Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Evidence

6,404 views

Published on

It describes the Importance of Law of Evidence in the World in General and India in Particular.

Published in: Law
  • DOWNLOAD FULL BOOKS, INTO AVAILABLE FORMAT ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... 1.DOWNLOAD FULL. PDF EBOOK here { https://tinyurl.com/y3nhqquc } ......................................................................................................................... 1.DOWNLOAD FULL. EPUB Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/y3nhqquc } ......................................................................................................................... 1.DOWNLOAD FULL. doc Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/y3nhqquc } ......................................................................................................................... 1.DOWNLOAD FULL. PDF EBOOK here { https://tinyurl.com/y3nhqquc } ......................................................................................................................... 1.DOWNLOAD FULL. EPUB Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/y3nhqquc } ......................................................................................................................... 1.DOWNLOAD FULL. doc Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/y3nhqquc } ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... .............. Browse by Genre Available eBooks ......................................................................................................................... Art, Biography, Business, Chick Lit, Children's, Christian, Classics, Comics, Contemporary, Cookbooks, Crime, Ebooks, Fantasy, Fiction, Graphic Novels, Historical Fiction, History, Horror, Humor And Comedy, Manga, Memoir, Music, Mystery, Non Fiction, Paranormal, Philosophy, Poetry, Psychology, Religion, Romance, Science, Science Fiction, Self Help, Suspense, Spirituality, Sports, Thriller, Travel, Young Adult,
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Evidence

  1. 1. LAW OF EVIDENCELAW OF EVIDENCE    ByBy Dr.P.R.L.RajavenkatesanDr.P.R.L.Rajavenkatesan Assistant Professor(Senior)Assistant Professor(Senior) VIT LAW SCHOOLVIT LAW SCHOOL ChennaiChennai
  2. 2. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION  There was no complete or systematicThere was no complete or systematic enactment.enactment.  Calcutta, Bombay and Madras-The CourtsCalcutta, Bombay and Madras-The Courts established by Royal Charter followed theestablished by Royal Charter followed the English rules of Evidence.English rules of Evidence.  Outside the Presidency Towns, there were noOutside the Presidency Towns, there were no fixed rules of evidence.fixed rules of evidence.  Mofussil courts used to be guided by occasionalMofussil courts used to be guided by occasional directions-Old Regulations-between 1793-1834.directions-Old Regulations-between 1793-1834.
  3. 3. IntroductionIntroduction  English law of evidence based as it is on theEnglish law of evidence based as it is on the social and legal institutions of England was notsocial and legal institutions of England was not applicable here in its entirety , owing to theapplicable here in its entirety , owing to the peculiar circumstances of this country.peculiar circumstances of this country.  Competent knowledge of the English law couldCompetent knowledge of the English law could then be hardly expected from the judges, and sothen be hardly expected from the judges, and so a strict application of that law would result ina strict application of that law would result in miscarriage of justice.miscarriage of justice.
  4. 4.  R v. Khairulla,R v. Khairulla, 6 WR Cr 21.6 WR Cr 21.  English law of evidence was not the law of theEnglish law of evidence was not the law of the mofussil courts and it was further held that themofussil courts and it was further held that the rules of evidence contained in the Hindu andrules of evidence contained in the Hindu and Mahomedan laws were also not applicable toMahomedan laws were also not applicable to those courts.those courts.
  5. 5. IntroductionIntroduction  First attempt-Act of 10 of 1835 – which wasFirst attempt-Act of 10 of 1835 – which was applicable to all Courts in British India.applicable to all Courts in British India.  Between 1835 and 1853, a series of Acts wereBetween 1835 and 1853, a series of Acts were passed by the Indian Legislature-Which waspassed by the Indian Legislature-Which was advocated byadvocated by BenthamBentham and introduced inand introduced in England by LordsEngland by Lords BroughanBroughan andand Denman.Denman.
  6. 6. IntroductionIntroduction  In 1856, SirIn 1856, Sir Henry Summer MaineHenry Summer Maine, the then law, the then law member of the Governor General’s Council wasmember of the Governor General’s Council was asked to prepare and Indian Evidence Act. Hisasked to prepare and Indian Evidence Act. His draft was found unsuitable for the Indiandraft was found unsuitable for the Indian conditions. So it fell to Sirconditions. So it fell to Sir James FitzjamesJames Fitzjames StephanStephan who became the law member in 1871 towho became the law member in 1871 to come up with the Indian Evidence Act. Hiscome up with the Indian Evidence Act. His draft bill was approved and came into being asdraft bill was approved and came into being as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and came intothe Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and came into force from 1st September 1872.force from 1st September 1872.     The Act is based entirely on the English law ofThe Act is based entirely on the English law of Evidence- Only 167 sections.Evidence- Only 167 sections.
  7. 7. IntroductionIntroduction  Ram jas v. Surendra NathRam jas v. Surendra Nath, AIR 1990 All 385., AIR 1990 All 385.  It is theIt is the procedural side of lawprocedural side of law which lays downwhich lays down the rules of evidence.the rules of evidence.  How a fact is to be proved and it helps inHow a fact is to be proved and it helps in preventing the wastage of court’s valuable timepreventing the wastage of court’s valuable time upon irrelevant issues.upon irrelevant issues.
  8. 8. EvidenceEvidence  Judicial investigation is the enforcement of aJudicial investigation is the enforcement of a right or liability that depends on certain facts.right or liability that depends on certain facts.  Procedural LawProcedural Law  The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the LatinThe term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the Latin terms ‘terms ‘evident’ or ‘evidereevident’ or ‘evidere’ that mean ‘’ that mean ‘to showto show clearly, to discover, to ascertain or to proveclearly, to discover, to ascertain or to prove.’.’  Evidence is aEvidence is a means of proofmeans of proof. Facts have to be. Facts have to be proved before the relevant laws and itsproved before the relevant laws and its provisions can be applied.provisions can be applied.
  9. 9. EvidenceEvidence  According to According to Sir BlackstoneSir Blackstone, ‘Evidence’, ‘Evidence’ signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear orsignifies that which demonstrates, makes clear or ascertain the truth of the facts or points in issueascertain the truth of the facts or points in issue either on one side or the other.either on one side or the other.  According to According to Sir Taylor, Sir Taylor, Law of Evidence meansLaw of Evidence means through argument tothrough argument to prove or disprove anyprove or disprove any matter of fact.matter of fact. The truth of which is submittedThe truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.to judicial investigation.
  10. 10. EvidenceEvidence  Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872  All the statements which theAll the statements which the court permitscourt permits oror requires to be made before it by witnesses, inrequires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry; suchrelation to matters of fact under enquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence;statements are called Oral evidence;    All the documents includingAll the documents including electronic recordselectronic records produced for the inspection of the court; suchproduced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called documentary evidence.documents are called documentary evidence.
  11. 11. Case LawCase Law  Sivrajbhan v. HarchandgirSivrajbhan v. Harchandgir AIR 1954 SC 564AIR 1954 SC 564  ““The word evidence in connection with Law, allThe word evidence in connection with Law, all valid meanings, includes all except agreementvalid meanings, includes all except agreement which prove, disprove any fact or matter whosewhich prove, disprove any fact or matter whose truthfulness is presented for Judicialtruthfulness is presented for Judicial Investigation. At this stage it will be proper toInvestigation. At this stage it will be proper to keep in mind that where a party and the otherkeep in mind that where a party and the other partyparty don’t get the opportunity to cross-examinedon’t get the opportunity to cross-examine his statements tohis statements to ascertain the truthascertain the truth then in suchthen in such a condition this party’s statement is nota condition this party’s statement is not Evidence.”Evidence.”
  12. 12. EvidenceEvidence  Admit guilty- No issue-If not-EvidenceAdmit guilty- No issue-If not-Evidence required.required.  Administration of Justice-Based on EvidenceAdministration of Justice-Based on Evidence  Parties cannot contract to exclude the Act.Parties cannot contract to exclude the Act.  Direct- Circumstantial-Hearsay  Documentary-  Oral- Direct- Circumstantial-Hearsay  Documentary-  Oral-  Scientific- Real-DigitalScientific- Real-Digital
  13. 13. LEX FORILEX FORI  Law of Evidence is part of the law of procedure.Law of Evidence is part of the law of procedure.  Lex Fori-Law of the Court or ForumLex Fori-Law of the Court or Forum  Indian Courts Know and apply only the IndianIndian Courts Know and apply only the Indian Law of EvidenceLaw of Evidence  A civil case of will and murder will have theA civil case of will and murder will have the same law of evidence. same law of evidence. 
