Law and You >Procedural Laws > Indian Evidence Act, 1872 > Types of Evidence
In order to arrive at a decision in a civil, criminal or administrative cases to establish and prove the matters of defence or mitigation or to overcome a prima-facie case or presumption the essential question which one needs to answer is whether the evidence placed before them meets the required parameters or adequate enough to give such evidence. It is known fact that the decision will be rendered in whose favour the balance of evidence tilts. Such evidence will be sufficient and legally justifiable for the judicial action as demanded or prayed by the parties. The proper recognition, documentation, reconstruction, submission of relevant evidence, and preservation of evidence is critically important in all crimes scene investigations. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial. It is a popular misconception that circumstantial evidence carries less weight or importance than direct evidence. This is only partly true. While direct evidence is generally seen as more powerful, most successful prosecutions rely greatly on circumstantial evidence. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturization of actual incident but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times, it is aptly said that “men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”.
The word evidence has been derived from Latin word “evidre” which implies to show distinctly to ascertain, to prove. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines the types of evidence in Indian Evidence Act and legal proceedings, encompassing two primary categories: oral evidence, which includes statements made by witnesses relevant to the matter under inquiry and presented with court authorization, and documentary evidence, comprising documents, whether physical or electronic, submitted to the court for examination.
Kinds of Evidence:
Evidence is broadly categorized into several types, each serving a different purpose and carrying varying degrees of reliability in different contexts. Here are the main types of evidence:
Oral Evidence:
Under the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence refers to the testimony or statements made by witnesses in court proceedings. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, governs the rules related to the admissibility and evaluation of evidence in Indian courts. According to Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), all facts, except contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence. Oral evidence is generally admissible in court to prove facts relevant to the case. According to Section 60 IEA, witnesses who have personal knowledge of the events in question are called to testify orally about what they have seen, heard, or otherwise perceived by senses.
Not everyone is considered competent to give oral evidence. For instance, minors, persons of unsound mind, and those who are unable to understand the questions put to them or to give rational answers are generally considered incompetent to give evidence. Witnesses who give oral evidence are required to speak the truth under oath or affirmation. Providing false evidence or withholding relevant information can lead to charges of perjury. The opposing party has the right to cross-examine witnesses who give oral evidence. Cross-examination aims to test the credibility of the witness and the accuracy of their testimony. After cross-examination, the party who called the witness may conduct re-examination to clarify any points raised during cross-examination.
In certain cases, oral evidence may require corroboration from other evidence or witnesses. For example, in cases of accomplice testimony, the court may require corroboration from independent evidence to support the testimony of the accomplice. The evidentiary value of oral evidence depends on various factors, including the credibility of the witness, consistency of testimony, demeanour, and corroborating evidence. The court evaluates the oral evidence along with other evidence presented in the case to arrive at its decision.
Oral evidence given by witnesses is recorded during the court proceedings. The court keeps a transcript or record of the testimony, which forms part of the official court record. Thus, oral evidence plays a significant role in Indian courts for establishing facts and resolving disputes, and it is subject to various rules and procedures outlined in the Indian Evidence Act.
Direct Evidence:
Under the Indian Evidence Act, direct evidence is not explicitly defined, but it refers to evidence that directly proves a fact in question without the need for inference or presumption. Section 3 IEA provides a broad definition of “evidence” itself. It includes all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry. This type of evidence directly proves a fact without requiring inference or presumption. For example, an eyewitness account or a video recording of an event constitutes direct evidence. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with oral evidence and states that oral evidence must, in all cases, be direct. This implies that oral evidence must directly relate to the facts in issue and not be hearsay or circumstantial in nature. Direct evidence is crucial in establishing the truth of a matter in legal proceedings.
Direct evidence is admissible in court and is often considered highly reliable in establishing facts. Testimony from eyewitnesses, admissions by parties to the case, and documentary evidence that directly supports the facts in question are examples of direct evidence. While direct evidence is valuable, the weight given to it by the court depends on various factors, including the credibility of the witness, consistency of the testimony, and corroboration by other evidence. The court evaluates direct evidence along with other evidence presented in the case to arrive at its decision. In some cases, direct evidence may require corroboration from other sources or evidence to strengthen its reliability. However, corroboration is not always necessary, especially if the direct evidence is considered credible and trustworthy on its own merits.
