introduction, definition and concept of the evidence act

1. INTRODUCTION, DEFINITIONS
AND CONCEPTS
DR. SUMBUL FATIMA

2. BRIEF HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF EVIDENCE IN
INDIA

3. • The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the Latin term
‘evidere’ which means ‘to show clearly, to discover, to
ascertain or to prove’.
• The Indian Evidence Act,1872 was basically established on
the efforts and work of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen.
• Sir James Fitzjames Stephen is also referred to as the
founding father of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The enactment was initially passed by the then existing
Parliament of Britain in the year 1872.

4. INTRODUCTION
• The term “law” is used in different senses. In the plain sense, it means any rule,
regulation or canon, a dogma or a norm to which the human actions are required to
conform. The entire corpus juris (body of laws) is broadly classified into two
categories:
• Substantive laws, and,
• Adjective laws.
• The law of evidence doesn’t come under the purview of substantive or procedural law,
but under ‘adjective law’, which defines the pleading and procedure via which
substantive laws are brought into practice. It is the machinery by which substantive
laws are set and kept in motion. So it can be said that the law of evidence deals with
rights, as well as, procedures.

5. • Law is classified into Substantive Law and Procedural or Adjective
Law.
• Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed., West 1999) defines Substantive
laws as they are “the part of the law that creates, defines, and
regulates the rights, duties, and powers of parties.”
• Whereas procedural laws are the “rules” that govern litigation—the
rules the parties must follow as they bring their case and the rules for
the courts’ administration.

6. • The fundamentals of justice necessitate that the truth and
impartiality must be the quintessence of justice.
• Hence the evidence and witnesses have been a key player in the
pursuit of justice delivery.
• Thus the object of every judicial investigation is the enforcement
of a right or liability that depends on certain facts.
• The law of evidence can be called the system of rules whereby the
questions of fact in a particular case can be ascertained.

7. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872:
• In order to understand the development of the Law of Evidence in
the Indian Justice System we have to trace the history referring to
three different periods, namely:
• Ancient Hindu Period
• Muslim Rule
• British Rule

8. ANCIENT HINDU PERIOD
• The law of evidence in the Ancient Hindu Period can be traced from the Hindu
Dharma Shastras.
• According to Hindu Dharma Shastras, the purpose of any trial is the desire to find
out the truth. It emphasized that an appointed authority or a judge should find out
the truth by utilizing his expertise and is ought to remove the double-dealing like
a doctor taking out from the body an iron dart with the assistance of the careful
instruments.
• In order to discover the truth from the contradictory claims made by two parties in
a case, the Hindu lawgiver took every possible precaution.
• Dharma Shastras recognize three kinds of evidence:
• a) Lekhya (Document)
• b) Sakshi (Witnesses)
• c) Bukhthi (Possession).

9. MUSLIM PERIOD
• The Muhammadan law-givers deal with evidence under the heads
of oral and documentary, the former being subdivided into direct
and hearsay.
• There was a further classification of evidence in the following order
of merit, viz., full corroboration, the testimony of a single individual,
and admission including confession.
• In Muslim jurisprudence, oral evidence appears to have been
preferred to documentary. When documents were produced, courts
insisted upon examining the party which produced them.

10. BRITISH PERIOD
• Before the introduction of the Indian Evidence Act, there was no systematic
enactment on this subject.
• The English rules of evidence were always followed in the courts established by
the royal charter in the presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay.
• Before Independence, there were upwards of 600 princely states in India, which
were not inside the locale of the British arrangement of equity. Every one of
these States had its own principles of the Law of Evidence. Outside the
presidency towns, there were no fixed rules of evidence.
• The law was vague and indefinite and had no greater authority than the use of
custom. There was a desperate need for the codification of the principles of law.

11. • During the period of 1835 to 1853 A.D., a series of Acts were
passed by the Indian legislature introducing some reforms of
these Acts which superficially dealt with the law relating to the
witness. In the year 1868, a Commission was set up under the
chairmanship of Sir Henry Mayne.
• He presented the draft, which was later discovered inadmissible
to Indian conditions. In the year 1870, Sir James Stephen
prepared a new bill which was passed by the parliament in 1872
which codified consolidated the rules relating to admissibility of
fact competency of witnesses, examination, and cross-
examination of the witness.
• “The Evidence Act” came into force on first September 1872.

