This document discusses exceptions to the rule against hearsay evidence in Indian evidence law. It defines evidence and oral evidence, and notes that all facts can be proved by oral evidence except the contents of documents. It explains the requirements for oral evidence to be direct, and exceptions to the rule against hearsay such as res gestae, admissions, and prior testimony. The document contrasts the characteristics of direct versus hearsay evidence. Finally, it acknowledges that while oral evidence is less satisfactory than documents, justice requires its use, and courts must evaluate the credibility of oral evidence.

1. Its exceptions
SUBMITTED BY:
Anamika Bishnoi
4thYear B.A.LL.B.

2.  Section 3 of Indian evidence act
“evidence” means and includes-
(1)All statements which the court
permits or requires to be made
before it by witnesses, in relation
to Matters of fact under inquiry;
such statements are called oral
evidence;
(2)All documents including
electronic records produce for

3.  Proof of facts by oral evidence:
All facts except the contents of
documents or electronic, may be proved
by oral evidence.
 Signs and gestures included
 Electronic records excluded
 Dinomoyi debi v. roy luchmiput singh, (1879)
7 IA 8.
 Meer usd oalah v. mussumat beeby
imaman, (1836) 1 MIA 19, 42, 43.
 Queen-empress v. abdullah, (1885) 7 ALL 385
FB.
 Chandrasekara alias alisadiri v. the
king, (1937) AC 220: 39 Bom LR 359.

4.  Oral evidence must be direct- oral
evidence must, in all cases whatever, be
direct; that is to say-
If it refers to a fact which could be seen,
it must be the evidence of a witness who
says he saw it;
If it refers to fact which could be heard,
it must be the evidence of a witness who
says he heard it;

5. If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on
which that opinion is held, it must be the
evidence of the person who holds that opinion
on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts
expressed in any treatises commonly offered
for sale, and the grounds on which such
opinions are held, may be proved by the
production of such treatises if the author is
dead or cannot be found, or has become
incapable giving evidence, or cannot be
called as a witness without an amount of

6. Hearsay evidence

7.  Irresponsibility of original
declarant
 Depreciation of truth in the
process of repetition
 Opportunities for fraud
 Against the rule of best evidence

8.  Res gestae
 Admissions and confessions
 Statement under section 32
 Evidence given in former
proceedings

9. DIRECT EVIDENCE
 Given on basis of
one’s own perception
 It’s the best oral
evidence of the fact
 Witness liable for
veracity of
statement
 Witness can be cross
examined
HEARSAY EVIDENCE
 Not based on one’s
own perception
 It is secondary
 No responsibility of
witness
 Witness cant be cross
examined

10.  no doubt oral evidence is much less
satisfactory medium of proof when
compare to the documentary
proof, however justice can never
be administered in the most
important cases without resorting
it. Even though oral evidence is
often considered unreliable and
concocted, it cannot be rejected
outright unless the circumstances
are found to exist for the purpose

11. The correct rule is to judge the oral
evidence with reference to the
conduct of the parties, and
presumptions and probabilities
legitimately arising in the case.
However before relying on the oral
evidence it is incumbent upon the
court to examine the credibility of
such oral evidence both intrinsically
and extrinsically.

12. THANK YOU