Witnesses providing direct evidence may be subject to cross-examination by the opposing party to test the reliability and accuracy of their testimony. The party who called the witness may conduct re-examination to clarify any points raised during cross-examination.
Circumstantial Evidence:
Under the Indian Evidence Act, circumstantial evidence refers to indirect evidence that allows the inference of a fact or conclusion based on circumstances surrounding the case, rather than through direct observation or testimony. The Indian Evidence Act doesn’t explicitly define circumstantial evidence, but it implicitly recognizes its validity and importance in legal proceedings. Circumstantial evidence relies on inference and deduction to establish facts. Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act defines “relevant facts” and “facts in issue.” Circumstantial evidence typically pertains to relevant facts, which are those facts that directly or indirectly establish the existence or non-existence of other facts in issue. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act states that facts necessary to explain or introduce a relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a relevant fact, are themselves relevant. This provision recognizes the relevance of circumstantial evidence in establishing facts. Thus, circumstantial evidence implies a fact indirectly, based on inference. It doesn’t directly prove the fact but suggests it based on other circumstances. For instance, finding fingerprints at a crime scene is circumstantial evidence that someone was present, but it doesn’t identify the person conclusively.
Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court and can be used to prove or disprove facts in issue. However, the weight given to circumstantial evidence depends on various factors, including the strength of the inference, the credibility of the evidence, and the overall context of the case. In some cases, circumstantial evidence may require corroboration from other sources or evidence to strengthen its reliability. The court may look for multiple strands of circumstantial evidence that converge to support a particular inference. Courts evaluate circumstantial evidence based on the principles of logic, reason, and common sense. The cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence may be as persuasive as direct evidence in establishing the guilt or innocence of an accused person.
Circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. In other words, for circumstantial evidence to lead to a conviction, it must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation. There is need for caution and care in drawing inferences from such evidence.
Documentary Evidence:
Documentary evidence plays a significant role in legal proceedings under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Documentary evidence encompasses a wide range of materials, including written documents, electronic records, photographs, maps, plans, and any other material on which information is recorded or stored. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of documentary evidence. It states that all documents produced for the inspection of the court may be proved in the manner prescribed by the Act.
The Indian Evidence Act distinguishes between primary and secondary evidence. Primary evidence refers to the original document itself, while secondary evidence includes copies or duplicates of the original document. Generally, primary evidence is preferred, but secondary evidence is admissible under certain circumstances.
Section 65 to 73 of the Indian Evidence Act specify the various methods of proving the contents of documents. These methods include production of original documents, production of certified copies, oral evidence of the contents of documents, and examination of witnesses who have knowledge of the document.
Public documents, such as government records, official publications, and certified copies of public registers, are given special status under the Indian Evidence Act. Section 74 to 78 outline the rules regarding the proof and admissibility of public documents. Private documents, such as contracts, agreements, and letters, are also admissible as evidence. Section 61 to 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provide the procedures for proving the contents of private documents.
Evidentiary value of documentary evidence depends on various factors, including the credibility of the document, its relevance to the case, and whether it is corroborated by other evidence.
Primary Evidence:
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, primary evidence refers to the original document itself, which is presented to the court for inspection. Primary evidence is considered the most reliable form of evidence because it represents the actual document or object in question. Primary evidence is defined in Sections 62 to 66 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 62 states that primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. Primary evidence is generally preferred over secondary evidence, which includes copies or duplicates of the original document. When a party seeks to prove the contents of a document, the primary evidence of that document should be provided, if available. Primary evidence may include original documents such as contracts, deeds, wills, official records, birth certificates, marriage certificates, and other similar documents. Public documents, such as government records, official publications, and certified copies of public registers, are considered primary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. They are admissible without the need for further proof of their authenticity.
Sections 63 to 65 of the Indian Evidence Act outline the various modes of proving the contents of primary evidence. These include production of the original document itself, examination of witnesses who can testify to the contents of the document, and obtaining certified copies of the document. Courts generally presume that primary evidence is authentic and accurate, unless there is evidence to the contrary. However, the court may examine the document for any signs of forgery or tampering.