  14. 14. Types of EvidencesTypes of Evidences  Oral EvidenceOral Evidence– Section 60 of the Indian– Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872Evidence Act, 1872 prescribed the provision ofprescribed the provision of recording oral evidence. All those statementsrecording oral evidence. All those statements which the court permits or expects the witnesseswhich the court permits or expects the witnesses to make in his presence regarding theto make in his presence regarding the truth oftruth of the factsthe facts are called Oral Evidence. Oralare called Oral Evidence. Oral Evidence is that evidence which the witness hasEvidence is that evidence which the witness has personally seen or heard. Oral evidence mustpersonally seen or heard. Oral evidence must always be direct or positive.always be direct or positive.
  15. 15. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Documentary EvidenceDocumentary Evidence– Section 3 of The– Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act says that all thoseIndian Evidence Act says that all those documents which are presented in the court fordocuments which are presented in the court for inspection such documents are calledinspection such documents are called documentary evidences. In a case like this it isdocumentary evidences. In a case like this it is the documentary evidence that would show thethe documentary evidence that would show the actual attitude of the parties and theiractual attitude of the parties and their consciousness regarding the custom is moreconsciousness regarding the custom is more important than any oral evidenceimportant than any oral evidence
  16. 16. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Primary EvidencePrimary Evidence-Section 62 of The Indian-Section 62 of The Indian Evidence Act says Primary Evidence is the Top-Evidence Act says Primary Evidence is the Top- Most class of evidences. It is that proof which inMost class of evidences. It is that proof which in any possible condition gives the vital hint in aany possible condition gives the vital hint in a disputed fact and establishes throughdisputed fact and establishes through documentary evidence on the production of andocumentary evidence on the production of an original document for inspection by the court.original document for inspection by the court.
  17. 17. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Secondary EvidenceSecondary Evidence– Section 63 says– Section 63 says Secondary Evidence is the inferior evidence. It isSecondary Evidence is the inferior evidence. It is evidence that occupies a secondary position. It isevidence that occupies a secondary position. It is such evidence that on the presentation of whichsuch evidence that on the presentation of which it is felt that superior evidence yet remains to beit is felt that superior evidence yet remains to be produced. It is the evidence which is producedproduced. It is the evidence which is produced in the absence of the primary evidence thereforein the absence of the primary evidence therefore it is known as secondary evidence.it is known as secondary evidence.
  18. 18. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Real EvidenceReal Evidence– Real Evidence means real or– Real Evidence means real or material evidence. Real evidence of a fact ismaterial evidence. Real evidence of a fact is brought to the knowledge of the court bybrought to the knowledge of the court by inspection of a physical object and not byinspection of a physical object and not by information derived from a witness or ainformation derived from a witness or a document.document.
  19. 19. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Hearsay EvidenceHearsay Evidence– Hearsay Evidence is very– Hearsay Evidence is very weak evidence. It is only the reported evidenceweak evidence. It is only the reported evidence of a witness which he has not seen either heard.of a witness which he has not seen either heard. Sometime it implies the saying of somethingSometime it implies the saying of something which a person has heard others say.  witnesswhich a person has heard others say.  witness has neitherhas neither personally seen or heardpersonally seen or heard, nor has he, nor has he perceived through his senses and has come toperceived through his senses and has come to know about it through some third personknow about it through some third person  Nexus and CredibilityNexus and Credibility
  20. 20. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Judicial EvidenceJudicial Evidence– Evidence received by– Evidence received by court of justice in proof or disproof of factscourt of justice in proof or disproof of facts before them is called judicial evidence. Thebefore them is called judicial evidence. The confession made by the accused in the courtconfession made by the accused in the court isis also included in judicial evidence. Statements ofalso included in judicial evidence. Statements of witnesses and documentary evidence and factswitnesses and documentary evidence and facts for the examination by the court are also Judicialfor the examination by the court are also Judicial Evidence.Evidence.
  21. 21. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Non-Judicial EvidenceNon-Judicial Evidence– Any confession– Any confession made by the accused outside the court in themade by the accused outside the court in the presence of any person or the admission of apresence of any person or the admission of a party are called Non-Judicial Evidence, if provedparty are called Non-Judicial Evidence, if proved in the court in the form of Judicial Evidence.in the court in the form of Judicial Evidence.
  22. 22. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Direct EvidenceDirect Evidence– Evidence is either direct or– Evidence is either direct or indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence whichindirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence which is very important for the decision of the matteris very important for the decision of the matter in issue. The main fact when it is presented byin issue. The main fact when it is presented by witnesses, things and witnesses is direct,witnesses, things and witnesses is direct, evidence whereby main facts may be proved orevidence whereby main facts may be proved or established that is the evidence of person whoestablished that is the evidence of person who had actually seen the crime being committed andhad actually seen the crime being committed and has described the offence.has described the offence.  Eye witnessEye witness
  23. 23. Case LawCase Law  Vikram v. State of MaharashtraVikram v. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2007 SC,AIR 2007 SC 18931893  Where the eye-witnesses were examined in theWhere the eye-witnesses were examined in the Court two and half years latter, someCourt two and half years latter, some contradictions or even omissions to state thecontradictions or even omissions to state the incident in great details by itself would not leadincident in great details by itself would not lead to a conclusion that the appellants had beento a conclusion that the appellants had been falsely implicated in the case.falsely implicated in the case.
  24. 24. Case LawCase Law  State of U.P. v. Krishna MasterState of U.P. v. Krishna Master,AIR 2010 SC,AIR 2010 SC 30713071  Generally in oral evidence of crime normalGenerally in oral evidence of crime normal discrepancies exist. They are due to errors ofdiscrepancies exist. They are due to errors of observation , mental disposition, shock andobservation , mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of incident. Suchhorror at the time of incident. Such discrepancies do not make evidence unreliablediscrepancies do not make evidence unreliable unless they go to root of matter.unless they go to root of matter.
  25. 25. Case LawCase Law  Inimical WitnessInimical Witness-The testimony of eye--The testimony of eye- witnesses cannot be rejected merely on thewitnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being inimical to the accused persons.ground of being inimical to the accused persons.  Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari v. State ofManilal Hiraman Chaudhari v. State of MaharashtraMaharashtra ,AIR 2008 SC 161,AIR 2008 SC 161  There were enmity between witnesses andThere were enmity between witnesses and accused person.accused person.  Previous police complaint.Previous police complaint.
  26. 26. Case LawCase Law  Absence of Injury on eye-witness to crimeAbsence of Injury on eye-witness to crime  Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana,AIRJalpat Rai v. State of Haryana,AIR 2011 SC2011 SC 27192719  Merely because there is absence of injury on theMerely because there is absence of injury on the person of the eye-witness, his presence at theperson of the eye-witness, his presence at the place of occurrence does not become doubtful.place of occurrence does not become doubtful.
  27. 27. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence  Circumstantial Evidence or IndirectCircumstantial Evidence or Indirect EvidenceEvidence–– There is no difference betweenThere is no difference between circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence.circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence. Circumstantial Evidence attempts to prove theCircumstantial Evidence attempts to prove the facts in issue by providing other facts andfacts in issue by providing other facts and affords an instance as to its existence.affords an instance as to its existence.
  28. 28. Case LawsCase Laws  Durga Prasad Singh v. Ram DayalDurga Prasad Singh v. Ram Dayal ChaudhariChaudhari,ILR 38 Cal.153,ILR 38 Cal.153  FIR is not a substantive peace of evidence.FIR is not a substantive peace of evidence.  It can be used to corroborate the evidence ofIt can be used to corroborate the evidence of the person lodging the same.the person lodging the same.  State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.DesaiState of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai AIRAIR 2003 SC 2053.2003 SC 2053.  Examination of witness through VideoExamination of witness through Video Conferencing has been approved.Conferencing has been approved.
  29. 29. Case LawsCase Laws  Ram Singh v. RamsingRam Singh v. Ramsing (Col.) AIR 1986 SC 3(Col.) AIR 1986 SC 3  Justice Fazal Ali laid down the following testsJustice Fazal Ali laid down the following tests regarding the admissibility of tape-recordedregarding the admissibility of tape-recorded version.version.  The voice of the speaker must be identified byThe voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or other personthe maker of the record or other person recognizing his voice.recognizing his voice.  Tape recorded statement must be relevant.Tape recorded statement must be relevant.  The voice of the particular speaker must beThe voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distortedclearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.by other sounds or disturbances.
