from the witnesses regarding the cases of the parties he is aware of. It must be limited to the facts concerned, and
without the permission of the court, leading questions cannot be asked.
Cross-examination - The adverse party’s cross-examination of a witness is known as cross-examination. A party’s
opponent has the right to cross-examine his chief witness after he has been examined. The importance of cross-
examination is the questioning of witnesses summoned by one party’s attorney with the goal of either obtaining a
favorable admission or discrediting the witness.
Object of the Cross-examination - The objective of cross-examination is to determine whether the witness’s
statements are true. It’s an attempt to dissect a witness or show that his testimony can’t be trusted. Cross-main
examination’s purpose was to examine the accuracy, authenticity, and value of the evidence presented in chief, to
shift the facts already stated by the witness, to identify and expose differences, and to produce suppressed evidence
to substantiate the cross-examining party’s case.
Re-examination - Re-examination is the examination of a testimony when he has been cross-examined by the
defendant who called him. If the party who called the witness wishes and if it is necessary, he may re-examine him.
The re-examination must be restricted to the objections faced during cross-examination.
The Object of Re-examination - Re- examination’s purpose is to ask any questions which may be required if the
opposing party has the right to cross-examine the testimony at that point so that the witness should provide a proper
explanation or interpretation of expression during cross-examination.
Order of Examination - Sec. 138 of the (I.E.A) Indian Evidence Act governs the order of examination, wherein the
witness is examined in chief, then cross-examined, and then re-examined (if the opposition party so desires). The
examination & cross-examination must be concentrated on pertinent facts, but the cross-examination should not be
limited to the facts on which the witness testified during his chief examination.
Direction of Re-examination - The purpose of re-examination is to clarify matters raised in cross-examination, and if
a new issue is raised in re-examination with the court’s permission, the opposition party may cross-examine the matter
further.
Q9) Short Notes
A) Plea of Alibi
INTRODUCTION - The word “Alibi” is derived from Latin which means “elsewhere” or “somewhere else”. It is used as
a defence by the person who is accused, in criminal proceedings. When the accused makes a plea of alibi, it means
that the accused is trying to convey and convince the court that he is at some other place at the time when the crime
happened. Generally, a plea of alibi states that the suspect was not there at the crime spot and time of the
performance of a crime owing to the excuse that he was at some other place. According to criminal law, the burden
of proving that he was absent at the crime spot, lies on the accused.
Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act - “When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant: Facts not otherwise
relevant are relevant
1) If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
2) If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or
relevant fact highly probable or improbable.”
Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act - It states that “The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person
who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on
any particular person.”
WHO CAN MAKE A PLEA OF ALIBI? - The accused can make a plea of alibi. If he takes the plea of alibi at an earlier
stage of judicial proceedings, its credibility increases. To make this plea the accused must be at a place that is far from
the place of commission of the crime and they cannot be at the crime spot at that time. In court proceedings, the
defence of an alibi is rarely accepted if it is not supported by evidence.
ESSENTIALS OF THE PLEA OF ALIBI –
• There should be a commission of a crime punishable by law.
• To make a plea, the person should be accused of the said crime.
• The accused must be absent at the crime spot at the time of the commission of the crime
• The accused must be at a place that is far away from the crime spot, and it should be impossible to reach the crime
spot at the time of the commission of the crime
• The defence of alibi should be taken by the accused as soon as possible
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AN ALIBI - If the accused couldn’t succeed in establishing the plea of alibi, it can’t be confirmed
that he is present at the crime spot and the obligation to prove it with some sort of evidence lies on the side of the
prosecution. Thus, the accused’s failure to prove his or her alibi will not lead to a conclusion that he or she was present
at the crime spot.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ACCUSED MAKES A FALSE PLEA? - The Courts will not decide/consider a person guilty
merely based on the fact that the accused made a false plea. However, it negatively impacts the accused. Providing
fake evidence to support the plea leads to suspicion on the accused and the court will be more careful throughout the
proceedings. When a false alibi plea is made, it will also create an impact on the entire investigating process.
CASE LAWS - In Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvi case, the accused claimed that at the time of the commission of the offence,
he went to Panipat to meet an advocate for legal advice. The crime had happened in the Karnal district. But the
advocate failed to provide evidence concerning the time and visit. This plea got rejected by the honourable apex court.
