Procedural Law.

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872- IS BASED ON ENGLISH LAW OF

EVIDENCE.

DRAFTED BY SIR JAMES STEPHENS.

TERM EVIDENCE IS TAKEN FROM LATIN WORD EVIDERE AND

EVIDENT- WHICH MEANS-
- TO SHOW CLEARLY
- TO DISCOVER CLEARLY.
- TO ASCERTAIN.
- TO PROVE.
INSTRUMENT BY MEANS OF WHICH
RELEVANT FACTS ARE BOUGHT BEFORE
COURT.

ORAL / DOCUMATARY.
WITNESS.
DOCUMENTARY.
 OBJECT

ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH .

TO PREVENT PROTACTED INQUIRY.

AVOID CONFUSION IN NEED OF JUDGES.

PREVENT INDISCIPLINE IN ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.

 EVIDENCE MUST BE CONFINED TO MATTER IN ISSUE.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE MUST NOT BE ADMITTED.

BEST EVIDENCE.

PROCEDURAL LAW .

LAWS WHICH PRESCRIBE THE MODE BY WHICH THE

APPLICATION OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS REGULATED.
 DEFINITIONS ( SECTION 1-4)
RELEVANCY OF FACTS.( SECTIONS 5-16)

UNIT 2
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS ( SECTIONS 17-31)
DECLERATION AND ITS RELEVANCY.( SECTIONS 32-
33)
 STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES ( SECTIONS 34-38).
HOW MUVH OF A STATEMENT TO BE PROVED (
SECTIONS 39).
JUDGEMENTS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE, WHEN
RELEVANT ( SECTIONS 40-44).
OPINION OF THIRD PERSONS, WHEN RELEVANT (
SECTIONS 45-51).
CHARACTER WHEN RELEVANT ( SECTIONS 52-55).
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ( SECTION 61-73 A)
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ( SECTION 74-78).
PRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMNENTS ( SECTION 79-
90 A)
ORAL EVIDENCE ( SECTIONS 59-60).
 BURDERN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION( SECTION
101- 114)
ESTOPPEL( SECTIOB 115).

UNIT 6.
COMPETENCE OF WITNESS ( SECTIOONS 118-120)
EXAMINATION OF WITNESS( SECTION 135-166)]
IMPROPER ADMISSION AND REJECTIION O EVIDENCE
 PEDAGOGY

PPTs

CASE STUDY

LIVE EXAMPLES.

DISCUSSIONS.
 TO BE ATTENTIVE AND INTERACTIVE IN CLASS.
ASK RELEVANT QUESTIONS.
DO BACKGROUND RESEARCH.
READ CURRENT AFFAIRS RELATED TO THE COURSE
AND BRING THEM UP IN CLASS.
MAINTAIN PROPER DECORUM IN CLASS.
EXPECTED TO SIT INDIVIUALLY AND NOT IN GROUP.
NO DISCUSSION IN THE CLASS WHICH DOES NOT
INVOLVE THE TEACHER.
EXPECTED TO READ THE TEXT BEFORE COMING FOR
THE LECTURE.
 THANKYOU
INSTRUMENT BY MEANS OF WHICH RELEVANT
FACTS ARE BOUGHT BEFORE COURT.

ORAL / DOCUMATARY.
WITNESS.
DOCUMENTARY.

1)MAGISTRATE / SESSION JUDGE MAY QUESTION

ACCUSE AND ANSWERS USED AGAINST HIM.
2) HE ADMITS HIS GUILT.
3) DAMENOUR OF WITNESS.
 JUDICIAL NOTICE.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED.
FACTS WHICH MAY BE PRESUMED.

JUDGE S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND

OBSERVATION JUDGE CANNOT IMPORT HIS
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE TO TAKE PLACE.

DR PRAFUL B DESAI V. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA...2003..
- EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING.
TAPE RECORDING.
1) VOICE OF SPEAKER MUST BE IDENTIFIED BY THE MAKER OF
RECORD OR OTHER PERSON RECOGNISE HIS VOICE.

2) THE ACCURACY OF TAPE RECORDING STATEMENT MUST BE

PROVED BY MAKER OF RECORD.

3) POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING WITH, OR RESCUING ANY PART,

TOTALLY EXCLUDED.

4) TAPE RECORDED STATEMENT - RELEVANT.