  30. 30. THE INDIAN EVIDENCETHE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTACT  The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is divided into 3The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is divided into 3 parts, 11 chapters and comprises of 167 sections.parts, 11 chapters and comprises of 167 sections.  Part-I answers the question ‘what facts may or Part-I answers the question ‘what facts may or may not be proved?’ (Ch.I & II – Ss-1 to 55) may not be proved?’ (Ch.I & II – Ss-1 to 55)  Part-II deals with ‘what sort of evidence is to bePart-II deals with ‘what sort of evidence is to be given of these facts?’ (Ch.III – VI Ss-56 to100)given of these facts?’ (Ch.III – VI Ss-56 to100)  Part-III covers ‘by whom and in what manner Part-III covers ‘by whom and in what manner the facts are to be proved?’ (Ch-VII to XI; Ss-the facts are to be proved?’ (Ch-VII to XI; Ss- 101 to 167)  Sec-5 to 55 deal with101 to 167)  Sec-5 to 55 deal with RELEVANCY and  Sec-56 to 167 deal withRELEVANCY and  Sec-56 to 167 deal with the ADMISSIBILITY.the ADMISSIBILITY.
  31. 31. THE INDIAN EVIDENCETHE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTACT  The Indian Evidence Act,1872 came into forceThe Indian Evidence Act,1872 came into force on 1st. September, 1872. It applies to the wholeon 1st. September, 1872. It applies to the whole of India except J & K. It applies to all judicialof India except J & K. It applies to all judicial proceedings in or before a court, including courtproceedings in or before a court, including court martials.martials.  Affidavits ii) Arbitration proceedings. TheAffidavits ii) Arbitration proceedings. The provisions of this Act are not applicable toprovisions of this Act are not applicable to Departmental Inquiries / DomesticDepartmental Inquiries / Domestic Inquiries/Commissions of Inquiries /Inquiries/Commissions of Inquiries / Administrative TribunalsAdministrative Tribunals
  32. 32. Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause  Sec.3. “Court”-Includes all Judges andSec.3. “Court”-Includes all Judges and Magistrate and all persons ,except arbitrators,Magistrate and all persons ,except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence.legally authorized to take evidence.  Sec.391 of Cr.P.C., Order 41,R.27 of C.P.C.Sec.391 of Cr.P.C., Order 41,R.27 of C.P.C.  Fact- Fact means and includes-Fact- Fact means and includes-  (1) Anything, state of things, or relation of(1) Anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the sensesthings, capable of being perceived by the senses  (2) Any mental condition of which any person(2) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.is conscious.
  33. 33. Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause IllustrationsIllustrations  (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.certain order in a certain place, is a fact.  (b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.(b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.  (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.  (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith orcertain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in afraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified timeparticular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.  That a man has certain reputation , is a fact.That a man has certain reputation , is a fact.
  34. 34. FactFact  Fact means an existing thingsFact means an existing things  Physical and Psychological Facts-A horse, aPhysical and Psychological Facts-A horse, a man, are physical facts.man, are physical facts.  Psychological Facts- The sensation orPsychological Facts- The sensation or recollection of which man is conscious , hisrecollection of which man is conscious , his desires , his intentions in doing particulardesires , his intentions in doing particular acts,etc.acts,etc.  Positive Facts-Existence of certain state ofPositive Facts-Existence of certain state of thingsthings  Negative Facts-Non existence of it.
  35. 35. Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause  ““Relevant”-One fact is said to be relevant to another Relevant”-One fact is said to be relevant to another  when the one is connected when the one is connected with the other in any of the with the other in any of the  ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating  to the relevancy of the facts.to the relevancy of the facts.     Logically  relevant-When  a  fact  is  connected  with Logically  relevant-When  a  fact  is  connected  with  other factother fact    Legally relevant-If the law relevant it to be relevant.Legally relevant-If the law relevant it to be relevant.
  36. 36. Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause  ““Facts in Issue”-Facts in Issue”-Any fact from which, either Any fact from which, either  by itself or in connection with the other facts, by itself or in connection with the other facts,  the existence, non-existence, nature or extent the existence, non-existence, nature or extent  of any right , liability or disability, asserted or of any right , liability or disability, asserted or  denied in any suit or proceedings. denied in any suit or proceedings.   No list is given in Evidence Act of the Facts inNo list is given in Evidence Act of the Facts in Issue. The Court has to frame in every case.Issue. The Court has to frame in every case. Interpretation Clause
  37. 37. Fact in IssueFact in Issue  A is a cashier in a factory. It is his duty to bringA is a cashier in a factory. It is his duty to bring money from bank and distribute it to themoney from bank and distribute it to the labourers. A case under sec.409,I.P.C., “Criminallabourers. A case under sec.409,I.P.C., “Criminal Breach of Trust” is started against him. The caseBreach of Trust” is started against him. The case against him is that he brought Rs.25,000 fromagainst him is that he brought Rs.25,000 from the bank and misappropriated Rs.13,000 out ofthe bank and misappropriated Rs.13,000 out of it. A says in his defence that he brought theit. A says in his defence that he brought the case from the bank and as he was to go on leavecase from the bank and as he was to go on leave that day, he according to the direction of thethat day, he according to the direction of the Manager of the company , handed overManager of the company , handed over Rs.25,000 to B,the Assistant Cashier.Rs.25,000 to B,the Assistant Cashier.
  38. 38. Fact in IssueFact in Issue  Order XIV,Rule 1,C.P.C. lays down that “issuesOrder XIV,Rule 1,C.P.C. lays down that “issues arises when a material proposition of fact or lawarises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by theis affirmed by the one party and denied by the other”.other”.  Sec.6 of Indian Evidence Act-Facts formingSec.6 of Indian Evidence Act-Facts forming part of the same transaction.part of the same transaction.  Sec.7.Facts which are occassion,cause or effectSec.7.Facts which are occassion,cause or effect of the facts in Issueof the facts in Issue
  39. 39. Relevant FactsRelevant Facts  Sec.8.Motive,preparation, conduct of a party.Sec.8.Motive,preparation, conduct of a party.  Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain the facts inSec.9.Facts necessary to explain the facts in IssueIssue  Sec.10.Things said or done by conspirators.Sec.10.Things said or done by conspirators.  Sec.11.Facts inconsistent with facts in issue.Sec.11.Facts inconsistent with facts in issue.  Sec.12. Facts helping in estimate of damagesSec.12. Facts helping in estimate of damages  Sec.13.Transaction creating rightSec.13.Transaction creating right  Sec.14.Facts stating of mind or bodySec.14.Facts stating of mind or body
  40. 40. Relevant FactsRelevant Facts  Sec.15.Facts showing whether act is intentionalSec.15.Facts showing whether act is intentional or accidentalor accidental  Sec.16.Existence of course of businessSec.16.Existence of course of business  (Sections 17 to 23 and 31)-Admission(Sections 17 to 23 and 31)-Admission  Sections(24 to 30) –ConfessionSections(24 to 30) –Confession  Sections(32-33)-Statements of persons who areSections(32-33)-Statements of persons who are dead or cannot be founddead or cannot be found  Sections(34-39)-Statements made under specialSections(34-39)-Statements made under special circumstances.circumstances.
  41. 41. Relevant FactsRelevant Facts  Sections-40 to 44(Judgments)Sections-40 to 44(Judgments)  Sections-45 to 47-Opinions of experts andSections-45 to 47-Opinions of experts and othersothers  Sections-48-49- Opinions as to the existence ofSections-48-49- Opinions as to the existence of customs and usagescustoms and usages  Section-50-Opinion on relationshipSection-50-Opinion on relationship  Section-52 to 55-CharactorSection-52 to 55-Charactor
  42. 42. Exaggeration in EvidenceExaggeration in Evidence  Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.PRamesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC., AIR 2012 SC 19791979  If the witness exaggerates evidence , it does notIf the witness exaggerates evidence , it does not make it completely unreliable. The Court has tomake it completely unreliable. The Court has to separateseparate grain from chaff.grain from chaff.  Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroideryWitnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story , however, true in the main. It has toto a story , however, true in the main. It has to be appraised in each case as to what extent thebe appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence.evidence is worthy of credence.
  43. 43. ProofProof  Proof of Drunkenness-Proof of Drunkenness-  George Kutty v. State of KeralaGeorge Kutty v. State of Kerala ,1992 Cr LJ,1992 Cr LJ 1663 (Ker)1663 (Ker)  Blood or urine test is not a must for proving theBlood or urine test is not a must for proving the charge of drunkenness. Drunkenness is acharge of drunkenness. Drunkenness is a question of fact and smelling of alcohol,question of fact and smelling of alcohol, unsteady gait, dilation of pupils, incoherentunsteady gait, dilation of pupils, incoherent speech would all be relevant considerations.speech would all be relevant considerations.
  44. 44. Last Seen TheoryLast Seen Theory  State of UP V. SatishState of UP V. Satish 2005 (3) SCC 1142005 (3) SCC 114  The last seen theory comes into play where theThe last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when thetime-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen aliveaccused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small thatand the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accusedpossibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomesbeing the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case, the Courtsimpossible. Even in such a case, the Courts should look for corroboration.should look for corroboration.
