Law of Evidence: An Overview On Different kinds of Evidence and Witnesses under the Indian Evidence Act

“Evidence in its broadest sense incorporates all that is utilized to decide or exhibit the reality of a statement. Giving or obtaining evidence is the way toward utilizing those things that are either (a) ventured to be valid, or (b) which were demonstrated by the evidence, to exhibit an affirmation’s reality. Evidence is the cash by which one satisfies the weight of proof.”

Different Kinds of Evidence

In law, the creation and introduction of Evidence rely first upon building upon whom the weight of confirmation lays. The allowable proof is what a court gets and considers for the reasons for choosing a specific case. Two essential weight of-verification contemplations exist in law. The first is on whom the weight rests. In many, particularly Western, courts, the weight of evidence is put on the indictment. The subsequent thought is the level of certitude verification must reach, contingent upon both the amount and nature of Evidence. These degrees are distinctive for criminal and common cases, the previous requiring proof past sensible, the last considering just which side has the dominance of Evidence, or whether the suggestion is almost certainly valid or bogus. The chief, frequently a jury, yet now and then an adjudicator, choose whether the weight of confirmation has been satisfied. In the wake of concluding who will worry about the concern of verification, Evidence is first assembled and afterwards introduced under the steady gaze of the court.

Evidence

The word ‘Evidence’ has been gotten from the Latin word ‘evidere’ which infers to show particularly, to clarify to view or sight, to find unmistakably, to verify, to sure, to learn, to demonstrate. As indicated by Sir Blackstone, ‘Evidence’ means what illustrates, clarifies or learn the reality of current realities or focuses in issue either on one side or the other.

As per Sir Taylor, Law of Evidence implies through contention to demonstrate or discredit any self evident actuality. The reality of which is submitted to legal examination.

Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, defines evidence in the following words-

Evidence means and includes-

1. All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence;
2. All the documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called documentary evidence;

The definition of Evidence given in this Act is very narrow because in this evidence comes before the court by two means only-

• The statement of witnesses.
• Documents including electronic records.

Different Forms of Evidence

1. Oral Evidence – Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 endorsed the arrangement of recording oral evidence. Every one of those explanations which the court allows or anticipates that the observers should make in his essence with respect to the reality of the realities are called Oral Evidence. Oral Evidence is that evidence which the observer has by and by observed or heard. Oral evidence should consistently be immediate or positive. Evidence is immediate when it goes directly to set up the primary truth in issue.
2. Documentary Evidence – Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act says that every one of those archives which are introduced in the court for examination such records are called narrative evidences.In a case like this it is the narrative evidence that would show the genuine disposition of the gatherings and their cognizance with respect to the custom is a higher priority than any oral evidence.
3. Primary Evidence – Section 62 of The Indian Evidence Act says Primary Evidence is the Top-Most class of evidence. It is that proof which in any conceivable condition gives the crucial clue in a contested truth and builds up through narrative evidence on the creation of a unique record for assessment by the court. It implies the report itself created for the assessment of the court. In Lucas v. Williams Privy Council held “Essential Evidence will be evidence which the law needs to be given first and optional evidence is the evidence which might be given without that better evidence when an appropriate clarification of its nonappearance has been given.”
4. Secondary Evidence – Section 63 says Secondary Evidence is the substandard evidence. It is evidence that possesses an auxiliary position. It is such evidence that on the introduction of which it is felt that better evidence yet stays than be created. It is the evidence which is created without the essential evidence hence it is known as optional evidence. In the event that instead of essential evidence optional evidence is conceded with no protest at the correct time then the gatherings are blocked from bringing up the issue that the report has not been demonstrated by essential evidence however by auxiliary evidence. Yet, where there is no auxiliary evidence as considered by Section 66 of the Evidence Act then the record can’t be said to have been demonstrated either by essential evidence or by optional evidence.”
5. Real Evidence – RReal Evidence implies genuine or material evidence. Genuine evidence of a reality is brought to the information on the court by assessment of a physical article and not by data got from an observer or a record. Individual evidence is what is managed by human operators, either in method of exposure or by intentional sign. For instance, Contempt Of Court, Conduct of the observer, conduct of the gatherings, the nearby examination by the court. It can likewise be called as the most agreeable observer.
6. Hearsay Evidence – Hearsay Evidence is powerless evidence. It is just the announced evidence of an observer which he has not seen either heard. At some point it suggests the adage of something which an individual has heard others state. In Lim Yam Yong v. Lam Choon and Co. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court declared “Prattle Evidence which should have been dismissed as immaterial doesn’t get allowable as against a gathering only on the grounds that his committee neglects to take protest when the evidence is offered.” So at long last we can affirm that Hearsay Evidence is that evidence which the observer has neither by and by observed or heard, nor has he seen through his faculties and has come to think about it through some third individual. There is no bar to get gossip evidence gave it has sensible nexus and credibility.When a bit of evidence is with the end goal that there is no at first sight confirmation of its validity, it would be generally risky to follow up on it. Gossip evidence being evidence of that type has consequently, to be avoided whether the situation where its utilization comes in for question is represented by the Evidence Act.
7. Judicial Evidence – Evidence got by official courtroom in proof or disproof of realities before them is called legal evidence. The admission made by the denounced in the court is likewise remembered for legal evidence. Articulations of witnesses and narrative evidence and realities for the assessment by the court are additionally Judicial Evidence.
8. Non-Judicial Evidence – Any admission made by the blamed external the court within the sight of any individual or the affirmation of a gathering are called Non-Judicial Evidence, whenever demonstrated in the court as Judicial Evidence.
9. Direct Evidence – Evidence is either immediate or circuitous. Direct Evidence is that evidence which is significant for the choice of the issue in issue. The primary certainty when it is introduced by witnesses, things and witnesses is immediate, evidence whereby principle realities might be demonstrated or set up that is the evidence of individual who had really observed the wrongdoing being submitted and has depicted the offense. We need scarcely bring up that in the representation given by us, the evidence of the observer in Court is immediate evidence rather than declaration to a reality proposing blame. The announcement before the police just is called incidental evidence of, complicity and not immediate evidence in the severe sense.
10. Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Evidence – There is no contrast between conditional evidence and circuitous evidence. Fortuitous Evidence endeavors to demonstrate current realities in issue by giving different realities and bears an example concerning its reality. It is what identifies with a progression of different realities than the reality in issue yet by experience have been found so connected with the reality in issue in connection of circumstances and logical results that it prompts an agreeable end.

In Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, The Hon’ble Supreme Court Observed, “In managing fortuitous evidence there is consistently the threat that doubt may replace legitimate proof. It is well to recall that in situations where the evidence is of an incidental sort the conditions from which the finish of blame is to be drawn ought to in the main occurrence, be completely settled and the real factors so settled ought to be steady just with the theory of the blame of the charged. At the end of the day, there can be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any sensible ground for an end predictable with the guiltlessness of the blamed and it must be, for example, to show that inside all human likelihood the demonstration probably been finished by the charged.”

In the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held-

1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.
2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of accused.
3. The circumstances, taken cumulatively should from a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
4. The Circumstantial Evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

Direct Evidence V. Circumstantial Evidence

The questions that which evidence is predominant is going from quite a while, regarding this matters law specialists vary in their perspectives. A few legal advisers hold that immediate evidence is unrivaled evidence. At the point when a specific says that he had seen a specific occasion happening then without a doubt his evidence is predominant, however in any event, depending on direct evidence on the double is likewise dangerous on the grounds that an observer can offer a totally bogus expression. In similar way on account of fortuitous evidence conditions are likewise demonstrated by witnesses. Especially the way where the court draws deductions from conditions they can not be right and furthermore and in this way conditions additionally become bogus.

On account of Kallu v. Province Of Uttar Pradesh, the blamed was pursued for the homicide for the perished by shooting him with a nation made gun. A cartridge was found close to the bed of the perished. The blamed was captured a good ways off for 14 miles from the town which was the spot of event. He created a gun from his home which demonstrated that he might have alone have known about its reality there. The guns master demonstrated that it was a similar gun from which the fired was discharged and expired was slaughtered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while sentencing the charged held “Fortuitous Evidence has set up that the demise of the perished was brought about by the blamed and nobody else.”