5) THE RECORD CASSETTE MUST BE SEALED AND MUST BE

SEALED AND MUST BE KEPT IN SAFE OR OFFICIAL
CUSTODY.
6) VOICE OF SPEAKER MUST BE CLEARLY AUDIBLE...
 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT -1872.
WHOLE OF INDIA- EXCEPT JAMMU AND KASHMIR.
NOT AFFIDAVITS.
NOT ARBITRATORS.
1 SEPTEMBER 1872.

ALL JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

AN ENQUIRY IS JUDICIAL IF THE OBJECT OF IT IS TO
DETERMINE JURAL RELATION BETWEEN ONE PERSON AND
ANOTHER OR A GROUP OF PERSONS OR BETWEEN HIM AND
COMMUNITY GENERALLY.

2(I) CRPC- A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING MEANS A PROCEEDING IN

COURSE OF WHICH EVIDENCE IS OR MAY BE ON OATH.
 FACT
ANYTHING
STATE OF THING .
RELATION OF THING.
CAPABLE OF BEING PERCEIVED BY SENSES.

POPULARLY- EXCISTING THINGS-

IT DOES NOT REFER TO MENTAL CONDITION OF WHICH A
PERSON IS CONSCIOUS.

BUT EVIDENCE ACT-

NOT ONLT TANGIBLE AND VISIBLE THINGS BUT ALSO INCLUDE
STATEMENT, FEELING, OPINION, STATE OF MIND.
PHYSICAL / PSCHOLOGICAL.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FACTS.
 FACT IN ISSUE

THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY IN ASCERTAINING FACT IN ISSUE .

ALLEGED BY ONE PARTY IN CIVIL DENIED BY OTHER.
ALLEDGED BY PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL AND DENIED BY
ACCUSED.

RELEVANT
IN ONE SENSE IT MEANS CONNECTED AND IN OTHER
ADMISSIBLE.
RELEVANCY MEANS CONNECTION OF EVENT AS CAUSE AND
EFFECT.
SECTIONS 5-55.
A FACT IN ORDER TO BE RELEVANT FACT MUST BE
CONNECTED WITH FACT IN ISSUE.
 LOGICALLY RELEVANT AND LEGALLY RELEVANT

WHEN A FACT IS CONNECTED WITH ANOTHER FACT, IT IS

LOGICALLY RELEVANT BUT IT IS LEGALLY RELEVANT IF THE

LAW DECLARES IT TO BE RELEVANT. IF IT IS NOT DECLARED

BY LAW TO BE RELEVANT, IT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

EVERY FACT THAT IS LEGALLY RELEVANT IS ALSO LOGICALLY

RELEVANT BUT EVERY LOGICALLY RELEVANT FACT MUST NOT

BE NECESSARY LEGALLY RELEVANT.

 VERY WIDE.

IN GENERAL DOCUMENT IS UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN ANY

MATTER UPON A PAPER IN SOME LANGUAGE .- HINDI ENGLISH

DOCUMENT ANY MATTER ANY SUBSTANCE-STONE-TREE-

TATOO.
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE THOSE EVIDENCE WHIH
RELATES TO SERIES OF OTHER FACTS THAN THE FACT IN
ISSUE BUT BY EXPERIENCE HAVE BEEN FOUND SO ASSOCIATED
WITH FACT IN ISSUE IN RELATION TO CAUSE AND EFFECT
THAT IT LEADS TO A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION.-KUSUM
ANKAMA RAO V. AP. 2008 SC.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH

HEARSAY OR SECONDARY EVIDENCE.

SIR ALFRED WILLS.. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

HANUMANT GOVIND V. M.P.- IN A CASE BASED OF C.E.

SETTLED LAW, CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH CONCLUSION
OF GUILT IS DRAWN, SHOULD BE FULLY PROVED AND SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE CONCLUSIVE IN NATURE.
 MOREOVER, ALL CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE COMPLETE AND
THERE SHOULD BE NO GAP LEFT IN THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE.

FURTHER IT SHOULD LEAD TO ONLY ONE HYPOTHESIS AND

TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH INNOCENCES OF ACCUSED.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS IN PROXIMITY TO TIME AND
SITUATION.

