Indian Evidence Act

Last updated

Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Star of the Order of the Star of India (gold).svg
The Governor-General in Council
Citation Act No. 1 of 1872
Territorial extentINDIA
Enacted byThe Governor-General in Council
Enacted15 March 1872
Commenced1 September 1872
Status: In force

The Indian Evidence Act, [1] originally passed in India by the Imperial Legislative Council in 1872, during the British Raj, contains a set of rules and allied issues governing admissibility of evidence in the Indian courts of law.

Contents

As of August 2023 this Act will be replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill 2023. [2]

Importance

The enactment and adoption of the Indian Evidence Act was a path-breaking judicial measure introduced in India, which changed the entire system of concepts pertaining to admissibility of evidences in the Indian courts of law. Until then, the rules of evidences were based on the traditional legal systems of different social groups and communities of India and were different for different people depending on caste, community, faith and social position. The Indian Evidence Act introduced a standard set of law applicable to all Indians.

The law is mainly based upon the firm work by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who could be called the founding father of this comprehensive piece of legislation. [3] [4]

The Act

The Indian Evidence Act, identified as Act no. 1 of 1872, [5] and called the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has eleven chapters and 167 sections, and came into force 1 September 1872. At that time, India was a part of the British Empire. Over a period of more than 125 years since its enactment, the Indian Evidence Act has basically retained its original form except certain amendments from time to time.

Amendments:

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005 The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 (22 of 2018) The Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019

Applicability

When India gained independence on 15 August 1947, the Act continued to be in force throughout the Republic of India and Pakistan,., [6] Since the independence of Bangladesh in 26 March 1971, it is in use throughout Bangladesh though some necessary amendments have been made. After 1947, the Act continues in force in India, but it was repealed in Pakistan in 1984 by the Evidence Order 1984 (also known as the "Qanun-e-Shahadat"). It also applies to all judicial proceedings in the court, including the court martial. However, it does not apply on affidavits and arbitration.

Contents

This Act is divided into three parts and there are 11 chapters in total under this Act. [5]

Part 1

Part 1 deals with relevancy of the facts. There are two chapters under this part: the first chapter is a preliminary chapter which introduces to the Evidence Act and the second chapter specifically deals with the relevancy of the facts.

Part 2

Part 2 consists of chapters from 3 to 6. Chapter 3 deals with facts which need not be proved, [7] chapter 4 deals with oral evidence, [8] chapter 5 deals with documentary evidence and chapter 6 deals with circumstances when documentary evidence has been given preference over the oral evidence. [9]

Part 3

The last part, that is part 3, consists of chapter 7 to chapter 11. Chapter 7 talks about the burden of proof. Chapter 8 talks about estoppel, chapter 9 talks about witnesses, chapter 10 talks about examination of witnesses, and last chapter which is chapter 11 talks about improper admission and rejection of evidence. [10]

Indian Evidence Act Classic Classification

In the Evidence Act All the Provisions can be divided into two Categories (1) Taking the Evidence (By Court) (2) Evaluation

Taking Evidence : Parties to a proceeding before a court of law can adduce only admissible evidence. Admissible evidence are either "Fact in issue" or "Relevant Facts" [11] which are not excluded from being adduced by any other provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 3 of the Act defined Fact, Fact in issue and Relevant Facts.

According to section 59 and 60, facts can be proved by two ways, One is Orally and Second is Documentary (includes Electronic Documents), Oral Evidence mostly suggest the Verbal deposition before the Court (and not other wise), and Which includes oral statement regarding materials too, Documentary Evidence suggest the Documents. So The Evidence Regarding Matter which have number of Facts, for which Evidence by way of oral or Documentary produced before the court for its Evaluation for either one fact or facts. Court by going through those Documentary Evidence and Oral Evidence decide that particular fact and all facts are proved or not, or whether the fact or facts can be presumed to be proved?

In Evaluation as above said by looking into the Oral and Documentary Evidence Court decide whether particular fact is proved or not, or facts are proved or not, In Evaluation there are two concepts to prove facts; One is Prove (Prove, Disprove or Not prove) and Other is Presumption [12] (that fact is proved) (may Presume, Shall presume and Conclusive proof) After going to Oral and Documentary Evidence Court see that whether any fact or facts are proved by looking to such evidence or not? If at all no evidence is given or enough evidence is given for the fact its said fact is 'Not proved'; The second Concept for evaluation is "Presumption" In Evidence many Section suggest these presumptions, Where there is said Facts 'may presume', Court is extremely free to believe it or not and may ask to prove the fact, According to section 4 in 'shall presume' court has no discretion and should consider the fact as proved unless it is disproved, Where in any provision it is said that particular fact, or particular fact in particular circumstances must be concluded as "conclusive proof" Court has to regard it as proved and shall not allow parties to adduce evidence to rebut it. [13]

Classification of Evidence Act in Four Questions

Evidence Act may be divided in four questions.

Question 1 What is the Evidence given of?

Answer 1 of Facts ("Facts In Issue" or "Relevant Facts")

Question 2 How the Evidence of such Facts are Given

Answer 2 The Evidence of Such Facts is Given Either by way of "Oral Evidence" or "Documentary Evidence"

Question 3 On whom does the Burden of proof lie?

Answer 3 "Burden of Proof"(of particular fact) or "Onus of proof" (to prove whole case) lies on the Prosecution incharge

Question 4 What are the Evaluation of the Facts.

