Law of Evidence- Internal Assignment

Law of Evidence - Internal Assignment

Assignment Questions

2) Why rule of evidence have different significance under the adversarial system & Inquisitorial
system of justice.
Q2.
Q. 2) Why rule of evidence have different significance under the adversarial system &
Inquisitorial system of justice.
Answer:
Why rule of evidence have different significance under the adversarial system &
Inquisitorial system of justice.

In the adversarial system, counsel offers evidence and questions witnesses. However, In the
inquisitorial system, the judge is in charge of the courtroom, procedures, questioning of
witnesses, and evidence assessment in order to make a judgement or arrive at a decision.

In the adversarial system, counsel offers evidence and questions witnesses[9]. However, In
the inquisitorial system, the judge is in charge of the courtroom, procedures, questioning of
witnesses, and evidence assessment in order to make a judgement or arrive at a decision.

The trial before the honourable court is a judicial examination of the matters brought before
a jury or judge between the parties, whether they be of law or facts. Pieces of evidence are
evaluated by the judge in criminal trials to determine guilt. For the goal of determining the
outcome, the judge considers the law of the land, the facts brought before him, or the
legislation presented in the respective case.

It is often found that the concept of Individual rights protection, as well as the assumption
of innocence and the benefit of the doubt, can often result in the release of a criminal from
guilt. Parties with the intent to deceive can introduce fraudulent witnesses in order to skew
the facts. The Standards of necessitate advocacy and client allegiance, hinders the pursuit of
truth.
Also, the police may not always be able to uncover enough evidence against the accused.
sometimes the police also become helpless as a lack of help from the accused person. As a
result of which, the case is eventually gets dropped.

The Criminal Justice System is the process of arresting offenders, followed by stages of
inquiry to find proof. After that, charges are filed, a defence is formed, trials are held, and
sentences are bestowed if he is found guilty or acquitted if he is proven innocent. Offences
which are criminal in nature are often examined by exploring the facts and or situations,
circumstances, and contexts to show the individual's guilt.

A comprehensive investigation is carried out in a disciplined way, paying close attention to

details, evaluating and analysing material in order to reach a conclusion and prosecute the
individual who has committed the criminal act.

Types Of Criminal Justice System

There are many various kinds of criminal justice systems throughout the world to protect
and sustain order and peace within their area of authority by developing a social uniform
policy, the law. Punishments can be either punitive or rehabilitative in character.

However, the most common and prevalent among all are:

Adversary system or Accusatory system:
Adversary system is the court system where a judge decides on a case argued by a
prosecutor who is suing the plaintiff and the defense attorney who defends their plaintiff. A
jury has also been used to decide such cases.[1]

Inquisitorial system:
Proof taking used in civil law, whereby the judge conducts the trial, determines what
questions to ask, and defines the scope and extent of the inquiry[2]

General Overview
When there is really nothing more than assessing an individual's guilt, there are numerous
techniques such as tossing a coin or rolling a dice, which is the simplest, or any other
technique or method in which the outcome is established only by luck and chance. Or, an
administrator can be assigned and all of the things for the determination. Nonetheless,
there is a certain set of procedures and systems that are followed[3].

In a trial, evidence is presented and evaluated, and ultimately a conclusion or decision is

drawn. The main goal of a trial is to produce rational decisions within the confines of a trial
procedure. Various governments over the world have different systems in place to achieve
this goal.

The system of trial is a judicial assessment of the matters brought in court before a jury or
judge in between litigants and defendants, to get solved in accordance to laws and facts.
Bits of evidence and witnesses are reviewed by the judge in criminal trials to determine
guilt. For the goal of determining the end result, innocence or guilt, the judge considers the
law of the land, the facts presented before him, or the law put in the respective case.

Most nations across the world that utilise attorneys and judges in court have one of two
systems: adversarial or inquisitorial.

Adversary system
In this method, two adept advocates go toe to toe. respective advocates indulge to prepare
with the goal of persuading the court through compelling arguments. There really is no
equilibrium for this system; if one attorney is more competent, he may move the case in his
client's favour[4].

The adversarial system's dominant assumption is that a struggle between the counsels will
expose the truth or reality without the involvement of the judge, who only decides after
hearing he counsels and decides in the favour of strong of strong supporting arguments.
Because of the efficacy and persuasiveness of the councils, the destiny of the perpetrator is
jeopardised in the adversarial system. As evidences are provided by the advocate, they are
able to conceal negative facts, which is deceptive in nature.

Inquisitorial system
Judges evaluate and express concerns in this system unlike adversarial systems where the
major part carried out by the counsels upon which the judge gives his or her judgement on
the basis of the strength and credibility of the arguments and evidence. In common law
countries like France, there are two types of magistrates: examining or investigating
magistrates and chief magistrates.

The process's efficiency is tailored to the specific judge's capacity to be thorough and fair.
It's all upon the judge and its skill, the more skill the more prudent judgements unlike in
adversarial systems where the more skilful the lawyer the more chance of getting
judgements in his client's favour[5]. The inquisitorial system is designed to focus on truth
finding while minimising the danger.

