The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a comprehensive legislation that governs the rules and principles regarding the admissibility, relevancy, and proof of evidence in Indian courts. It primarily deals with the procedural aspects of how evidence is to be presented, evaluated, and used in court proceedings.
Historical Background of IEA
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has a rich historical background. It was enacted during the British colonial rule in India and has its roots in English common law.
Colonial Influence
- The Indian Evidence Act was enacted on 1st September 1872 during British colonial rule. It was one of the several legal reforms introduced to streamline the administration of justice in India.
- The Act drew heavily from the English common law, principles of justice, and legal systems prevalent in the British Empire.
Lord Macaulay’s Role
- Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, a British historian, and politician, played a significant role in the drafting of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Lord Macaulay was part of the First Law Commission, which was tasked with codifying laws in India to replace the existing system based on various religious and customary laws.
Codification of Law
- The Indian Evidence Act was part of a larger effort to codify laws in India, making them consistent and accessible.
- Before the enactment of the Act, there was no unified law governing evidence in India. Different regions and communities followed various customs and traditions in matters of evidence and procedure.
Objective
- The primary objective of the Act was to provide a uniform set of rules and procedures for the admission and evaluation of evidence in Indian courts. This aimed to ensure consistency and fairness in legal proceedings.
Adaptation and Amendments
- Over the years, the Act has undergone several amendments to keep it in tune with the changing legal landscape and societal needs. These amendments have sought to address emerging legal issues and improve the administration of justice in India.
Relevance Today
- The Indian Evidence Act remains a fundamental piece of legislation in India’s legal framework. It provides a robust structure for the presentation and evaluation of evidence in both civil and criminal cases.
- Despite its colonial origins, the Act has stood the test of time and is still widely applicable in Indian courts, with various amendments and judicial interpretations.
Procedural Aspect:
The Indian Evidence Act is primarily a procedural law that lays down the rules and procedures to be followed in presenting and proving facts before a court. It defines what constitutes evidence, how it should be presented, and what can be admitted in court.
Application:
The Act applies to all judicial proceedings in India, whether civil or criminal, and to all forums, including courts, tribunals, and arbitrations.
What is an Evidence:
The Act defines evidence as “all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it.” Evidence can be oral, documentary, or circumstantial, and it’s presented to prove or disprove a fact in issue.
Types of Evidence
a. Oral Evidence: Statements made by witnesses in court orally, either in examination-in-chief or during cross-examination.
b. Documentary Evidence: Written or printed documents, including deeds, contracts, letters, and other written records.
c. Real Evidence: Tangible objects or things produced in court to prove a fact, such as a weapon in a criminal case.
d. Hearsay Evidence: Statements made by a person who is not a witness in the case, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible except in specific circumstances.
e. Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that does not directly prove a fact but provides indirect proof through inference.
Difference Between Evidences:
Direct vs. Indirect Evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact, while indirect evidence relies on inferences and circumstances to establish a fact.
Oral vs. Documentary Evidence:
Oral evidence is presented through spoken words, whereas documentary evidence is in written or printed form.
Primary vs. Secondary Evidence:
Primary evidence is the best evidence available, while secondary evidence is a substitute for primary evidence when the latter cannot be produced.
Admissible vs. Inadmissible Evidence:
Admissible evidence is evidence that conforms to the rules and is allowed in court, while inadmissible evidence is excluded due to various legal restrictions.
Hearsay vs. Non-Hearsay Evidence:
Hearsay evidence is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, while non-hearsay evidence includes direct statements by a witness in court.
Presumption and Burden of Proof
- The Act specifies rules for the burden of proof. It presumes that every person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty (Section 101).
- It also lays down rules for shifting the burden of proof. For instance, in cases of dowry death or cruelty to women, the burden of proof shifts to the accused (Section 113B).
Relevancy and Admissibility
- The Act provides a detailed framework for determining the relevancy of evidence. Evidence that is not relevant to the facts in issue is generally inadmissible (Sections 5-55).
- Relevancy is determined based on various criteria such as the fact in issue, the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction, and character evidence.
Oral Evidence
- The Act regulates the examination of witnesses. It specifies the sequence in which questions can be asked, rules for leading and cross-examining witnesses, and the use of leading questions (Sections 135-166).
Documentary Evidence
- The Act contains detailed provisions about the admissibility and proof of documents. It distinguishes between primary and secondary evidence and sets the rules for proving the contents of documents (Sections 61-90).