  45. 45. Standard of Proof in Civil andStandard of Proof in Civil and Criminal CasesCriminal Cases  In Civil cases,mere preponderance ofIn Civil cases,mere preponderance of probabilityprobability  Criminal Proceedings – Much higher degree ofCriminal Proceedings – Much higher degree of proof is needed before the person is convicted.proof is needed before the person is convicted.  In Civil cases the burden may lie on either ofIn Civil cases the burden may lie on either of the parties.the parties.
  46. 46. ProvedProved  Sec.3.Proved-A fact is said to be proved when,Sec.3.Proved-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before it, the courtafter considering the matter before it, the court either believes it to exist , or considers itseither believes it to exist , or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought ,existence so probable that a prudent man ought , under the circumstances of the particular case,under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.to act upon the supposition that it exists.
  47. 47. ProvedProved  Proof- It must mean such evidence as wouldProof- It must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to theinduce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion-conclusion- Bhano v. Babu Singh,Bhano v. Babu Singh, 1998 Cr LJ1998 Cr LJ 4768(Raj), Facts must be proved by the best4768(Raj), Facts must be proved by the best evidence available.evidence available.  Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not meanProof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean perfect proof , which may sound artificial.perfect proof , which may sound artificial.  Inder Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.,)Inder Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.,) AIR 1978AIR 1978 SC 1091SC 1091
  48. 48. Conjecture and SurmiseConjecture and Surmise  Circumstantial Evidence-Chain andCircumstantial Evidence-Chain and ConnectivityConnectivity  The court must keep in mind that there lies aThe court must keep in mind that there lies a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ andlong mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’.‘must be true’.  Civil Cases and Criminal CasesCivil Cases and Criminal Cases
  49. 49. Falsus in Uno Falsus in OmnibusFalsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus  False in one thing, false in everythingFalse in one thing, false in everything  It is neither sound rule of law or a rule ofIt is neither sound rule of law or a rule of practice.practice.  This maxim does not apply to criminal trialThis maxim does not apply to criminal trial because the court has to disengage the truthbecause the court has to disengage the truth from falsehood.from falsehood.  Hari Chand v. State of DelhiHari Chand v. State of Delhi,AIR 1996 SC 1477,AIR 1996 SC 1477  It is well settled law that evidence may beIt is well settled law that evidence may be accepted partially or in the whole.accepted partially or in the whole.
  50. 50. ProvedProved  Letters of married woman to her fatherLetters of married woman to her father apprehending danger.apprehending danger.  Mass Killing by Mob- Overt act-Participation inMass Killing by Mob- Overt act-Participation in Crime.Crime.  Rajendra Kumar v. State of UP., 1998 Cr LJRajendra Kumar v. State of UP., 1998 Cr LJ 32933293  Medicial opinion about husband conductMedicial opinion about husband conduct towards wife dying burns.towards wife dying burns.  He tried to hold her by his hands and preventedHe tried to hold her by his hands and prevented her from going out of room.her from going out of room.
  51. 51. Sole WitnessSole Witness  A conviction can be based on the singleA conviction can be based on the single testimony of an eye-witness if the witness istestimony of an eye-witness if the witness is wholly reliable and his statements inspires fullwholly reliable and his statements inspires full confidence.confidence.  Bachchu v. State of U.PBachchu v. State of U.P., 1999 Cr LJ 1967 (All).., 1999 Cr LJ 1967 (All).  In a case of bribery , corroboration of theIn a case of bribery , corroboration of the evidence of the complainant need not be aevidence of the complainant need not be a direct. It can be by circumstantial evidence also.direct. It can be by circumstantial evidence also.
  52. 52. Mode of Obtaining EvidenceMode of Obtaining Evidence  Pushpadevi M Jatia v. M L WadhawanPushpadevi M Jatia v. M L Wadhawan AIRAIR 1987 SC 17481987 SC 1748  Relevant evidence can be taken into accountRelevant evidence can be taken into account irrespective of the methods by which it wasirrespective of the methods by which it was obtained.obtained.
  53. 53. DNA TestDNA Test  DivorceDivorce  AdulteryAdultery  Property DisputeProperty Dispute  High Court has an inherent power .High Court has an inherent power .
  54. 54. Case LawCase Law  Mavada Venkateswara Rao v. Oleti VanaMavada Venkateswara Rao v. Oleti Vana LakshmiLakshmi, AIR 2008 AP 195, AIR 2008 AP 195  The property in dispute was the self acquiredThe property in dispute was the self acquired property of the mother. The suit for partitionproperty of the mother. The suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff(daughter). The son waswas filed by the plaintiff(daughter). The son was defendant. He stated that the plaintiff and herdefendant. He stated that the plaintiff and her brother were destitute and not born to hisbrother were destitute and not born to his mother. As such they had no right ofmother. As such they had no right of inheritanceinheritance. The court said that the maternity of. The court said that the maternity of the parties was thus disputed. The court directedthe parties was thus disputed. The court directed both the parties to undergo DNA test.both the parties to undergo DNA test.
  55. 55. Contradictory StatementContradictory Statement  Murugan v. StateMurugan v. State , 1993 Cr LJ 1259, 1993 Cr LJ 1259  Where the statement of an injured eye witnessWhere the statement of an injured eye witness before the police and thereafter before the courtbefore the police and thereafter before the court werewere contradictorycontradictory, it was held that his, it was held that his testimony was not reliable.testimony was not reliable.  State of Gujarat v. Anirudh SinghState of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh AIR 1997 SCAIR 1997 SC 27802780  Where the postmortem report was preparedWhere the postmortem report was prepared jointly by two doctors , examination of one ofjointly by two doctors , examination of one of them who had donethem who had done major workmajor work was held to bewas held to be sufficient.sufficient.
  56. 56. Variance between Medical Evidence and CircumstantialVariance between Medical Evidence and Circumstantial EvidenceEvidence  State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik,State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik,1995 Cr LJ1995 Cr LJ 483 (SC)483 (SC)  The domestic servant killed three members ofThe domestic servant killed three members of the family , the fourth (the witness) managed tothe family , the fourth (the witness) managed to save herself by locking herself in the bathroom.save herself by locking herself in the bathroom. She heard voices which clinchingly showed theShe heard voices which clinchingly showed the involvement of the domestic servant. Herinvolvement of the domestic servant. Her evidence , though not direct, was that ofevidence , though not direct, was that of circumstances surrounding the transactioncircumstances surrounding the transaction. It. It was relevant and sufficient to supportwas relevant and sufficient to support conviction.conviction.
  57. 57. State of Karnataka v. H.KorojiState of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik Naik,Naik Naik,1995 Cr LJ 483 (SC)1995 Cr LJ 483 (SC)  Where the doctor conducting autopsy was notWhere the doctor conducting autopsy was not in a position to give definite opinion regardingin a position to give definite opinion regarding the cause of death, it was held that the courtthe cause of death, it was held that the court could convict the accused on the basis ofcould convict the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence.circumstantial evidence.
  58. 58. DisprovedDisproved  Sec.3.Disproved: A fact is said to be disprovedSec.3.Disproved: A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, thewhen, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that itCourt either believes that it does not exist, ordoes not exist, or considers its non-existenceconsiders its non-existence so probable that aso probable that a prudent man ought , under the circumstances ofprudent man ought , under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the suppositionthe particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.that it does not exist.  The term ‘not proved’ indicates a state of mindThe term ‘not proved’ indicates a state of mind between two states of mind “proved andbetween two states of mind “proved and disproved” when one is unable to say preciselydisproved” when one is unable to say precisely how the matter stands.how the matter stands.
  59. 59. May Presume-Shall Presume-May Presume-Shall Presume- Conclusive ProofConclusive Proof  May PresumeMay Presume-Sec.4. Whenever it is provided by-Sec.4. Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact , itthis Act that the Court may presume a fact , it maymay either regard such fact as proved, unlesseither regard such fact as proved, unless and untill it is disproved, or may call forand untill it is disproved, or may call for  Shall PresumeShall Presume-Sec.4.Whenever it is directed by-Sec.4.Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, itthis Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and untillshall regard such fact as proved, unless and untill it is disproved.it is disproved.
  60. 60. May Presume-Shall Presume-May Presume-Shall Presume- Conclusive ProofConclusive Proof  Conclusive ProofConclusive Proof-When one fact is declared by-When one fact is declared by this Act to bethis Act to be conclusive proof of anotherconclusive proof of another, the, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard theCourt shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence toother as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.be given for the purpose of disproving it.  A presumption means a rule of law that CourtsA presumption means a rule of law that Courts and Judges shall drawand Judges shall draw a particular inference froma particular inference from a particular facta particular fact, or, or from particular evidencefrom particular evidence,, unless and untill the truth of such inference isunless and untill the truth of such inference is disproved.disproved.