In certain situations where the original document is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable, the court may allow secondary evidence to be admitted. However, the party seeking to introduce secondary evidence must provide sufficient justification and meet the requirements set forth in the Indian Evidence Act.
Secondary Evidence:
Under the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence refers to evidence that is used to prove the contents of a document when the original document itself is not available or cannot be produced in court. Secondary evidence is defined in Sections 63 to 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 63 states that secondary evidence includes certified copies of original documents, copies made from the original documents, and oral accounts of the contents of a document. Secondary evidence can take various forms, including certified copies of original documents, copies made from the original documents, and oral accounts of the contents of a document given by witnesses who have seen the original. Certified copies of original documents are considered one of the most common forms of secondary evidence. These copies are authenticated by a public officer who has custody of the original document or by a person authorized by law to certify such copies.
Secondary evidence is admissible in court under certain circumstances when the original document cannot be produced. However, before secondary evidence can be admitted, the party seeking to introduce it must establish the existence and loss or unavailability of the original document. The Indian Evidence Act lays down specific conditions for the admission of secondary evidence. These conditions include proving the loss or destruction of the original document, showing that the original document is in the possession of the adverse party who refuses to produce it, or demonstrating that the original document is of such a nature that its production in court is unreasonable.
In some cases, the contents of a document can be proved by oral evidence provided by witnesses who have seen the original document. However, oral evidence of the contents of a document is generally considered less reliable than documentary evidence. Courts evaluate secondary evidence based on its relevance, credibility, and consistency with other evidence presented in the case. The weight given to secondary evidence may vary depending on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the document in question. Similar to primary evidence, secondary evidence is presumed to be authentic and accurate unless there is evidence to the contrary. However, the court may scrutinize secondary evidence more closely to ensure its reliability.
Hearsay Evidence:
Hearsay evidence refers to statements made by a person outside of court proceedings that are offered as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In the Indian Evidence Act, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court due to its inherent unreliability. The Indian Evidence Act does not explicitly define hearsay evidence, but it prohibits the admission of statements made by a person not called as a witness to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.
Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act states that oral evidence must be direct—that is, it should be the testimony of witnesses who have perceived the facts with their senses. Hearsay evidence does not meet this requirement and is therefore generally considered irrelevant and inadmissible. Despite the general rule against hearsay evidence, there are certain exceptions under the Indian Evidence Act where hearsay evidence may be admissible. These exceptions include:
- Statements made by a person who is dead or unable to testify.
- Statements made by a person considered an accomplice.
- Statements made in the ordinary course of business.
- Statements relating to public rights and customs.
In certain circumstances, hearsay evidence may be allowed if it falls within the exceptions outlined in the Indian Evidence Act and if it is considered necessary and reliable by the court. Even if hearsay evidence is admitted under one of the exceptions, its evidentiary value and credibility may be diminished because it lacks the first-hand knowledge and reliability associated with direct evidence. When hearsay evidence is admitted, the court may require corroboration from other sources or evidence to support its reliability and credibility.
Scientific Evidence:
Scientific evidence plays a crucial role in modern legal proceedings, including those under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It involves the use of scientific principles, methodologies, and techniques to analyze and interpret evidence relevant to a case. The Indian Evidence Act does not specifically define scientific evidence, but it acknowledges the relevance and admissibility of expert opinion based on scientific principles. Section 45 of the Act deals with opinions of experts, including those based on scientific knowledge. Scientific evidence is based on scientific principles and methodologies. It may include DNA analysis, ballistics reports, toxicology results, and other forensic analyses conducted by experts in specialized fields.
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act allows courts to admit expert opinions on matters requiring special knowledge, skill, or expertise. This includes opinions based on scientific principles, such as forensic analysis, DNA testing, ballistics, toxicology, and other specialized fields. Expert witnesses providing scientific evidence must possess the necessary qualifications, expertise, and experience in their respective fields. The court evaluates the credibility and reliability of expert witnesses based on their qualifications and experience.