Civil And Common Law Countries

Civil law countries are generally former French, Dutch, German, Spanish, or Portuguese
colonies or protectorates, covering much of Central and South America. The majority of
Central and Eastern European and East Asian nations likewise adhere to a civil law
framework[6].

Whereas the Common Law is a British legacy inherited by the United States, Canada, and
the Commonwealth. The common law system emerged in Britain during the Norman
Conquest, through the medieval era, and through the Renaissance, as rulers solidified
political authority and integrated many of the country's judicial traditions[7].

The Comparison
Impact of precedents:
The adversarial system which is predominantly followed in common law countries differ
with the inquisitorial system followed by the civil law countries on the concept of following
precedents. the earlier or past judgements and decisions given by the courts of higher
hierarchy are given importance and are regarded as having a binding effect whereas in the
inquisitorial system, precedents are not given much importance and doesn't have any
binding effect[8]. The judges or jurors make their own decisions based on the applicable
legislation, which is why the code of law is given the utmost importance.

Investigation procedure:
In the adversarial system the parties of the respective case, such as the police and the
defence, are responsible for bringing and gathering the evidence and related matters, but in
the inquisitorial system, the government officials gather the pieces of evidence, conduct the
investigation themselves, or request the police to do so. The police might be instructed
about the priorities by public prosecution services. Also, in some inquisitorial systems the
judge puts himself/herself in the shoes of an investigating officer and may conduct the
investigation procedure whereas it is just opposite in the case of adversarial system where
the judges just give their judgement upon the facts and evidences produced before them.

The examination phase:

In an adversarial system, there is nothing like an independent examination, and the process
or method of cross-examination is just a portion of the trial. However, in inquisitorial
system, the examining judge is in charge of interrogating and scrutinizing the witnesses and
gathering the evidences of a respective case.

The trial phase:

In the course of trial, the state must be represented by one lawyer and the defendant must
be represented by another before the adjudicator/judge. Witnesses are cross-examined or
re-examined, and the testimony in chief is taken. While there is no cross-examination or re-
examination of witnesses in the inquisitorial system, witnesses are interrogated and
confronted during the examining phase.

The role of judge and counsel:

The judge makes the judgement after ascertaining and affirming that the due process of law
is obeyed in the court of law. In the adversarial system, counsel offers evidence and
questions witnesses[9]. However, In the inquisitorial system, the judge is in charge of the
courtroom, procedures, questioning of witnesses, and evidence assessment in order to
make a judgement or arrive at a decision.

Evidence:
In adversarial systems, there is a clear difference between admissible and inadmissible
evidences, its applicability and non-applicability in the court of law, and the notion of
hearsay testimony which is readily accepted if it is credible, but in the inquisitorial system,
the rules governing acceptance of evidences are more liberal and easier. If a judge believes
or finds a piece of evidence to be relevant, it is allowed. There is no hearsay rule in many
inquisitorial systems[10].

The victim's role:

The victim is not really a party in the adversarial system since the case represents the state
against the perpetrator. The victim has the status of a party in the trial under the
inquisitorial system.
The Court Structure:
Since common law nations use the adversarial system, courts have extensive adjudication
powers, whereas civil law countries use the inquisitorial system, which means specialized
courts deal with constitutional law, criminal law, administrative law, commercial law, and
civil or private law.

Trial In India (A Common Law Country)

In case of India, it has a well-established legislative, regulatory, and administrative structure
for the trail of criminal cases.
The Indian Penal Code is largely controlled by three Acts.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
The Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC)
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)

Step 1
Framing Of The Charges
This is the very beginning of the whole procedure. When a case is brought before the court,
the court unveils significant allegations against the accused that have not been adequately
justified, and the court constructs the charge of accusation and begins with the trial.

Step 2
Recording Of The Evidences Of The Prosecution
As the accusations are framed, witnesses' testimonies are taken and then they are cross-
examined. This is referred to as examination in chief and cross-examination.

Step 3
The Statement Of The Accused
Here the accused person is given a fair chance to explain any compromising facts or
circumstances in the case which may become very much relevant and important in the
context of the trail.

Step 4
The Evidence Provided By The Defence
Here it's all up to the wish of the accused person, he may present documents and relevant
evidences that are admissible in accordance of the Indian evidence act 1872, and those will
be cross-examined by the prosecution. It is unnecessary since the prosecution has the
burden of proof and the producing of accused evidence is thus not a mandatory act.

Step 5
Closing And Final Arguments
This is the trial's last stage. The prosecutor will summarize the prosecution case and will give
closing arguments, and the accused is asked to respond.

Step 6
Judgement
It's the final and the last Step. Following the completion of the prosecutor's and defence's
final and concluding arguments, the judge renders his verdict or the judgement in the trial.

------------- ---------------- -----------

.

------------- ---------------- -----------

(a) in the case of an individual, by the indivi
.
------------- ---------------- -----------