  61. 61. Case LawCase Law  Umashanker v. State of ChhatisgarhUmashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh,AIR 2001,AIR 2001 SC 3074SC 3074  It was alleged against an eighteen year oldIt was alleged against an eighteen year old student that he had passed a fake not of Rs.100student that he had passed a fake not of Rs.100 to a shop keeper and 13 more such notes wereto a shop keeper and 13 more such notes were recovered from him, it was held by the Supremerecovered from him, it was held by the Supreme Court that the presumption thus created was notCourt that the presumption thus created was not sufficient to prove thesufficient to prove the mens reamens rea requirementrequirement under s.489-B ,IPC, that he knew or had reasonunder s.489-B ,IPC, that he knew or had reason to believe that notes in question were forged orto believe that notes in question were forged or counterfeit.counterfeit.
  62. 62. Nirmal Das Bose v. Mamta GulatiNirmal Das Bose v. Mamta Gulati AIR 1997AIR 1997 All 401All 401  A marriage certificate issued under the SpecialA marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act is a conclusive evidence of theMarriage Act is a conclusive evidence of the solemnization of marriage under the Act andsolemnization of marriage under the Act and also compliance of formalities and signatures ofalso compliance of formalities and signatures of parties and witnesses. The genuineness of theparties and witnesses. The genuineness of the compliance procedure is a different question. Itcompliance procedure is a different question. It remains questionable.remains questionable.
  63. 63. RELEVANCY OF FACTSRELEVANCY OF FACTS  From section 5 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts.From section 5 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts.  Sec.5.Evidence may be given in any suit or proceedingSec.5.Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issueof the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to beand of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant and of no others.relevant and of no others.  Illustrations- A is tried for the murder of B by beatingIllustrations- A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death-him with a club with the intention of causing his death-  A’s beating B with the club,A’s causing B’s death byA’s beating B with the club,A’s causing B’s death by such beating,A’s intention to cause B’s death.such beating,A’s intention to cause B’s death.
  64. 64. Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra,Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 685(2012) 11 SCC 685  Where the entire evidence of eyewitnesses wasWhere the entire evidence of eyewitnesses was not accepted by the High Court, it was held bynot accepted by the High Court, it was held by Supreme Court that the accused cannot beSupreme Court that the accused cannot be convicted for an offence under s.302 Indianconvicted for an offence under s.302 Indian Penal Code merely on the basis of the post-Penal Code merely on the basis of the post- mortem report. Themortem report. The post-mortem report shouldpost-mortem report should be in corroboration with the evidence ofbe in corroboration with the evidence of eyewitnesseseyewitnesses and cannot be an evidenceand cannot be an evidence sufficient to reach the conclusion for convictingsufficient to reach the conclusion for convicting the accused.the accused.
  65. 65. Relevancy of Facts forming partRelevancy of Facts forming part of same transactionof same transaction  Sec.6.Facts which, though not in issue, are soSec.6.Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part ofconnected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction , are relevant , whether theythe same transaction , are relevant , whether they occurred at the same time and place or atoccurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.different times and places.  A is accused of the murder of B byA is accused of the murder of B by beating himbeating him.. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by- standers atstanders at the beatingthe beating, or so shortly or after it as, or so shortly or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
  66. 66. Relevancy of Facts forming partRelevancy of Facts forming part of same transactionof same transaction  A is accused of waging war againstA is accused of waging war against the [ Government of India] by taking part in anthe [ Government of India] by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property isarmed insurrection in which property is destroyed troops are attacked and goals aredestroyed troops are attacked and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts isbroken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the generalrelevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have beentransaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.present at all of them.
  67. 67. Relevancy of Facts forming partRelevancy of Facts forming part of same transactionof same transaction  A sues B for aA sues B for a libellibel contained in a letter forming partcontained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the partiesof a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, andrelating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it isforming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do notcontained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.contain the libel itself.  The question is, whetherThe question is, whether certain goods ordered from Bcertain goods ordered from B were delivered to Awere delivered to A. The goods were delivered to. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each deliveryseveral intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.is a relevant fact.
  68. 68. Relevancy of Facts forming partRelevancy of Facts forming part of same transactionof same transaction  Res gestae-Res gestae- The Things done(including wordsThe Things done(including words spoken in the course of a transaction)spoken in the course of a transaction)    But in the nineteenth century, the borrowing of But in the nineteenth century, the borrowing of  the concept of res gestae from Englishthe concept of res gestae from English Law offerean exception to this rule. Res gestae isLaw offerean exception to this rule. Res gestae is  based on the belief that because certain stateme based on the belief that because certain stateme nts are made naturally,nts are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during tspontaneously, and without deliberation during t he course of an event, they carry a high degree ohe course of an event, they carry a high degree o f redibility and leave littlef redibility and leave little
  69. 69. Case LawCase Law  Rattan v. ReginamRattan v. Reginam--  which dealt with the admissibility of thewhich dealt with the admissibility of the statement of a telephone operator who receivedstatement of a telephone operator who received a call from the deceased minutes before she wasa call from the deceased minutes before she was allegedly murdered by her husband. The Councilallegedly murdered by her husband. The Council characterised the statement as original evidencecharacterised the statement as original evidence of 'verbal facts', as opposed to hearsay evidence,of 'verbal facts', as opposed to hearsay evidence, as the object of admitting the statement was notas the object of admitting the statement was not to establish the truth of the statement made, butto establish the truth of the statement made, but merely to establish the fact that it was made. merely to establish the fact that it was made. 
  70. 70. Newspaper ReportNewspaper Report  All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v.All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State Election Commission,AIR 2007 NOCState Election Commission,AIR 2007 NOC 1801 (Mad-FB)1801 (Mad-FB)  A newspaper report can be relied on by theA newspaper report can be relied on by the Election Commission while deciding a petitionElection Commission while deciding a petition in connection with repolling. In similarin connection with repolling. In similar circumstances the High Court can also rely oncircumstances the High Court can also rely on newspaper reports.newspaper reports.
  71. 71. FACTS-OCCASSION-FACT INFACTS-OCCASSION-FACT IN ISSUEISSUE  Sec.7. Facts which are the occasion, cause orSec.7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issueeffect of facts in issue  Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect,Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediately or otherwise, of relevant facts, orimmediately or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state offacts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or whichthings under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence orafforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.transaction, are relevant.
  72. 72. IllustrationsIllustrations  The question is, whether A robbed B.The question is, whether A robbed B.    The facts that, shortly before the robbery, BThe facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, andwent to a fair with money in his possession, and thatthat he showed it or mentionedhe showed it or mentioned the fact that hethe fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.had it, to third persons, are relevant.    The question is whether A Poisoned B.The question is whether A Poisoned B.    The state of B’s health before the symptomsThe state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, andascribed to poison, and habits of B, known tohabits of B, known to A,A, which afforded an opportunity for thewhich afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.administration of poison, are relevant facts.
  73. 73. Annasuyamma v. State of Karnataka , 2002 CrAnnasuyamma v. State of Karnataka , 2002 Cr LJ 4401 (Kant)LJ 4401 (Kant)  Property recovered from accused by theProperty recovered from accused by the deceased, murder of the deceased. The courtdeceased, murder of the deceased. The court said that unless it could be conclusivelysaid that unless it could be conclusively established that the property was with theestablished that the property was with the deceased at the time of the offence , thedeceased at the time of the offence , the question of property would not be good enoughquestion of property would not be good enough to establish nexus with the murder.to establish nexus with the murder.
  74. 74. Motive -PreparationMotive -Preparation  8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conductconduct  Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes aAny fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevantmotive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.fact.    The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party,The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit orto any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue thereinproceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person anor relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is subject of any proceeding, isoffence against whom is subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced byrelevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact ins issue or relevant fact, and whether it wasany fact ins issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.previous or subsequent thereto.
  75. 75. IllustrationsIllustrations  (a) A is tried for the murder of B.(a) A is tried for the murder of B.  The facts that A murdered C, that B knew thatThe facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and B had tried to hadA had murdered C, and B had tried to had extort money from A by threatening to make hisextort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.knowledge public, are relevant.    (b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond.money. B denies the making of the bond.  the fact that, at the time when the bound wasthe fact that, at the time when the bound was alleged to be made, B required money for aalleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.particular purpose, is relevant.
  76. 76. IllustrationsIllustrations  (c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.    The fact that, before the death of B, A procuredThe fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, ispoison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.relevant.    (d) The question is, whether a certain document is the(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A. will of A.   The facts that, not long before the date of the allegedThe facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which thewill, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate that the consultedprovisions of the alleged will relate that the consulted vakils in reference to making the will, and that hevakils in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which hecaused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant.did not approve, are relevant.