SHARAD BIRDICHAND V. MAHARSHTRA 1984

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE PROSECUTION MUST STAND OR
FALL ON ITS OWN LEGS AND IT CANNOT DERIVE ANY
STRENGTH FROM WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENCE.
HOWEVER, WHEN VARIOUS LINKS IN CHAIN ARE IN
THEMSELVES COMPLETE, THEN FALSE PLEA OR FALSE DEFENCE
MAY BE CALLED INTO AND ONLY TO LEND ASSURANCE TO
COURT.
 A FACT IS SAID TO BE PROVED WHEN, AFTER CONSIDRING
THE MATTERS BEFORE IT, THE COURT EITHER BELIEVES IT TO
EXCIST, OR CONSIDERS ITS EXISTENCE SO PROBABLE THAT A
PRUDENT MAN OUGHT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
PARTICULAR XASE, TO ACT UPON THE SUPPOSITION THAT IT
DOES EXISTS.

A FACT IS SAID TO DISPROVED WHEN , AFTER CONSIDERING

THE MATTERS BEFORE IT, THE COURT EITHER BELIEVE THAT IT
DOES NOT EXCIST, OR CONSIDERS ITS NON EXISTENCE SO
PROBABLE THAT A PRUDENT MAN OUGHT, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, TO ACT UPON
THE SUPPOSITION THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST
 EVIDENCE OF FACT AND PROOF OF FACT ARE
NOT SYNONYMUS TERMS. PROOF IS THE
EFFECT OF EVIDENCE. PROOF CONSIDERED
AS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
IN ISSUE IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE BY
PROPERAND LEGAL MEANS TO SATISFACTION
OF COURT BY
(1) EVIDENCE OR STATEMENT OF WITNESS,
ADMISSION, ADMISSION, CONFESSION OF THE
PARTIES
(II) PRESUMPTIONS
(III) JUDICIAL NOTICE
(IV) INSPECTION.
 PROOF DOES NOT MEAN PROOF OF RIGID
MATHEMATICAL DEMONSTRATIONS, BECAUSE
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, IT MUST MEAN SUCH
EVIDENCE AS WOULD INDUCE A REASONABLE
MAN TO COME TO CONCLUSION. SUSPICION
CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF PROOF.
 THERE IS A MARKED DIFFERENCE AS TO EFFECT I.E.
PROBATIVE FORCE OF EVIDENCE, IN CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. IN CIVIL CASES, MERE
PREPONDERENCE OF PROBABILITY IS SUFFICIENT,
WHEREAS, IN CRIMINAL CASES, ISSUES MUST BE
PROVED BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT

THE RULE IS BASED UPON THE MAXIM OF ENGLISH

LAW LAID DOWN BY HOLROYD J. IT IS BETTER
THEN TEN GUILTY MEN SHOULD ESCAPE, RATHER
THAN ONE INNOCENT SHOULD SUFFER.
 (1) THE ACCUSED IS ALWAYS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT
UNTIL THE PROSECUTION PROVES HIM TO BE GUILTY.

(11) THE EVIDENCE MUST BE SUCH AS TO EXCLUDE EVERY

REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED.

(III) IN CASE OF ANY REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO GUILT OF

THE ACCUSED, THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT SHOULD AWAYS BE
GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED.

(IV) THERE MUST ALWAYS BE CLEAR PROOF OF CORPUS

DELICTI,I.E. THE FACT OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
 FACTS WHICH, THOUGH NOT IN ISSUE, ARE SO CONNECTED
WITH A FACT IN ISSUE, AS TO FORM PART OF THE SAME
TRANSACTION, ARE RELEVANT,WHETHER THEY OCCUR AT THE
SAME TIME AND PLACE OR AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND PLACES.
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SECTION IS THAT WHENEVER A
TRANSACTIONSUCH AS A CONTRACT OR A CRIME IS A
FACT IN ISSUE, THEN EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN OF EVERY
FACT WHICH FORMS PART OF SAME TRANSACTION.
ROUGHLY A TRANSACTION MAY BE DESCRIBED AS ANY
PHYSICAL ACT, OR SERIES OF COONECTED PHYSICAL
ACTS, TOGETHER WITH WORDS ACCOMPANYING SUCH
ACT OR ACTS.
 A TRANSACTION MAY CONSIST OF A SINGLE
INCIDENT STRETCHING OVER A FEW MINUTES, OR IT
MAY BE SPREAD OVER A VARIETY OF FACTS,
OCCUPYING A MUCH LONGER TIME, AND
OCCUPYING ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS OR AT
DIFFERENT PLACES.WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS
CONSISTS OF DIFFERENT ACTS, IN ORDER THAT
THE CHAIN OF SUCH ACTS MAY CONSTITUTE THE
SAME TRANSACTION, THEY MUST BE CONNECTED
TOGETHER BY PROXIMITY OF TIME, PROXIMITY OR
UNITY OF PLACE, CONTINUITY OF ACTION, OR
COMMUNITY OF PURPOSE OR DESIGN. A
TRANSACTION CAN BE TRULY UNDERSTOOD ONLY
WHEN ALL ITS INTEGRAL PARTS ARE KNOWN AND
NOT IN ISOLATION FROM EACH OTHER.
 THE TERM RES GESTAE IS EQUVALENT TO THE
FACT MENTIONED IN SECTION 6. HOWEVER, IT IS
ALSO USED IN THE FOLLOWING SENSES- AS
EQUIVALENT TO FACT IN ISSUE, AS EQUIVALENT TO
DETAILS OF FACTS IN ISSUE, AND FACT IN ISSUE
AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY ARE THE ACTS TALKING FOR THEMSELVES
NOT WHAT PEOPLE SAY WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE
ACTS.

