Evidence

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

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

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

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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

 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.

 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.

 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 ““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.

 ““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

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.

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

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

 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.

 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

DNA TestDNA Test
 DivorceDivorce
 AdulteryAdultery
 Property DisputeProperty Dispute
 High Court has an inherent power .High Court has an inherent power .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 (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.

 (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.

 (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.

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.

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

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.

 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

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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

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

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.

 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.

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

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.

 (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.

 (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.

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.

 (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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Evidence

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Evidence

Similar to Evidence (20)

More from VIT LAW SCHOOL,CHENNAI

More from VIT LAW SCHOOL,CHENNAI (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Evidence