  77. 77. IllustrationsIllustrations  (e) A is accused of a crime.(e) A is accused of a crime.    The facts that, after the commission of theThe facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was inalleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property of the proceeds ofpossession of property of the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted toproperty acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have beenconceal things which were or might have been used in committing if, are relevant.used in committing if, are relevant.
  78. 78. Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 Cal 482Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 Cal 482  Previous threats, previous altercations, orPrevious threats, previous altercations, or previous litigations between parties are admittedprevious litigations between parties are admitted to show motive.to show motive.  Sarojini v. State of M.PSarojini v. State of M.P 1993 AIR SCW 8171993 AIR SCW 817  It was held that pre-marital demand of dowryIt was held that pre-marital demand of dowry and its non-compliance are relevant facts toand its non-compliance are relevant facts to establish motive. In a bride burning case , theestablish motive. In a bride burning case , the parents of the deceased did not agree to transferparents of the deceased did not agree to transfer and register the land in the name of their son-in-and register the land in the name of their son-in- law.law.
  79. 79. Distinction between Admissibility and RelevancyDistinction between Admissibility and Relevancy Admissibility Relevancy Admissibility is not based on logic but on strict rules of law Relevancy is based on logic and probability The rules of admissibility are prescribed after section 56 of Evidence Act,1872 The rules of relevancy are described under Sections 5-55 The admissibility declares whether certain type of relevant evidence are admissible The rules of relevancy declares what is relevant Modes of admissibility of relevant evidence Under Evidence Act the rules of relevancy means relevant evidence. They may be admissible or not The facts which are admissible are necessarily relevant The facts which are relevant are not necessarily admissible
  80. 80. RelevancyRelevancy  Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain or introduceSec.9.Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.relevant facts.  Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact inFacts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebutissue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue oran inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity ofrelevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, orany thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue orfix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show therelevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact wasrelation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they aretransacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.necessary for that purpose.
  81. 81. IllustrationsIllustrations  The question is, whether a given document isThe question is, whether a given document is the will of A.the will of A.  The state of A’s property and of his family at theThe state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.  (b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A;B affirms that the matter alleged toconduct to A;B affirms that the matter alleged to be libelous is true.be libelous is true.  The position and relations of the parties at theThe position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may betime when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issuerelevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue
  82. 82. Case LawsCase Laws  Noor Mohammad v. EmperorNoor Mohammad v. Emperor AIR 1944 SindAIR 1944 Sind 9393  Noor Mohammad was tried for abductingNoor Mohammad was tried for abducting Mst.Saidan. Once during the investigationMst.Saidan. Once during the investigation Mst.Saidan was being taken to the police station.Mst.Saidan was being taken to the police station. Noor Mohammad was loitering in the way. OnNoor Mohammad was loitering in the way. On Seeing Noor Mohammad,Mst.Saidan once criedSeeing Noor Mohammad,Mst.Saidan once cried out to her brother Kasim that this man was oneout to her brother Kasim that this man was one of her abductor.kasim tole headconstable whoof her abductor.kasim tole headconstable who was with them and the head constable forthwithwas with them and the head constable forthwith arrested him.arrested him.
  83. 83. Rahan Lalu v. EmperorRahan Lalu v. Emperor AIR 1938AIR 1938 Sind.97.Sind.97.  The prosecution case was that Rahan Lalu killedThe prosecution case was that Rahan Lalu killed his wife on one morning with an axe. Their sonhis wife on one morning with an axe. Their son a child of 5 years was beside them. He made aa child of 5 years was beside them. He made a cry and his cry attracted the witnesses whocry and his cry attracted the witnesses who found Rahan with an axe in his hand and hisfound Rahan with an axe in his hand and his deceased wife near him.deceased wife near him.
  84. 84. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade  The identification of the accused either in testThe identification of the accused either in test identification parade or in the Court is not a sineidentification parade or in the Court is not a sine qua non in every case if from the circumstancesqua non in every case if from the circumstances the quilt is otherwise established.the quilt is otherwise established.  Many a times crimes are committed under theMany a times crimes are committed under the cover of darkness when none is able to identifycover of darkness when none is able to identify the accused.the accused.
  85. 85. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade  Mulla v. State of UPMulla v. State of UP (2010) 3 SCC 508(2010) 3 SCC 508  ““The identification parades are not primarilyThe identification parades are not primarily meant for the court. They are meant formeant for the court. They are meant for investigation purpose”.investigation purpose”.  There are two purposes namely-EnableThere are two purposes namely-Enable witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accusedwitnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really one who was seenwhom they suspect is really one who was seen by them in connection with the commission ofby them in connection with the commission of crime.crime.  Investigation authority-Suspect is a real person.Investigation authority-Suspect is a real person.
  86. 86. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade  Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra ,Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 160: 2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).AIR 2000 SC 160: 2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).  If the test identification parade regardingIf the test identification parade regarding accused was not conducted properly andaccused was not conducted properly and suffered from unexplained delay, he is entitled tosuffered from unexplained delay, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.benefit of doubt.
  87. 87. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade  Mullagiri Vajiram v. State of AndhraMullagiri Vajiram v. State of Andhra PradeshPradesh,AIR 1993 SC 1243.,AIR 1993 SC 1243.  When conviction was based on evidence of eyeWhen conviction was based on evidence of eye witness and not on identification parade itwitness and not on identification parade it cannot be set aside on ground that identificationcannot be set aside on ground that identification was not reliable.was not reliable.
  88. 88. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade  Raj Nath v . State of Uttar PradeshRaj Nath v . State of Uttar Pradesh,,  1988 Cr LJ1988 Cr LJ 422: AIR 1988 SC 345.422: AIR 1988 SC 345.  If there is unexplained and unreasonable delayIf there is unexplained and unreasonable delay in putting up the accused persons for a testin putting up the accused persons for a test identification the delay by itself detracts fromidentification the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of the test.the credibility of the test.
  89. 89. Role of ConspiratorRole of Conspirator  Sec.Sec.10. Things said or done by conspirator in10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common designreference to common design  Where there is reasonable ground to believe thatWhere there is reasonable ground to believe that two ortwo or more persons have conspired together to commit anmore persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done oroffence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such personswritten by any one of such persons  in reference to  in reference to their common intention, after the time when suchtheir common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is aintention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed torelevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving thebe so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose ofexistence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.showing that any such person was a party to it.  Procured arms in Europe.Procured arms in Europe.
  90. 90. Case LawCase Law  State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath ShindeState of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde AIR 2000 SC 1691AIR 2000 SC 1691  There was no doubt that there was reasonableThere was no doubt that there was reasonable ground to believe that four of the accusedground to believe that four of the accused conspirators had conspired to commit theconspirators had conspired to commit the offence of abduction and murder of childrenoffence of abduction and murder of children involved in the case.involved in the case.  Accused had spoken to each other in referenceAccused had spoken to each other in reference to common intention.to common intention.
  91. 91. Case LawCase Law  Bhagwandas v. State of RajasthanBhagwandas v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC, AIR 1974 SC 878.878.  Anything written by a conspirator will not beAnything written by a conspirator will not be admissible against him or others if it is not doneadmissible against him or others if it is not done in reference to the common intention of thein reference to the common intention of the conspiracy.conspiracy.
  92. 92.  Section.11. When facts not otherwise relevantSection.11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.become relevant.  Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-    (1) If they are inconsistent with any fact is issue(1) If they are inconsistent with any fact is issue or relevant fact; (2) If by themselves or inor relevant fact; (2) If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make theconnection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue orexistence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbablerelevant fact highly probable or improbable Illustration Illustration   (a) The question is, whether A committed a(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that,crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.
  93. 93. AlibiAlibi  The plea of absence of a person ,charged withThe plea of absence of a person ,charged with an offence, from the place of occurrence at thean offence, from the place of occurrence at the time of the commission of the offence is calledtime of the commission of the offence is called the plea of alibi.the plea of alibi.  Rajindra Singh v. State of U.P.,Rajindra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2007 SC atAIR 2007 SC at p.2791.p.2791.  No finding of plea of alibi can be recorded byNo finding of plea of alibi can be recorded by the High Court for the first time in a petitionthe High Court for the first time in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Statement recorded-InSec.161 of Cr.P.C. Statement recorded-In admissible.