 1) SPONTANEOUS AND SIMULTANEOUS UTTERANCES IS A

PART OF TRANSACTION, EXAMPLE WHAT A PERSON STATES
DURING AN OCCURRENCE IN RESPECT OF THE OCCURRENCE
IN RESPECT OF OCCURRENCE ITSELF.

2) STATEMENT MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE

FACT, I.E. STATEMENT MADE EITHER DURING OR
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AFTER ITS OCCURRENCE AND OF
SUCH A NATURE THAT EVENT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
IF THE STATEMENT IS MADE AFTER THE ACT IS OVER AND ITS
MAKER HAS HAD THE TIME FOR REFLECTION AND
DELIBERATION, AND / OR IT IS A MERE NARRATION OF PAST
EVENTS, THEN IT IS NOT RELEVANT. THE STATEMENT SHOULD
BE EXCLAIMED FORCED OUT OF A WITNESS BY EMOTIONS
GENERATED
 A WHILE RUNNING IN A STREET,CRYING THAT B
HAS STABBED HIM,IS A RELEVANT FACT. SIMILARLY,
THE STATEMENT OF A RAPED WOMAN CRYING FOR
HELP IS A RELEVANT FACT.
A WHEN REACHED THE MURDER SPOT, HEARD
PEOPLE PRESENT THERE AS SAYING THAT SOMEONE
MURDERED SOMEONE. IT WAS NOT STATED THAT
THE PERSONS WHO MADE ABOVE STATEMENTS
WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF MURDER. IT IS NOT
A RELEVANT FACT. HOWEVER, IF A WITNESS AFTER
WITNESSING THE INCIDENT GOES TO THE POLICE
STATION AND FILES A FIR, THE MAKING OF THE
REPORT IS A PART OF THE TRANSACTION AND
AMOUNTS TO RES GESTATE
 FACTS WHICH ARE THE OCCASION, CAUSE OR
EFFECTS OF FACT IN ISSUE OR RELEVANT
FACTS.
FACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE STATE OF
THINGS UNDER WHICH THEY HAPPENED
FACTS WHICH AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THEIR OCCURRENCE OR TRANSACTIONS
 PREPERATION
MOTIVE
PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT.
OF PARTY OR AGENT
WHICH INFLUENCES OR IS INFLUENCED BY FACT IN
ISSUE OR RELEVANT FACT.
(1)FACTS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN OR INTRODUCE A
FACT IN ISSUE OR RELEVANT FACT,
(2) FACTS WHICH SUPPORT OR REBUT AN INFERENCE
SUGGESTED BY A FACT IN ISSUE OR RELEVANT
FACT,
(3) FACTS WHICH ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF
ANYTHING OR PERSON,
(4) FACTS WHICH FIX TIME OR PLACE AT WHICH ANY
FACT IN ISSUE OR RELEVANT FACT HAPPENED, AND
(5) FACTS WHICH SHOW THE RELATION OF PARTIES.
 EVIDENCE IS ALWAYS ALLOWED OF FACTS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY TO INTRODUCE THE MAIN FACTS OR SOME
RELEVANT FACT. FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER A GIVEN DOCUMENT IS A WILL BY A CERTAIN
PERSON, EVIDENCE MAY BE GIVEN OF THE STATE OF HIS
PROPERTY AND OF FAMILY AT THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED
WILL AS IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO INTRODUCE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH WILL BECAME NECESSARY
SIMILARLY IN A SUIT FOR LIBEL,EVIDENCE CAN E GIVEN OF
STATE OF PARTIES RELATIONS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED
LIBEL AS THIS MAY BE NECESSARY TO INTRODUCE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE LIBEL, IF THEY HAD ANY
DIPUTE, THAT TOO MAY BE CITED THOUGH NOT IN DETAIL
 ABSCONDING
TRAVELLING IN TRAIN WITHOUT TICKET OR IN
SHABBY CLOTHES.
WHERE IT WAS ALLEGED THAT X MURDERED Y, AFTER A LONG
CHASE, THE FACT THAT X HAD UNDERGONE A HEART
SURGERY OPERATION AND WAS QUITE WEAK BEFORE ALLEGED
MIRDER IS A FACT WHICH REBUT INFERENCE OF X GUILT.