CONCLUSION - The defence of establishing an alibi means that the accused was stating that he /she was present at
some other place at the time the crime took place. There are two key points to remember when making an alibi plea:
guilt cannot be altered by establishing a false alibi plea.
B) Res Gestae
Evolution of Res Gestae - Originally the Romans used Res gestae to mean acts are done or actus. It was described by
the English and American writers as facts forming the same transaction. Res gestae are the facts that form a part of
the same transaction automatically or naturally. They are the acts that speak for themselves. Due to their association
with the main transaction, these facts become relevant in the nature of the fact in question. Circumstantial facts are
admitted to be part of res gestae, i.e. it is part of the original evidence of what happened. Statements can also
accompany physical events such as gestures. Things said or acts done in course of transaction amounts to res gestae.
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Facts that are so linked to a fact in question that they
form part of the same transaction, although not in question, are relevant, whether they occurred at different times
and places at the same time.
The principle embodied in law in Section 6, is usually referred to as the res gestae doctrine. The facts that can be
proved as a part of res gestae must be facts other than those in question but must be linked to them. Although hearsay
evidence is not admissible, it may be admissible in a court of law when it is res gestae and may be reliable proof. The
reason behind this is the spontaneity and immediacy of such a statement that for concoction there is hardly any time.
Such a statement must, therefore, be concurrent with the acts that constitute the offense or at least immediately
thereafter.
Res gestae contains facts that are part of the same transaction. It is, therefore, appropriate to examine what a
transaction is, when it begins and when it ends. If any fact does not connect to the main transaction, it is not a res
gestae and therefore inadmissible. Res gestae includes elements that completely fall outside the definition of modern
hearsay, such as circumstantial evidence of a state of mind, so-called “verbal acts“, verbal parts of acts, and certain
non-verbal behavior.
Because excited utterances are closely connected with the event in time and the excitement flows from the event,
excited utterances have been considered part of the action and therefore admissible despite the rule of hearsay. The
hearsay exceptions were also hired by Res gestae for present-sense impressions, excited utterances, direct evidence
of a state of mind, and statements made to doctors.
Illustrations:
• An injured or injured person’s cry.
• The witness’s cry to see a murder happen.
• The sound of a shot of a bullet.
• The person being attacked is crying for help.
• Gestures made by the person dying etc.

C) Shall Presumes
Section 4 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : “Shall presume”- Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall
presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. “Shall presume”- Whenever there
is a provision to the effect “that the court shall presume a fact” the court cannot exercise its discretion. It is compelled
to take the fact as proved, i.e., it shall have to presume the fact. But in this case the court will be at liberty to allow the
opposite party is successful in disproving it, the court shall not presume the fact. In the Indian Evidence Act the word
“shall presume” indicate that presumption therein is unrebuttable. Sec. 89 of the Evidence Act provides “that the court
shall presume that every document, called for and not produced after notice to produce, attested, stamped and
executed in the manner required by law”.
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act explains that the concept of ‘Shall Presume’ may also be called ‘Presumption of
Law’ or ‘Artificial Presumption’ or ‘Obligatory Presumption’ or ‘Rebuttable Presumption of Law’ and tells that it is a
branch of jurisprudence.
According to the second clause of Sec. 4, whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall
regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
The word directed in the second clause is stronger and determinative than the word provided in the first clause. The
expression shall presume gives no discretion to the Court, but to accept a fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
Sections 79 to 85-C, 89 and 105,111-A, 113-B of the Evidence Act provide necessary presumptions for “shall presume”.
Whenever there is a provision to the effect “that the court shall presume a fact” the court cannot exercise its
discretion. It is compelled to take the fact as proved, i.e., it shall have to presume the fact. But in this case, the court
will be at liberty to allow the opposite party to adduce evidence to disprove the fact so presumed and if the opposite
party is successful in disproving it, the court shall not presume the fact.
D) Conclusive Proof -
According to Dictionary meaning "Conclusive proof refers to presumption which cannot be overcome or changed by
any additional evidence or argument. According to Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 “Conclusive proof” –
Where one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact,
regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.