Expert witnesses are required to provide the basis of their opinion, including the methods, techniques, and reasoning used to arrive at their conclusions. The court may inquire into the scientific validity and reliability of the methods employed by the expert witness. Expert witnesses may be subject to cross-examination by opposing parties to test the validity and reliability of their opinions. The court may also allow rebuttal evidence from other expert witnesses to challenge or refute the opinions presented. Despite the importance of scientific evidence, challenges and controversies may arise regarding its admissibility, reliability, and interpretation. Courts strive to balance the need for scientific rigor with the principles of fairness and justice.
The evidentiary value of scientific evidence depends on various factors, including the qualifications of the expert witness, the reliability of the methods used, the relevance of the evidence to the case, and the consistency with other evidence presented. Courts have discretion in admitting and evaluating scientific evidence. They may consider factors such as the scientific consensus, peer-reviewed research, and the acceptance of scientific methods within the relevant scientific community.
Demonstrative Evidence:
Demonstrative evidence is used to illustrate or clarify a point but does not prove it in itself. Demonstrative evidence refers to visual aids or exhibits presented in court to help clarify or illustrate a point, rather than directly proving a fact. While the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not explicitly address demonstrative evidence, it is commonly used in legal proceedings in India. Demonstrative evidence includes various types of visual aids such as diagrams, charts, maps, photographs, models, videos, and computer animations. These aids are used to help judges, juries, and other parties understand complex concepts, spatial relationships, or sequences of events. While the Indian Evidence Act does not specifically address demonstrative evidence, courts in India generally allow the use of demonstrative evidence as long as it is relevant to the case and does not unduly prejudice the opposing party.
The party presenting demonstrative evidence must lay a foundation for its admissibility, which involves establishing its relevance and authenticity. This may include testimony from witnesses who can verify the accuracy and authenticity of the demonstrative evidence. Like other forms of evidence, demonstrative evidence is subject to cross-examination by opposing parties. The credibility and accuracy of demonstrative evidence can be challenged through questioning of witnesses or experts who created or presented the evidence. The weight given to demonstrative evidence depends on its clarity, relevance, and persuasiveness. Judges and juries evaluate demonstrative evidence along with other evidence presented in the case to reach a decision. While demonstrative evidence can be valuable in helping to clarify complex issues, it has limitations. Its impact may vary depending on the quality of the presentation, the understanding of the audience, and the context of the case. Courts must exercise caution to ensure that demonstrative evidence accurately reflects the facts and does not mislead or prejudice the trier of fact.
Exculpatory Evidence:
Exculpatory evidence refers to evidence that tends to establish the innocence or non-culpability of the accused in a criminal case. While the term “exculpatory evidence” may not be explicitly mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the principles related to exculpatory evidence are recognized within the Indian legal system. Here’s how exculpatory evidence is handled under the Indian legal framework:
The right to a fair trial is enshrined in the Indian Constitution and is fundamental to the Indian legal system. Exculpatory evidence is crucial for upholding this right by ensuring that the accused has a meaningful opportunity to challenge the charges and present evidence in their defence. The prosecution in a criminal case has a legal obligation to disclose all evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the defence. This obligation ensures fairness and transparency in the trial process and allows the accused to adequately prepare a defence. In criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Exculpatory evidence can help shift the burden of proof or raise doubt about the prosecution’s case, thereby benefiting the accused.
Exculpatory evidence, like any other evidence, must meet the admissibility requirements set forth in the Indian Evidence Act. It must be relevant, material, and reliable to be admitted in court. The defence has the right to present exculpatory evidence during trial proceedings. This may include witness testimony, documentary evidence, expert opinions, or any other evidence that tends to establish the innocence of the accused. Exculpatory evidence can significantly influence the outcome of a criminal trial. If the court finds exculpatory evidence credible and persuasive, it may result in the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of charges against them.
The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that exculpatory evidence is properly considered and given due weight in criminal proceedings. Judges are responsible for evaluating the admissibility, relevance, and credibility of exculpatory evidence in accordance with the principles of justice and fairness.
Conclusion:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is the principal legislation governing the law of evidence in India. It outlines the rules and procedures regarding the admissibility, relevance, and weight of evidence presented in legal proceedings. There are different kinds of evidence. Each type of evidence has its strengths and limitations, and the weight given to particular types of evidence can vary depending on the legal jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of a case.