Answer 4 The Evaluation is "Prove" or "Presumption"(of prove); The fact is either 'proved','disproved', or 'Not proved'; or there may be presumption that proof of facts "may presume", "shall presume", or "conclusive proof".

Related Research Articles

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span> Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution as given under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is awarded only in the 'rarest of cases'.

In law, a presumption is an "inference of a particular fact". There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable presumptions. A rebuttable presumption will either shift the burden of production or the burden of proof ; in short, a fact finder can reject a rebuttable presumption based on other evidence. Conversely, a conclusive/irrebuttable presumption cannot be challenged by contradictory facts or evidence. Sometimes, a presumption must be triggered by a predicate fact—that is, the fact must be found before the presumption applies.

A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" or jump back to the transferor. In this instance, the word 'result' means "in the result, remains with", or something similar to "revert" except that in the result the beneficial interest is held on trust for the settlor. Not all trusts whose beneficiary is also the settlor can be called resulting trusts. In common law systems, the resulting trust refers to a subset of trusts which have such outcome; express trusts which stipulate that the settlor is to be the beneficiary are not normally considered resulting trusts. Another understanding of resulting trusts could be an equitable instrument used to rectify and reverse unjust enrichment.

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act</span> Repealed Indian legislation (1985–1995)

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly known as TADA, was an Indian anti-terrorism law which was in force between 1985 and 1995 under the background of the Punjab insurgency and was applied to whole of India. It was originally assented to by the President on 23 May 1985 and came into effect on 24 May 1985. This act was intended to halt the Khalistani Movement, an armed Sikh separatist movement present in Punjab. It later expanded to encompass other states as well. The Act had a sunset provision for lapsing after two years post-commencement, which it did on 24 May 1987. The Parliament not being in session, the life of the Act could not be extended. But the provisions were kept alive by an ordinance effective from the expiry date of the Act. This ordinance was later replaced with the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. It was assented to on 3 September 1987, and made effective in two parts from 24 May 1987 and 3 September 1987. This also had a sunset provision of two years from 24 May 1987. It was renewed in 1989, 1991 and 1993 before being allowed to lapse in 1995 due to increasing unpopularity after widespread allegations of abuse. It was the first anti-terrorism law legislated by the government to define and counter terrorist activities.

Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel". A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act</span> Law enacted by Government of Maharashtra to combat Organised crime and Terrorism

The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 is a law enacted by the state of Maharashtra in India in 1999 to combat organised crime and terrorism. Known as 'MCOCA', the Act provides the State Government with special powers to tackle these issues, including powers of surveillance, relaxed evidentiary standards and procedural safeguards, and prescribing additional criminal penalties, including the death penalty. The law was introduced by a coalition government of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Confession</span> Statement made by a person/persons acknowledging something that they had preferred to keep hidden

A confession is a statement – made by a person or by a group of persons – acknowledging some personal fact that the person would ostensibly prefer to keep hidden. The term presumes that the speaker is providing information that he believes the other party is not already aware of, and is frequently associated with an admission of a moral or legal wrong:

In one sense it is the acknowledgment of having done something wrong, whether on purpose or not. Thus confessional texts usually provide information of a private nature previously unavailable. What a sinner tells a priest in the confessional, the documents criminals sign acknowledging what they have done, an autobiography in which the author acknowledges mistakes, and so on, are all examples of confessional texts.

The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.

In New Zealand, the presumption of supply is a rebuttable presumption in criminal law which is governed by the New Zealand Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It provides an assumption in drug-possession cases that if a person is found with more than a specified amount of a controlled drug, they are in possession of it for the purpose of supply or sale. This shifts the burden of proof from the Crown to the person found with the drug, who must prove that they possessed it for personal use and not for supply. Note that once the burden of proof has shifted, the burden is one on the balance of probabilities. This presumption exists to make prosecution for supplying drugs easier.

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code criminalises attempted suicide as well as suicide assistance.

The Evidence Act 1950, is a Malaysian set of laws which were enacted to define the law of evidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence Act 2006</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

References

  1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  2. https://aninews.in/news/national/general-news/legal-experts-hail-centres-move-to-revamp-colonial-era-ipc-crpc-indian-evidence-act20230811184754/
  3. "https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/books/indian-evidence-act-by-jonathan-fitzjames-stephen". Rest The Case. 15 February 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2023.{{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  4. "1872, Indian Evidence Act, Stephen". llmc.com. Retrieved 27 July 2023.
  5. 1 2 Kerala Medico-Legal Society Indian Evidence Act. The Amendment by Act 10 of 2009 is also included
  6. "Section 1, Indian Evidence Act: Short title, extent and commencement - Kerala Medico-Legal Society".
  7. Gupta, Abhishek (15 December 2020). "Facts which need not be proved". LawPage.In. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
  8. Gupta, Abhishek (16 December 2020). "Oral and Documentary Evidence". LawPage.In. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
  9. "IEA Section 92 - Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement". A Lawyers Reference. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
  10. "Improper admission or rejection of evidence". Indian Kanoon.
  11. Gupta, Abhishek (13 December 2020). "Important Definitions : Evidence Act". LawPage.In. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
  12. Gupta, Abhishek (13 December 2020). "Presumptions". LawPage.In. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
  13. "IEA Section 4 - Presumption and Proof". A Lawyers Reference. Retrieved 31 December 2020.