Provisions relating to conclusive proof or Irrebuttable presumptions of law - Section 41 Section 112 and Section 113
of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 speaks about conclusive proof or Irrebuttable presumption of law as stated below -
Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act - Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc. jurisdiction - A final judgment,
order or decree of a Competent Court, in exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which
confers upon or to take away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any
such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant
when the existence of any legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment,
order or decree is conclusive proof –
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act - Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy - The fact that any
person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred
and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the
legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any
time when he could have been begotten.
Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act - Proof of cession of territory - A notification in the Official Gazette that any
portion of British territory has before the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act,1935, (26 Geo. 5
Ch. 2) been caddied to any Native State, Prince or Ruler, shall be conclusive proof that a valid session of such territory
took place at the date mentioned in such notification.

E) Dumb Witness:-
Every person is competent to give evidence if he satisfied the test of being able to understand the questions which are
put to him, and he is in a position to give rational answer to those questions. Any person who satisfies these tests shall
be competent to testify, child, deaf and dumb persons can give evidence. Earlier it was thought that deaf and dumb
persons were regarded as idiots and were not competent to give evidence. But now modern science reveals that deaf
and dumb persons are much more intelligent than any other normal Person.Deaf and Dumb are competent to give
evidence. they may give evidence either by signs or through an interpreter or in writing. Section 119 of the Indian
Evidence Act deals with the deaf and dumb witness.
Deaf and Dumb: According to Section 119 "A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner
in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in
open Court, evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence:
Provided that if the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or
a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be video-graphed."
The case of deaf and dumb differs from child witness in following two ways -
i) The deaf and dumb must understand the nature of an act. The child need not understand it.
ii) The deaf and Dumb can give his evidence by means of signs Under Section 119 of Indian Evidence Act.
EVIDENCE OF DUMB WITNESS - Section 5 of the Oaths Act, 1969 enables a witness or interpreter to make an
affirmation instead of an oath. On a reading of Sections, 4 and 5 of the said Oaths Act, the interpreter as well as Be
witness both have to be administered oath before the Court proceeds to cond evidence of a dumb witness. The Court
while recording the evidence of a dumb witness, must record both signs as well as the interpretations of the
interpreter, and then only it becomes admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
Essential Conditions:
1. Witness is unable to speak
2. Evidence given by Dump witness must be given either by written or by signed
3. Such writing or sign must be made in open court
4. Evidence given by such dump witness shall be consider as Oral Evidence
5. Evidence given by dump witness shall be video graphed.
F) Hostile Witness
A hostile witness is a witness who appears to be refusing to fully testify in support of the person who called them or
testifies in a way that significantly differs from their pre-trial statement. The person who calls you as a witness expects
you to provide the court with evidence similar to what you may have said in a pre-trial statement. If you refuse to
answer questions or contradict what you said before, the person who called you can apply to the judge to have you
declared a hostile witness. A hostile witness can have their credibility called into question and can be cross-examined
and asked leading questions by the person who called them. The person who called you may also use the process in
an attempt to persuade you to give evidence that agrees with your previous statement.
Who is declared a hostile witness? If the evidence you give under oath changes significantly from what you said earlier
in a pre-trial statement or if you refuse to answer questions which you could be expected to answer in a particular
manner, the solicitor or barrister who called you to be a witness can ask the judge to decide if you are hostile. This
application must be made to the judge without the jury present. The judge has to decide whether you are a hostile
witness or an unfavourable witness.
Procedure followed when a witness is declared hostile - While the jury is not present the solicitor or barrister applies
to the judge to have the witness declared hostile. If they are making the application on the basis of a pre-trial statement
then they show that to the judge.
The statement can only be admitted if the court is satisfied that:
• The witness made it
• It was made voluntarily
• It is reliable
• The facts would be admissible if the witness gave testimony about them in court
• The witness signed an affirmation that the statement was the truth (e.g. a statutory declaration), or the court
is satisfied that the witness understood that they must tell the truth
What happens if I am declared a hostile witness? - Normally, if a solicitor or barrister calls you as a witness, they
cannot attack your credibility or cross-examine you as if you were a witness for the other side. They also cannot
generally ask questions about, or introduce evidence of any prior inconsistent statements. The calling barrister cannot
ask leading questions either in an attempt to get you to say what they want.