  94. 94. Case LawCase Law  Binay Kumar and Other v. State of BiharBinay Kumar and Other v. State of Bihar AIRAIR 1997 SC 3211997 SC 321  It was held by Supreme Court that, it is basicIt was held by Supreme Court that, it is basic law in the criminal case in which the accused islaw in the criminal case in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury toalleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person , the burden is on prosecution toanother person , the burden is on prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the sceneprove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime.and has participated in the crime.  Encounter CasesEncounter Cases
  95. 95. Suit for DamagesSuit for Damages Sec.Sec. 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to12. In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine amount areenable Court to determine amount are relevantrelevant  In suits in which damages are claimed, any factIn suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine thewhich will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded,amount of damages which ought to be awarded, is relevant.is relevant.  Contract or tort- In an action for libel,the otherContract or tort- In an action for libel,the other defamatory statements by the defendant ,defamatory statements by the defendant , whether made before or after thewhether made before or after the commencement of the suit, are admissible forcommencement of the suit, are admissible for
  96. 96. FACTS-CUSTOMFACTS-CUSTOM  Sec.13-Facts relevant when right or custom is inSec.13-Facts relevant when right or custom is in question.question.  Where the question is as to the existence of any rightWhere the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant.or custom, the following facts are relevant.    (a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in(a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized,question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with itsasserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence;existence;    (b) Particular instances in which the right or custom(b) Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in which itswas claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
  97. 97. IllustrationsIllustrations  IllustrationIllustration    The question is, whether A has a right to aThe question is, whether A has a right to a fishery.fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A’sA deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’sancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’sfather, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the mortgage,father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, instances in which A’s father exercised the right,instances in which A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stoppedor in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.
  98. 98. CustomCustom Subramanian Chettiar v.Kamnappa ChettiarSubramanian Chettiar v.Kamnappa Chettiar,AIR,AIR 1955 Mad.145.1955 Mad.145. A custom is a particular rule which has existedA custom is a particular rule which has existed from the time immemorial and has obtained thefrom the time immemorial and has obtained the force of law in a particular locality.force of law in a particular locality. Valid Custom-immemorial-reasonable-WithoutValid Custom-immemorial-reasonable-Without any interruption-any interruption- Private Custom-General Custom-Local CustomPrivate Custom-General Custom-Local Custom Caste or Class CustomCaste or Class Custom
  99. 99. Person State of MindPerson State of Mind  Sec.14. Facts showing existence of state ofSec.14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feelingmind, or of body or bodily feeling  Facts showing the existence of any state ofFacts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith,mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, Ill will or good-willnegligence, rashness, Ill will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing thetowards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling,existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any suchare relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is instate of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant.issue or relevant.
  100. 100. IllustrationsIllustrations  (a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, It is proved that heknowing them to be stolen, It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. was in possession of a particular stolen article.   The fact that at the same time, he was inThe fact that at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles ispossession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew eachrelevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles off which he was inand all of the articles off which he was in possession to be stolen.possession to be stolen.
  101. 101. IllustrationsIllustrations  (b) A is accused of(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering tofraudulently delivering to another personanother person a counterfeit coin which, at thea counterfeit coin which, at the time when he delivered it, he know to betime when he delivered it, he know to be counterfeit.counterfeit.  The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A wasThe fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces ofpossessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit is relevant. The fact that A had beencounterfeit is relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to anotherpreviously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing itperson as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.to be counterfeit is relevant.
  102. 102. Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional  Sec.Sec. 15. Facts bearing on question whether15. Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentionalact was accidental or intentional  When there is a question whether an act wasWhen there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional,  or done with aaccidental or intentional,  or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact thatparticular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of asuch act formed part of a series of similarseries of similar occurrences,occurrences, in each of which the person doingin each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.the act was concerned, is relevant.
  103. 103. Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional  (a) A is accused of(a) A is accused of burning downburning down his house inhis house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.order to obtain money for which it is insured.    The facts that a lived in several housesThe facts that a lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in eachsuccessively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of whichof which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires. A received payment from a differentfires. A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to showinsurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.that the fires were not accidental.
  104. 104. Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional  A is employed to receive money from theA is employed to receive money from the debtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in adebtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. Hebook showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particularmakes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really didoccasion he received less than he really did receive.receive.    The question is, whether this false entry wasThe question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional.accidental or intentional.    The facts that other entries made by A in theThe facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false,same book are false, and that the false entry is inand that the false entry is in each case in favor of A, relevant.each case in favor of A, relevant.
  105. 105. Moti Lal Roy v. Panch Bihi Industrial Bank Ltd.,Moti Lal Roy v. Panch Bihi Industrial Bank Ltd., AIR 1946 Cal . 440AIR 1946 Cal . 440  The accused who was entrusted withThe accused who was entrusted with collectioncollection of money from the debtors of a bankof money from the debtors of a bank ,collected,collected a certain amount from a debtor and did nota certain amount from a debtor and did not credit it in the cash book of the bank. To Chargecredit it in the cash book of the bank. To Charge under section 408,IPC,his defence was that thereunder section 408,IPC,his defence was that there was no misappropriation but owing towas no misappropriation but owing to pressurepressure of workof work he forgot to credit the amount in thehe forgot to credit the amount in the cash book. To prove dishonest intention on hiscash book. To prove dishonest intention on his part evidence was led in of another instance of apart evidence was led in of another instance of a similar omission by him to credit an amountsimilar omission by him to credit an amount collected from another debtor.collected from another debtor.
  106. 106. Existence of Course of BusinessExistence of Course of Business  Sec.1Sec.16. Existence of course of business when6. Existence of course of business when relevant-relevant-When there is a question whether a particularWhen there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business,act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done,according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.is a relevant fact.  (a) The question is, whether a(a) The question is, whether a particular letter wasparticular letter was dispatched.dispatched.    The facts that it was the ordinary course of businessThe facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to thefor all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that that particular letter was put in that placepost, and that that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.are relevant.
  107. 107. Budha v. Bedariya AIR 1981 MP 76Budha v. Bedariya AIR 1981 MP 76  A person refusing a registered letter sent byA person refusing a registered letter sent by post cannot afterwards plead ignorance of itspost cannot afterwards plead ignorance of its contents. Similarly, if a letter is put into postcontents. Similarly, if a letter is put into post office , that is prima facie evidence , till rebutted,office , that is prima facie evidence , till rebutted, that the addressee received it in due course.that the addressee received it in due course.
  108. 108. Dr.Kripa Ram Mathur v. State ofDr.Kripa Ram Mathur v. State of UP AIR 2001 SC 3071UP AIR 2001 SC 3071  The procedure adopted by selection committeeThe procedure adopted by selection committee showed that the selection was made on merit andshowed that the selection was made on merit and ranking to selected candidates was given accordingly.ranking to selected candidates was given accordingly. Merely because, the state failed to produce marksMerely because, the state failed to produce marks obtained by each candidate at such a belated stage, itobtained by each candidate at such a belated stage, it could not be said that selection process was not basedcould not be said that selection process was not based on comparative merit of candidates appearing beforeon comparative merit of candidates appearing before Selection Committee. Appellant challenged the meritSelection Committee. Appellant challenged the merit list after success it was held by Supreme Court that thelist after success it was held by Supreme Court that the presumption of genuineness of official would alsopresumption of genuineness of official would also apply.apply.
  109. 109. R v. Ewing (1983) 2 All ER 645R v. Ewing (1983) 2 All ER 645  The accused was charged withThe accused was charged with forgeryforgery. One of. One of the issues was whether he had drawn a certainthe issues was whether he had drawn a certain sum of money from his bank account. Forsum of money from his bank account. For proving this, the prosecution adduced aproving this, the prosecution adduced a computer print-out showing the state of thecomputer print-out showing the state of the accused ‘s bank account. It was held that theaccused ‘s bank account. It was held that the print-out was relevant because it was aprint-out was relevant because it was a document which was or formed part of a recorddocument which was or formed part of a record relating to any trade or business.relating to any trade or business.
  110. 110. AdmissionAdmission  Sec.Sec.17. Admission defined17. Admission defined  An admission is a statement, [oral orAn admission is a statement, [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form],documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact inwhich suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by anyissue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances,of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.hereinafter mentioned.
  111. 111. AdmissionAdmission  Very Important role in Judicial ProceedingsVery Important role in Judicial Proceedings  Sec.Sec. 18. Admission- by party to proceeding or his18. Admission- by party to proceeding or his agentagent  Statements made by party to the proceeding, or by anStatements made by party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, underagent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedlythe circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions. Byauthorized by him to make them, are admissions. By suitor in representative character — Statements madesuitor in representative character — Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representativeby parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they are madecharacter, are not admissions, unless they are made while the party making them held that character.while the party making them held that character.
  112. 112. AdmissionAdmission  Sec.1Sec.19. Admissions by persons whose9. Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party toposition must be proved as against party to suitsuit  Statements made by persons whose position orStatements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against anyliability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit are admissions, if suchparty to the suit are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against suchstatements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability inpersons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they area suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupiesmade whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject to such liability.such position or is subject to such liability.