12. OBJECT BEHIND THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
Rules of evidence are designed to :-
• assist the courts in the establishment of the truth,
• to prevent long-term investigations,
• and to prevent confusion in the mind of judges resulting in the excess
admittance of evidence.
One must realize that if all circumstances that could tend to shed light on
the matter in question are allowed to happen, proceedings will be long-
lasting and intolerable.

13. • Therefore, the main purpose of the law of proof is to limit the investigation
by courts to the limits prescribed by public convenience.
• The fact that every circumstance, on either side, has a remote and
conjectural proof power, the precise quantity of which could only be
ascertained through a lengthy study and a determination of collateral issues,
would now nullify this objective entirely.
• Therefore evidence is to be rejected which tends to distract the courts’
attention and waste their time.

14. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE LAW
In a case, the court typically deals with three matters−
• first, determining whether or not a specific event actually occurred;
• second, applying the procedural law in the case of the specified event; and
• third, determining the parties' rights and obligations by applying the fundamental
law to the relevant matter.
The "key" that a court requires to make a decision is evidence. There can be no
proof if there is no evidence. Information is presented to the court through
evidence. A certain account of the events must be accepted by the court in order to
establish facts through the presenting of evidence. Of course, one can pursue the
truth even if it violates the parties' constitutional rights.


15. Evidence gathered illegally, however, could not support the upholding of justice in
the future. Therefore, in order to accomplish quick, equitable, and cost−effective
justice, the proof process should be governed by evidentiary norms and standards.
The law of evidence therefore means legal means, exclusive of mere arguments,
which tend to prove or disapprove any matter of fact the truth of which is submitted
to judicial investigation. The law of evidence covers aspects on −
• Who should adduce evidence before the court?
• How to obtain such evidence?
• Procedures of adducing evidence
• Admissibility & Evaluation of evidence
• Application of the evidence to render final verdict

16. • The law of evidence governs the laws pertaining to the process of proof
in court proceedings on a number of different levels, in addition to being
a fundamental principle guiding the process of proof.
• While its moral component is a unique benefit in criminal cases as it
works to defend the innocent and expose the wicked to deliver full and
impartial justice.
• On the other hand, in order to safeguard the general public's interest, the
evidence rules also have the power to conceal and stop the truth from
being made public.

17. SIGNIFICANCE OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
• The goal of the rules of evidence is to aid the courts in discovering the truth and prevent
judges' minds from becoming clouded by the improper admission of evidence.
• The Lex fori (It should be noted that evidence is governed by lex fori, i.e., the
forum law or the court of law where the case is brought before the Court), which
governs the courts, is the law of evidence. Information is presented to the court through
evidence. A certain version of the events must be acknowledged by the court in order to
establish facts through the production of evidence.
• The law of evidence serves a variety of objectives in both criminal and civil trials. In a
nutshell, the law of evidence controls the concrete evidence process.
• Anything that demonstrates the truth or falsity of an alleged fact is considered
"evidence." Evidence is anything that helps the court see the issue clearly. Any item that
tends to convince the court of the veracity or likelihood of a fact alleged before it is
considered evidence.

18. The law of evidence is the body of legal rules developed and enacted to
govern −
• Facts that may be considered in court? This is the issue of relevant
evidence that one should adduce before the court to support his allegation.
• Facts in issue
• Facts relevant to facts in issue.
The methods of securing consideration of these facts.
• By proof.
• Real (e.g. documentary, exhibits) evidence.
• Oral evidence

19. WHETHER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IS EXHAUSTIVE
OR NOT?
• The Indian Evidence Act is not exhaustive, in the sense that it does not claim
to contain all of the rules of evidence.
• The courts can look to relevant English common law for interpretation of the
Act’s sections.
• The court, however, may not apply any principle of English law relating to
evidence that is inconsistent with the provisions of the act.

20. IF THE EVIDENCE RULES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
CASES ARE THE SAME?
• The Act governs all judicial proceedings, whether civil or criminal. In
general, whether the proceedings are civil or criminal, the rules of
evidence are the same.
• Certain provisions of the act, however, (for example, the doctrine of
estoppel) apply only in civil proceedings. Similarly, some provisions of
the act (for example, those relating to confession) would apply only in
criminal proceedings.