If the judge decides you are a hostile witness, the barrister calling you can:
• Cross-examine you on the statement you made before the trial
• Ask leading questions in an effort to get you to say what they want

G) Electronic Evidence
With the advancement of technology, the production of electronic evidence is becoming common practice to secure
the justice. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the electronic records are more vulnerable to tampering
and alterations. Thus, electronic records cannot be looked upon with same standard as that of ordinary documentary
evidence. The Document though expressly does not include electronic evidence but the term documentary evidence
does include electronic record by virtue of definition of Evidence and deeming fiction of Section 65B.
The term electronic evidence, computer, computer system and information have the same meaning as defined under
Information technology act, 2000.
printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer means
secondary evidence. Thus where the video recorded in Laptop/Mobile Phone is copied to Pen-drive/CD and submits
to court then that very Pen-Drive/CD would be Secondary evidence.
This secondary evidence can be admissible only if the conditions of Section 65B are fulfilled and not otherwise.
However, where the party itself produced the Primary Evidence (I.e. the laptop, mobile phone itself) then the
operation of Section 65B is of no mandate because the document is proved by primary evidence itself.
The deeming fiction is added to Section 65B (1) because the definition of document do not expressly include electronic
record.
Section 65A and 65B being a code in itself with respect to electronic record and thus in absence of compliance of them,
the general standard of proving documentary evidence cannot be looked into.
In Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh[9] following Navjot Sandhu (supra) that secondary evidence of
the contents of a document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to make CCTV footage admissible.
Q11) All Confessions are admissions, but all admissions are not confessions. Discuss
An admission represents a statement that tends toward proving guilt. On the other hand, a confession is a fully
corroborated statement during which the suspect accepts personal responsibility for committing a crime. This
distinction is important for legal and procedural reasons. For example, a theft suspect who agrees to reimburse the
victim for the Rs. 50 stolen has offered an admission, not a confession. While a willingness to pay back an amount of
money stolen is very typical of the guilty suspect, we have had at least one occurrence of a verified innocent person
who agreed to do this also. The principle to keep in mind is that an admission does not accept personal responsibility
for committing the crime.
The distinction between a confession and an admission is not based upon a technical refinement but instead; it is
based upon the substantive differences of the character of the evidence deduced from each. In other words, a
confession is a direct acknowledgement of guilt, on the part of the accused, and by the very definition of it, excludes
an admission which of itself is a statement, oral or documentary, that enables the court to gather an inference as to
any relevant fact or fact in issue. It will be scrupulous to say that every confession, by definition, is an admission but
every admission doesn’t necessarily amount to a confession. In other words, a confession is an admission provided
that a person charged with a crime, standing or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime, makes it at any
time.
According to the established theories and law, all admissions are not confessions but all confessions are admissions.
Though only voluntary and direct acknowledgment of guilt is a confession, but when a confession falls short of actual
admission of guilt, and is not taken down according to law, it may be used as evidence against the person who made
it, as an admission under Section 21.
The Evidence Act draws a distinction between admissions and confessions and the nature of the distinction was
considered many times. The contrary view held in R v. Bhairab was based on Stephen’s definition of confession but,
confession as now explained in Pakala Narayan vs. Emperor endorses the opinion of the cases of R v. Jagrup and R v.
Santya Bandhu.
CONCLUSION - The ascertainment of the distinction between admissions and confessions shall be of importance
because; it shall give the explanation as to a statement’s admissibility in a court of law as per Indian Evidence Act,
1872. If the statement is found to be an admission, it shall be admissible under Section 21 and if it amounts to a
confession, it shall be admissible under Section 24 to 30. If it is found to be holding improper inducement, threat or
promise, it would be hit by the restriction in Section 24 and shall not be admissible as a confession anymore, but, it
may still be admissible under Section 21 as an admission provided it suggests an inference as to a fact in issue or a
relevant fact. A restriction on admissibility of an admission is laid down, that it shall not be made to a police officer
during an ongoing investigation.