BUT, SOMETIMES AN INNOCENT MAN MAY FEEL PANICKY AND

TRY TO EVADE ARREST .MATRU V UP.
 WHERE THE COURT HAS TO KNOW THE IDENTITY
OF ANY THING OR ANY PERSON,ANY FACT WHICH
ESTABLISH SUCH IDENTITY IS RELEVANT.PERSONAL
CHARACTERSTICS SUCH AS AHE, HEIGHT,
COMPLEXION, VOICE,
HANDWRITING,MANNER,DRESS,DISTINCTIVE MARKS
VARIOS METHODS LIKE FINGER IMPRESSION FOOT
MARKS, WRITING, TIP
 BEFORE MAGISTRATE AT INSTANCE OF POLICE
IN ABSENSE OF POLICE
ATLEAST 24 HOURS COOLING TIME
COROBORRATIVE EVIDENCE.
THE PURPOSE IS TO ENABLE THE WITNESS TO IDENTIFY EITHER
THE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
ALLEGED OFFENCE OR ACCUSED PERSONS.
THE IDEA IS TO TEST THE VERACITY OF THE WITNESS ON THE
QUESTION OF CAPABILITY TO IDENTIFY AN UNKOWN PERSON
WHOM WITNESS MAY HAVE SEEN ONLY ONCE. THE PURPOSE IS
TO TEST AND STRENGTHEN THE TRUSTWORTHYNESS OF
EVIDENCE.
 IT IS DESIRABLE TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE
SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AS SOON AS AFTER
ARREST OF THE ACCUSED.
ABDUL WAHEED KHAN V. STATE OF AP 2002-

THE HOLDING OF TI PARADE IS NOT COMPULSORY;

EVEN WHEN THE ACCUSED DEMANDS IT THE
PROSECUTION IS NOT BOUND TO DO SO.
 WHATEVER FACTS WILL HELP THE COURT TO FIX
THE TIME OR PLACE OF THE HAPPENING OF THE
RELEVANT FACT CAN BE ADMITTED IN
EVIDENCE.THE REPORT OF AN EXPERT IS
RELEVANT TO FIX THE TIME OF MURDER AND THE
MARKS OF STRUGGLE ON THE GROUND ARE
RELEVANT TO FIX .SUPPOSE A PERSON WAS
MURDERED IN A TRAIN, THE DEAD BODY WAS
SEEN AT THE KARNAL STATION.THE TICKET
FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION WAS FROM DELHI TO
LUDHIANA.IT PROVES THAT MURDER WAS
COMMITTED BETWEEN DELHI AND KARNAL.3
 PLEA OF ALIBI
ELSEWHERE
HOWEVER, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE
FAILURE OF THE PLEA OF ALIBI DOES NOT
MEAN THAT THE ACCUSED WAS PRESENT AT
THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. IT MAY FURTHER
BE NOTED THAT PLEA OF ALIBI IS IRRELEVANT
IN THE CASE OF ACTING IN FURTHERANCE
OF THE COMMON INTENTION ALL WOULD BE
LIABLE TO THW WHOLE CRIME EVEN IF THEY
WERE PRESENT AT SCENE OF CRIME.
 THE PLEA OF ALIBI TAKEN BY THE ACCUSED NEEDS TO BE
CONSIDERED ONLY WHEN THE BURDERN WHICH LIES ON THE
PROSECUTION HAS BEEN DISCHARGED SATISFACTORY. IF THE
PROSECUTION HAS FAILED IN DISCHARGING ITS BURDERN OF
PROVING THE COMMISSION OF CRIME BY THE ACCUSED
BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, IT MAY NOT BE
NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
ACCUSED HAS SUCCEEDED IN PROVING THE DEFENCE OF
ALIBI.
103