What is Oral Evidence
Oral evidence refers to the testimony or statements given by witnesses in a legal proceeding, such as a trial or hearing, through spoken or verbal communication. It is a form of evidence presented in court by individuals who provide their firsthand accounts, descriptions, or explanations of events, actions, or circumstances that are relevant to a legal case. Oral evidence is typically provided through spoken testimony and can include responses to questions posed by attorneys, judges, or other parties involved in the legal process.
Oral evidence may encompass various types of testimony and may be used to establish or refute facts, clarify issues, present witness observations, and provide context or explanations related to a case. This type of evidence is often subject to cross-examination and is an essential component of the fact-finding process in legal proceedings, both in civil and criminal cases.
However, it’s important to note that oral evidence must be relevant, credible, and consistent with the rules and procedures of the legal system in which it is presented. Additionally, it may be subject to various rules and regulations governing the admissibility and reliability of witness testimony in court.
Section 59/60 Indian Evidence Act
Sections 59 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deal with the admissibility of oral evidence and exceptions to the general rule regarding the exclusion of oral evidence when written documents exist.
Section 59 – Proof of Facts by Oral Evidence:
- Section 59 establishes the general principle that all facts, except contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence.
- It allows oral evidence to be presented to prove any fact that is not required by law to be proved by a document, written or printed.
Section 60 – Oral Evidence Must Give Way to Written Evidence:
- Section 60 outlines an exception to the general rule in Section 59. It states that oral evidence must yield to written evidence when a document has been executed in writing.
- When the terms of a contract, grant, will, or other document are reduced to writing and the parties intended that the writing should be the sole repository of the terms, then oral evidence cannot be used to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the written document.
In summary, Section 59 allows oral evidence to be used to prove any fact except the contents of documents, while Section 60 establishes the principle that when the terms of a document are reduced to writing and the document is intended to be the complete and final expression of those terms, oral evidence cannot be used to contradict or alter those terms. These sections help maintain the sanctity of written documents and contracts while allowing oral evidence to establish other facts not covered by documents.
Rule of Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence
The rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence is a fundamental principle in the law of evidence that generally prohibits the use of statements made by a person outside the courtroom as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement. Hearsay is typically excluded because it is considered less reliable than direct or firsthand evidence and can be subject to various issues such as lack of cross-examination and credibility concerns.
The key elements of the rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence are as follows:
- Out-of-Court Statement: Hearsay evidence involves a statement made by a person outside of the courtroom. This statement can be oral, written, or even non-verbal.
- Offered for the Truth of the Matter: Hearsay evidence is typically offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. In other words, it is used to establish the facts or claims contained in the out-of-court statement.
- General Exclusion: Hearsay evidence is generally excluded from consideration in court proceedings because it is considered unreliable. The concern is that the person who made the statement is not available for cross-examination, and there may be no way to assess the credibility of the statement.
It’s important to note that there are exceptions to the rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence. Various legal systems, including common law jurisdictions like the United States and the United Kingdom, recognize specific circumstances in which hearsay evidence may be admitted. These exceptions often require that the hearsay statement falls into a recognized category where reliability can be reasonably assured.
Common exceptions to the hearsay rule may include
- Dying Declarations: Statements made by a person who believes they are about to die and relates the cause or circumstances of their impending death.
- Spontaneous Statements: Statements made under the stress of a startling event and while the declarant’s attention is still focused on the event.
- Business Records: Records made in the ordinary course of business that are relied upon in the normal operation of the business.
- Prior Statements of Witnesses: Statements made by a witness that are inconsistent with their current testimony may be admitted to impeach the witness’s credibility.
- Statements against Interest: Statements made against a person’s own interest are considered more reliable and may be admitted.
Case laws
| Case Name | Jurisdiction | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Crawford v. Washington (2004) | United States | – Addressed the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and the admissibility of testimonial hearsay. – Ruled that testimonial hearsay statements without the opportunity for cross-examination are generally inadmissible. |
| R. v. Khan (1997) | United Kingdom | – Established the “res gestae” exception to the hearsay rule. – Explained that spontaneous statements made during or immediately after an event can be admissible. |
| State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (1973) | India | – Clarified the distinction between hearsay and information, allowing the admissibility of information received first hand from an accused. |
| Ohio v. Roberts (1980) | United States | – Created a two-part test for the admissibility of hearsay evidence. – Requires unavailability of the declarant and the statement falling within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or having “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” |
| R. v. Smith (2003) | United Kingdom | – Discussed the House of Lords’ approach to the doctrine of recent fabrication. – Addressed how out-of-court statements suggesting recent fabrication should be treated in the context of hearsay. |
| Crawford v. The Queen (2005) | Australia | – Explored principles related to hearsay evidence and the importance of ensuring reliability and adherence to exceptions and conditions for admissibility. |
Difference between Direct & Hearsay Evidence
| Aspect | Direct Evidence | Hearsay Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Provides firsthand or direct observations or perceptions of an event or fact. | Offers secondhand or indirect information about an event or fact, typically conveyed by someone who was not a direct witness to the event. |
| Source | Comes directly from a person who personally witnessed or experienced the event. | Comes from a person who is reporting what another person told them about the event. |
| Reliability | Generally considered more reliable and trustworthy because it is based on personal experience and firsthand knowledge. | Typically considered less reliable because it is based on the statements of others, and the original declarant is usually not subject to cross-examination. |
| Admissibility | Admissible without a hearsay exception. | Generally inadmissible, subject to exceptions. |
| Examples | Testimony of an eyewitness to a crime. | Testimony reporting what a third party said about the crime. |
| Legal Treatment | Preferred and often given greater weight in legal proceedings. | Subject to strict rules and exceptions regarding its admissibility. |
| Cross-Examination | The witness can be cross-examined by the opposing party to challenge or clarify the evidence. | The original declarant (the person who made the out-of-court statement) is typically unavailable for cross-examination. |
| Key Consideration | Offers a direct account of events, making it central to the fact-finding process in court. | Requires careful scrutiny to determine its admissibility and reliability, and exceptions may apply. |