Providing the solution to the primary research question pertaining to the points of distinctions between Confessions
and Admissions, a confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting that he has either committed an
offence or at any rate, substantially all the facts that constitute the offence. Confessions find place in criminal
proceedings only. An admission is a general and a much larger term, which suggests an inference as to any fact in issue
or any relevant fact. Admissions are generally used in civil proceedings, yet they may also be used in criminal
proceedings. Every confession is an admission but every admission in a criminal case is not a confession. A statement
may be irrelevant as a confession, but it may be relevant as an admission. A statement not admissible as a confession
may yet, for other purposes, be admissible as an admission as against the person who made it.
In other words, a confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in
criminal proceeding establish the commission of offence by him. Whereas, an admission usually relates to civil
transaction and comprises all statements amounting to admission defined under Section 17 and made by person
mentioned under Sections 18,19 and 20. Confessions, if deliberately and voluntarily made, may be accepted as
conclusive of the matters confessed whereas; admissions are never conclusive to the matters admitted, though it may
act as an estoppel.
Confessions always go against the person making it whereas, admissions may be used on behalf of the person making
it under the exceptions provided in Section 21 of Evidence Act. Confessions made by one or two or more accused
jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused also as mentioned in Section
30. On the other hand, admission by one of several defendants in a suit is no evidence against others. Confession is
statement written or oral which is a direct admission of suit and Admission is a statement, oral or written, which gives
inference about the liability of person making admission.
12) Discuss in detail the concept of circumstantial evidence as state in the evidentiary value.
Circumstantial evidence is often presented in the criminal courts to establish the guilt of the accused as fundamental
evidence or Eye witness for the crime committed may or may not be available. According to Bentham witnesses are
the “eyes and ears” of justice. The circumstantial evidence is a clear portrayal of what would have exactly happened.
Testimonies cannot always be trusted as there is space for hostility caused due to fear also witnesses are often lured
by the adverse party. Thus, the facts narrated by the witnesses lose their credibility, hence owing to such situations
circumstantial evidence is helpful in proving the credible facts.
Introduction - Evidence in India is classified into two broad headers, Direct evidence, and Indirect Circumstantial
evidence. Direct evidence is that which conclusively proves the asserted fact by the party asserting it and the
circumstantial evidence are those which are relevant facts to the fact in issue, hence the existence of one fact proves
other. Circumstantial evidence is like a chain of events, connect one dot to another in a pattern and the fact is proved.
Convictions solely on basis of circumstances are not encouraged, for conviction solely upon indirect evidence there
shall be an unbreakable chain between the crime and the criminal.
Analysis of The Term ‘Evidence’ - The term evidence means the instrument that establishes the fact in issue. It is like
raw material which the adjudicator uses to establish the truth. Evidence is a fact-finding machine, one true source that
establishes the most probable fact on the commission of a crime and bringing forth the truth.
The literal sense of the word means, to be evident that is to be plain, apparent, or notorious the tendency of it is the
find the truth behind the fact in issue and hold the liable to dispose of their share of the burden of proof.
Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence - The position of circumstantial evidence is far more different than actually
depicted in television Courtroom dramas. The mass perception posed by such representations is that the evidence is
some logical Reasoning deduction whereas deduction is logical reasoning based on principles for a specific proposition.
The circumstantial evidence is those which when examined in isolation may be like any other fact but when studied in
relevancy to the fact in issue proves or disproves the facts in question.
Essentials of Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence has a significant role to play in serving justice to one who seeks it and
a person should take completely evaluate the evidence in regard to its admissibility, which is to be produced in the
court of law. The conviction solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence is possible if the following essentials are
fulfilled.
The circumstance from which the guilt is proved should be proved.
The facts should be in accordance with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The circumstances of establishing guilt should be conclusive in nature.
The circumstance that is stressed upon shall exclude any other probable hypothesis except the establishing the guilt.
The evidence should prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bodh Raj V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Court held that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction
provided the conditions as stated below is fully staisfied. Condition are:
1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accussed;
3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency ;
a. That the circumstances should, to a moral certanity , actually exclude every hypotheis expectthe one
proposed to be proved.
Conclusion
Circumstantial evidence is in no way inferior to direct evidence. They are efficient to establish a fact that proves or
disproves the fact in issue. The corroboration required by them can be satisfied by the conduct of the accused post or
prior to the crime committed. The court needs to examine both the evidence, direct and indirect critically, and find
the missing chain of events if, the court is unable to find the circumstances leading to the fact are conclusive.