Direct Evidence V. Circumstantial Evidence

The witness can be divided mainly into two categories-

Eye Witness

Circumstantial Witness

Witness can be further divided into following kinds-

1. Prosecution Witness – Prosecution is the organization or beginning of criminal continuing and the way toward showing formal charges against an offender before a legitimate court and seeking after them to definite judgment in the interest of the state or government by arraignment or data. An indictment exists until ended in the last judgment of the court to compose the sentence, release or absolution, an observer which shows up for the arraignment side is known as a Prosecution Witness.
2. Defense Witness – Defense side in a criminal continuing is restricting or refusal of reality or legitimacy of the examiner’s objection, the procedures by a litigant or blamed gathering or his lawful specialists for safeguarding himself. An observer brought on the solicitation of the shielding party is known as a Defense Witness.
3. Expert Witness – A ‘specialist’ isn’t a ‘witness’ of reality. His evidence is truly of a warning character. The obligation of a ‘specialist witness’ is to outfit the appointed authority with the essential logical models for testing the precision of the end in order to empower the adjudicator to shape his free judgment by the utilization of this standards to the realities demonstrated by the evidence of the case. The logical supposition evidence, if coherent, persuading and tried turns into a factor and alongside the other evidence of the case. The believability of such an observer relies upon the reasons expressed on the side of his decisions and the information outfitted which structure the premise of his decisions.
4. Eye Witness – An Witness who offers declaration to realities seen by him is called an onlooker, an observer is an individual who saw the demonstration, actuality or exchange to which he affirms. An observer must be equipped (lawfully fit) and qualified to affirm in court. An observer who was inebriated or crazy at the time the occasion happened will be kept from affirming, whether or not the person was the main onlooker to the event. Recognizable proof of a denounced in Court by an ‘Observer’s is a genuine issue and the odds of a bogus ID are exceptionally high. Where a case holds tight the evidence of a solitary onlooker it might be sufficient to continue the conviction given authentic declaration of an able, genuine man in spite of the fact that generally speaking of judiciousness courts call for validation. “It is a saying to state that witnesses must be gauged and not checked since quality issues more than amount in human undertakings.”

“In fact, a conviction can be founded on the declaration of a solitary onlooker and there is no standard of law or evidence which says to the opposite gave the sole observer finishes the assessment of unwavering quality. Inasmuch as the single onlooker is an entirely dependable observer the courts have no trouble in putting together conviction with respect to his declaration alone. Notwithstanding, where the single onlooker isn’t discovered to be a completely solid observer, as in there are a few conditions which may show that he could have an enthusiasm for the arraignment, at that point the courts by and large demand some free certification of his declaration, in material specifics, before recording a conviction. It is just when the courts find that the single observer is an entirely inconsistent observer that his declaration is disposed of in all and no measure of authentication can fix that deformity.”

On a synopsis of these choices, it unmistakably comes out that there has been no takeoff from the standards set down in Vadivelu Thevar case and, in this manner, the conviction can be recorded based on the announcement of a solitary observer gave his believability isn’t shaken by any antagonistic condition showing up on the record against him and the court, simultaneously, is persuaded that he is an honest observer. The court won’t then demand authentication by some other onlooker especially as the episode would have happened at a time or place when there was no chance of some other observer being available. In reality, the courts demand the quality, and, not on the amount of evidence.”

The observer who offers expressions unfavorable to the gathering calling and looking at him and who may with the authorization of the court, be questioned by that party. Presently the facts demonstrate that in Coles v. Coles, and it might be in different cases, an antagonistic observer has been depicted as an observer who from the way in which he gives his evidence shows that he isn’t burning of coming clean to the Court. This is certifiably not an excellent – meaning of an antagonistic observer and the Indian Evidence Act is generally cautious in Section 154 not to confine the privilege of ‘questioning’ even by investing in the word ‘threatening’.

This Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Province of Haryana [AIR 1976 SC 202] held that just on the grounds that the Court allowed to the Public Prosecutor to interview his own observer depicting him as antagonistic observer doesn’t totally destroy his evidence. The evidence stays permissible in the preliminary and there is no lawful bar to put together conviction with respect to the declaration of such observer. In State of U.P. v, Ramesh Prasad Misra (2 supra) the Supreme Court held that the evidence of a threatening observer would not be completely dismissed whenever supported the indictment or blamed, however it tends to be exposed to examination and that segment of the evidence which is steady with the situation of the arraignment or guard might be accepted.In Balu Sonba Shinde v. Territory of Maharashtra 2003 SCC (Crl.) 112 the Supreme Court held that the announcement of an observer to be unfriendly doesn’t ipso facto dismiss the evidence. The segment of evidence being profitable to the gatherings might be exploited, yet the Court ought to be very wary and watchful in such acknowledgment. The declaration of threatening observer must be tried, gauged and considered in a similar way in which the evidence of some other observer for the situation.

Conclusion

Thus we can finally conclude that in order to provide justice Evidence and witnesses are vital and they hold a significant spot in the Law. With the assistance of Evidence the court arrives at a decision. The evidence heard by the court is the most significant factor in deciding if the judgment will be supportive of Prosecution side or Defense side.

Read Also: How To Send A Legal Notice In India: Advice From A Supreme Court Lawyer