Law of Evidence

What kind of facts may be proved?

• Section 6 to 16 of Indian Evidence Act state that facts which are
logically connected with the facts in issue, and which make the
existence or the non-existence of the facts in issue probable or
improbable, can be proved.
• For example – in a trial for murder, the fact that the accused had a
motive for committing the murder makes the inference of the murder
possible. Similarly, the fact that he purchases poison just before the
murder, when the death is suspected to have been caused by such
poison, makes his having committed the murder probable. Further,
the fact that after the victim drank the contents of the glass, the
accused cleaned the glass might make the inference of his having
committed the murder possible, as by this subsequent conduct, the
accused might have attempted to destroy the evidence. In the same
way, the fact that the accused had opportunities to offer a drink to the
victim just before the victim died may make the inference of the
accused having committed the murder possible, as it afforded an
• Thus, the gist of the contents of Section 6 to 16 is that whatever
a fact, either by itself or in connection with other facts, makes
the legal inference of the existence or the non-existence of the
fact in issue, such facts become relevant and may be proved.
But this rule of relevancy is determined by the second question
that the law of evidence has to answer.
What kind of proof is to be given of those
facts?
• The general principle is that the best evidence must be given in
all cases. But this maxim (as most maxims are) is a half true.
What is meant by best evidence is the evidence of facts which
have the maximum truth value. In a sense, this question is
answered mostly in a negative way by the evidence act.
Hearsay evidence cannot to given. The contents of a
documents cannot normally be proved by oral evidence, when
the law requires a transaction to be contained in a document.
This rule is contained in the statement that primary evidence
must be given, unless secondary evidence is permitted to be
given.
Who is to give that Proof?
• The third question deals with the burden of proof. There are certain facts
which need to be proved because the court takes notice of them. There are
certain facts which must be proved by one of the parties to the dispute.
• The party who has responsibility of proving a certain fact is said to have the
burden (onus) of proof on him.
• The law of evidence generally lays down that he who wants the court to
believe certain things must prove them. But this general rule is modified
by the law of presumptions. In certain cases, the law says that the court
may presume the existence of a particular state of affairs. In some other
cases, the law prescribes that the court must believe in the existence of
certain things, unless they are disproved. There are cases where the
evidence act lays down that a court shall presume a particular thing. There
are certain circumstances when the law will say that the court shall
presume a particular thing. There are certain circumstances when the law
will say that the court must believe in the existence of a thing and should
not allow any evidence to disprove such a thing. Thus, one thing may be
declared to be conclusive proof of another. In some other cases, the law
might also prevent a party from leading evidence contrary to his prior
statement or conduct, by applying the doctrine of estoppel.
How is that proof to be given?
• In this part of the law of evidence, questions relating to the
competency of the witnesses as also the method of examining
them and testing their veracity are discussed. Here, the rule is
that all persons who are capable of understanding the nature of
the questions put to them and who can answer those questions
can be witnesses. This general rule is, however qualified by
what is known as the rule of privileged communications. In
some circumstances, the law prescribes that one person shall
not give evidence of certain communication which he received
under particular circumstances. For example, a wife or a
husband cannot give evidence of the communication which he
or she received from the other party to the marriage during the
period of the marriage.
Relevant Facts
• “One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is
connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the
provision of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts”
• Facts logically connected with facts in issue
• Admissions and confessions
• Statements by non-witnesses
• Statement under special circumstances
• Judgement in other cases
• Opinions of third persons
• Evidence as to character
• The act does not define the term “relevant”. Rather, it simply
indicates when one fact becomes relevant to another. Normally, facts
relevant to an issue are those facts which are necessary for proof or
disproof of a fact in issue. Thus, relevant facts (or evidentiary facts)
or factum probans are those which have a certain degree of
probative force. Relevant facts are not themselves in issue but are
foundations of inference regarding them.
• For example, “When A is accused of the murder of B”, the ‘relevant
facts’ are- A had a motive and opportunity to Kill B, he had made
preparations by buying a knife etc. or after the murder he was seen
running with blood stained knife in hand.
• Relevancy implies relationship i.e. any two facts to which it is applied
are so related to each other that according to the common course of
events one takes by itself or in connection with other facts proves or
renders probable the existence of the other. Thus, circumstantial
evidence is evidence that related to facts, other than those in issue,
which by human experience have been found to be so associated
with the fact in issue that the latter may be reasonably inferred
therefrom. The word ‘relevant’ has been held to be admissible
(Lakshmi vs Haider, 3 CWN 268)
Different Kinds of Evidence
• According to Stephen, the word “Evidence” is used in three
senses:
1. Words uttered & things exhibited in court
2. Facts proved by those words or things which are regarded as
ground word of inference as to other facts not so proved
3. Relevancy of a particular fact to matter under inquiry
• Bentham defines evidence as “any matter of fact, the effect,
tendency or design of which when presented to the mind, is to
produce in the mind a persuasion concerning the existence of
some other matter of fact – a persuasion either affirmative or
disaffirmative of its existence”. Of the two facts so connected,
the latter may be distinguished as the principal fact and the
former as the evidentiary fact.
 • Taylor uses the word “evidence” to mean “all the legal means
exclusive of mere argument which tend to prove any fact the truth of
which is submitted to judicial investigation”.
• The fundamental rules of English Law of evidence are –
1. Evidence must be confined to the matters in issue
2. Hearsay evidence is not to be admitted
3. In all cases, the best evidence must be given
• The fundamental rules of Indian law of evidence is based on :
1. No facts other than those having rational probative value should be
admitted in evidence
2. All facts having probative value are admissible in evidence unless
excluded by a positive rule of paramount importance
Relevancy of Facts - Section 5
• Evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings of the
existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such
other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant and of no
others.
• Explanation : This section shall not enable any person to given
evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any
provision of the law for the time being in force relating to civil
procedure.
• What is evidence? In Ramnarayan vs State of Maharashtra (1964) 5
SCR 1064
• This word is used in common parlance in three different senses:
1. As equivalent to relevant
2. As equivalent to proof
3. As equivalent to the material on the basis of which courts come to
conclusion about the existence or non-existence of disputed facts