  113. 113. IllustrationsIllustrations  A undertakes to collect rents for B.A undertakes to collect rents for B.  B sues A for not collecting rent due from C toB sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.B.  A denies that rent was due from C to B.A denies that rent was due from C to B.  A statement by C that he owned B rent is anA statement by C that he owned B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, ifadmission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.A denies that C did owe rent to B.
  114. 114. AdmissionAdmission  Sec.Sec. 20. Admissions by persons expressly20. Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suitreferred to by party to suit  Statements made by persons to whom party toStatements made by persons to whom party to the suit has expressly referred for information inthe suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.  IllustrationIllustration  The question is, whether a horse sold by A to BThe question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.is sound.  A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about it"A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about it" C’s statement is an admission.C’s statement is an admission.
  115. 115. AdmissionAdmission  Kedar Nath Bejoria v. State of WestKedar Nath Bejoria v. State of West BengalBengal,AIR 1954 SC 660,AIR 1954 SC 660  The rules of admissibility are the same for theThe rules of admissibility are the same for the trial of civil and criminal cases. Whatever thetrial of civil and criminal cases. Whatever the agent does, within the scope of the authorityagent does, within the scope of the authority binds his principle and is deemed his act.binds his principle and is deemed his act.  Relation of master and servant relationshipRelation of master and servant relationship must be strictly proved.must be strictly proved.
  116. 116. AdmissionAdmission  Venkata v. BhashyaVenkata v. Bhashya 22 Mad.55322 Mad.553  Admissions by Pleaders,attorneys abd counselsAdmissions by Pleaders,attorneys abd counsels in civil cases.in civil cases.  Krishna Swami v. Rajya Pal,Krishna Swami v. Rajya Pal,18 Mad 7318 Mad 73  An admission of law,where it is erroneous, byAn admission of law,where it is erroneous, by the vakil is not binding on the client.the vakil is not binding on the client.
  117. 117. Ram Sahai and Others v. Jai Prakash andRam Sahai and Others v. Jai Prakash and others AIR 1973 MP 147.others AIR 1973 MP 147.  A person who had the power of attorney forA person who had the power of attorney for the tenant accepted the arrears of rent. Thisthe tenant accepted the arrears of rent. This acceptance was made binding upon tenantacceptance was made binding upon tenant because this was the statement of personbecause this was the statement of person referred by plaintiff.referred by plaintiff.
  118. 118. Admission-Substantive EvidenceAdmission-Substantive Evidence  Vishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka PrasadVishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad,AIR 1974,AIR 1974 SC 117SC 117  Where in a civil suit a party produces documentsWhere in a civil suit a party produces documents containing admissions by his opponent , whichcontaining admissions by his opponent , which documents are admitted by the opponent’s counsel anddocuments are admitted by the opponent’s counsel and the opponents enters the witness box it is notthe opponents enters the witness box it is not obligatory on the party producing those documents toobligatory on the party producing those documents to draw in cross-examination the attention of thedraw in cross-examination the attention of the opponent to the said admission ,before he be permittedopponent to the said admission ,before he be permitted to use them for the purpose of contradictiong theto use them for the purpose of contradictiong the opponentopponent  Clear and unambiguous.Clear and unambiguous.
  119. 119. AdmissionAdmission  Sec.Sec. 21. Proof of admissions against persons21. Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalfmaking them, and by or on their behalf  Admissions are relevant and may be proved asAdmissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or hisagainst the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot berepresentative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person whoproved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest.makes them or by his representative in interest.
  120. 120. IllustrationsIllustrations  A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowingA is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.them to be stolen.    He offers to prove that he refused to sell themHe offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements,below their value. A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they arethough they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts inexplanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.issue.
  121. 121. IllustrationsIllustrations  The question between A and B is, whether aThe question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or not forged. A affirms that it iscertain deed is or not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged. genuine, B that it is forged.   A may prove a statement by B that the deed isA may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A thatgenuine, and B may prove a statement by A that the deed is forged ; but A cannot prove athe deed is forged ; but A cannot prove a statement y himself that the deed is genuine, norstatement y himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deedcan B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.is forged.
  122. 122. AdmissionAdmission  Shri Krishna v. Kurkshetra UniversityShri Krishna v. Kurkshetra University AIR 1975AIR 1975 SC 376.SC 376.  Any admission made in ignorance of law orAny admission made in ignorance of law or under duress cannot bind the maker of theunder duress cannot bind the maker of the admissionadmission
  123. 123. AdmissionAdmission  Sec.Sec.22. When oral admissions as to contents22. When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevantof documents are relevant  Oral admissions as to the contents of aOral admissions as to the contents of a documents are not relevant, unless and until thedocuments are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows thatparty proposing to prove them shows that he ishe is entitled to give secondary evidence of theentitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such documentcontents of such document under the rulesunder the rules herein after contained, or unless the geniuses ofherein after contained, or unless the geniuses of a document produced is in questiona document produced is in question
  124. 124. AdmissionAdmission  A executed a deed of mortgage in favour of B.A executed a deed of mortgage in favour of B. B files a suit for possession of the propertyB files a suit for possession of the property mortgaged on the basis of that mortgage.mortgaged on the basis of that mortgage. During the trial A denied the execution of theDuring the trial A denied the execution of the mortgage. Now in this case B cannot prove bymortgage. Now in this case B cannot prove by oral evidence that he had before some personsoral evidence that he had before some persons admitted that he had mortgaged the property toadmitted that he had mortgaged the property to him. B can prove the execution of the mortgagehim. B can prove the execution of the mortgage and can get possession of the property onlyand can get possession of the property only when he files that deed of mortgage in the courtwhen he files that deed of mortgage in the court and proves it.and proves it.
  125. 125. AdmissionAdmission  Sec.Sec. 22A. When oral admission as to contents22A. When oral admission as to contents of electronic records are relevantof electronic records are relevant  Oral admissions as to the contents of electronicOral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuinenessrecords are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.of the electronic record produced is in question.
  126. 126. AdmissionAdmission  Sec.Sec. 23. Admission in civil cases relevant23. Admission in civil cases relevant  In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is madeIn civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it iseither upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which thenot to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together thatCourt can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should both be given.evidence of it should both be given.  Explanation – Nothing in this section shall be taken toExplanation – Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil fromexempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may begiving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under section 126.compelled to give evidence under section 126.  Party in compromise and peace.Party in compromise and peace.
  127. 127. AdmissionAdmission  Shiv Ram v. Sh CharnShiv Ram v. Sh Charn AIR 1963 Raj.126.AIR 1963 Raj.126.  An admission must be used either as a whole orAn admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. An admission made by a personnot at all. An admission made by a person cannot be split up and part of it used againstcannot be split up and part of it used against him. It must be accepted as whole. But if there ishim. It must be accepted as whole. But if there is other evidence which disproves a part ofother evidence which disproves a part of admission, the other part may be relied upon.admission, the other part may be relied upon.
  128. 128. ConfessionConfession  The word confession has not been defined inThe word confession has not been defined in the Indian Evidence Act.the Indian Evidence Act.  Mr.Justice Stephen quoted that : Confession isMr.Justice Stephen quoted that : Confession is an admission made at any time by a personan admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting thecharged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.inference that he committed that crime.  Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer,NarcoticFrancis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer,Narcotic Control Bureau,ThirivanathapuramControl Bureau,Thirivanathapuram,AIR 2007,AIR 2007 SC 794 at p.796.SC 794 at p.796.  A confession which is voluntary and free fromA confession which is voluntary and free from any pressure can be accepted.any pressure can be accepted.
  129. 129. Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias AbuMohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565  The question was whether the appellant whoThe question was whether the appellant who was a pakistani national and was caught alive inwas a pakistani national and was caught alive in Bombay Terror attack and was charged withBombay Terror attack and was charged with serious crimes including collecting arms with theserious crimes including collecting arms with the intention of waging war against Government ofintention of waging war against Government of India,commission of terrorists act,criminalIndia,commission of terrorists act,criminal conspiracy to commit murder,robbery/dacoityconspiracy to commit murder,robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurtwith an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt and causing explosions punishable under theand causing explosions punishable under the Explosives Substances Act,1908 had made theExplosives Substances Act,1908 had made the
  130. 130. Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias AbuMohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565  He replied that thought of making confessionHe replied that thought of making confession came to him when he was arrested by police. Hecame to him when he was arrested by police. He then added that he had absolutely no regret ofthen added that he had absolutely no regret of whatever he had done.whatever he had done.  He said that he wanted to set an example toHe said that he wanted to set an example to others to follow-others to follow-  He was a hero in his own eyesHe was a hero in his own eyes and theand the confession statement made by him wasconfession statement made by him was voluntary and truthful.voluntary and truthful.

×