Opinion and Expert Evidence
- The Act provides guidelines for the admissibility of expert opinions. Expert witnesses can provide opinions on matters within their expertise (Section 45).
Character Evidence
- Character evidence is governed by the Act, and it restricts the use of such evidence in criminal cases. Generally, evidence of a person’s good or bad character is not admissible except under specific circumstances (Sections 52-55).
Hearsay Evidence
- The Act restricts the admissibility of hearsay evidence, though there are exceptions. Hearsay evidence is generally considered weak and unreliable (Sections 60, 66).
Estoppel
- The concept of estoppel is recognized in the Act. Estoppel prevents a person from denying the truth of any fact that they have expressly admitted, and this is binding on them (Sections 115-117).
Privileged Communications
- The Act recognizes certain communications as privileged and not subject to disclosure in court. For example, communications between spouses are generally privileged (Sections 122-126).
Confessions and Statements
- The Act defines what constitutes an admissible confession and outlines the circumstances under which a confession may be considered valid (Sections 24-30).
Expert Witnesses
- The Act allows for the examination of expert witnesses, who can provide opinions on relevant matters within their field of expertise.
Previous Statements
- The Act allows for the use of previous statements made by a witness to impeach their credibility or to refresh their memory (Sections 145-157).
Kinds of Presumption
In the context of the Indian Evidence Act and generally in the field of law, there are two primary kinds of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (conclusive) presumptions. Let’s explore the meanings of these presumptions:
Rebuttable Presumptions
- Meaning: A rebuttable presumption is an assumption made by the court or the law that a certain fact is true unless proven otherwise by evidence to the contrary. In other words, if a fact is presumed under a rebuttable presumption, it is accepted as true unless the opposing party provides evidence that disproves or rebuts that presumption.
- Example: In Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, there are several situations where the court “may presume” certain facts. For instance, it may presume that a person who is absent for a considerable period and not heard of for seven years is presumed to be dead. However, this presumption can be rebutted if evidence is presented to prove that the person is alive.
- Rebuttal: In the case of rebuttable presumptions, the burden of proof may shift. Initially, the burden to establish the fact rests with the party benefiting from the presumption. However, once the presumption is challenged, the burden shifts to the opposing party to disprove it.
Irrebuttable (Conclusive) Presumptions:
- Meaning: An irrebuttable presumption, also known as a conclusive presumption, is an assumption made by the law that a certain fact is regarded as true, and no evidence to the contrary can challenge or rebut it. These presumptions are considered conclusive and binding, and no evidence can be presented to dispute them.
- Example: In Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is stated that if a child is born during the continuance of a valid marriage, the law conclusively presumes the legitimacy of the child. This presumption is not open to challenge or rebuttal by any evidence to the contrary.
- Binding Nature: Irrebuttable presumptions are essentially treated as final and conclusive truths, and they are not subject to any form of evidence that contradicts them.
May Presume, Shall Presume & Conclusive Proof under section 4 of Indian Evidence Act
| Term | Provision | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| May Presume | Section 114 | The court has discretion to presume certain facts if it deems it reasonable to do so based on common knowledge or experience. However, it is not bound to make these presumptions. |
| Shall Presume | Section 88 and 89 | The court is obligated to presume the existence of certain facts under specific circumstances defined by the Act. For example, under Section 88, the court shall presume the execution of a foreign document in accordance with foreign law. |
| Conclusive Proof | Section 112 and 114B (added later) | The facts stated under these sections are considered irrefutable and are conclusive proof of those facts. For example, in Section 112, birth during a valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy, and in Section 114B, it is conclusive proof that the accused has committed a crime in certain cases. |
Fact, Fact in Issue & Relevant Fact u/s 3 IEA
| Term | Provision | Meaning | Case Laws (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fact | Section 3 | Any event, occurrence, or thing that can be perceived by the senses, or inferred from other facts. | (General definition). |
| Fact in Issue | Section 3 and Section 9 | The fact or facts that are subject to determination in a case and that the court needs to decide upon. | – Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King Emperor: This case clarified the distinction between “fact in issue” and “relevant fact.” The court held that “fact in issue” means a fact that is directly and substantially in issue in a case. |
| Relevant Fact | Section 3 and Section 5 | A fact that makes the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue more or less probable. Relevant facts are admissible in court. | – Raja Ram Jaiswal vs. Gopi Mohan: In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of relevant facts and held that they must be established by evidence. |
