Frequently Asked Questions (Ss. 1 to 5 IEA)

Type I: Answer in one or two sentences (2 M)

Who drafted the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Sir James Fitz James Stephen drafted the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

When was the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enacted?

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enacted on 1^st September 1872.

To which proceedings the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable?

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial, other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, or the Air Force Act but not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator.

To which proceedings the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not applicable?

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not applicable to Courts-martial convened under the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, or the Air Force Act or to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, or to proceedings before an arbitrator.

Define ‘Document’ under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The term “document” has been defined in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as “any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used”, for the purpose of recording that matter.

Define ‘Fact’ under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the expression “fact”, defined as meaning and including- (1) any thing, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; or (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Define ‘Fact in Issue’ under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the expression “facts in issue” means and includes–– any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. In simple words fact in issue is that fact which is asserted by one party and denied by the other.

Define ‘Relevant Fact’ under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts (Ss. 5 to 55 IEA).

Define ‘Court’ under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 “Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence.

What is ‘Proved’?

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court; either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.

What is ‘Disproved’?

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.

What is ‘Not Proved’?

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.

What is presumption of fact?

The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

What is ‘May Presume’?

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

What is ‘Shall Presume’?

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 whenever it is directed by this Act (IEA) that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.

What is ‘Conclusive Proof’?

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.

Type II: Short Notes (6 M) (300 to 350 words):

1) Facts and their kinds

Depending upon whether the fact is perceived by senses or not, facts are classified into two types a) physical facts and b) psychological facts

Physical Facts:

Section 3 IEA defines physical facts. The facts which are subjected to the perception of bodily senses (vision, touch, taste, hearing, Smell) are called physical facts. They are also called external facts because they are present outside the body and perceived by senses. Physical facts include both animate and inanimate objects because both of them has common characteristics that they possess physical bodies.

Human body dead or alive is a physical fact
A drunken driver is a physical fact

Physical facts, when properly presented and connected to the facts in issue, can contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the events under consideration in legal proceedings

Psychological Facts:

Those facts, which cannot be perceived by senses are ‘Psychological Facts’. They are also known as internal facts. Psychological facts are not subject to perception by bodily senses (vision, touch, taste, hearing, Smell). These facts have seat in animate being. Opinion, intention, good faith, fear, ill-will, anger, hatred, knowledge, betrayal, etc. comes under psychological facts. Psychological facts can only be felt by the person who is entertaining those feelings and not by others unless those internal feelings are manifested through expressions and actions by that person.

Intention to kill a person
Hatching a conspiracy
A fraudulently sold his car to B.
A has a bad opinion about B.

While the Indian Evidence Act does not explicitly use the term “psychological facts,” it provides for the admission of evidence that is relevant to understanding the mental and emotional aspects of individuals involved in legal proceedings.

Depending upon the Existence of the Facts they are classified into two types a) positive facts and b) negative facts. Facts can also be classified as a) primary fact and b) secondary fact

In Dueful Laboratory v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 4534 (Raj) case, the Court held that events which have neither occurred in the past nor in the present but are likely to occur in the future does not fall within the ambit of the definition of “Fact” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2) Fact in Issue:

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the expression facts in issue means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.

A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial the following facts may be in issue:

That A caused B’s death;
That A intended to cause B’s death;
That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B
That A, at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its nature.

Fact in issue simply means the disputed facts. In litigation or proceedings, generally, one-party claims that certain facts exist, while the other party denies the existence. In this case, the fact that it is accused by one party but denied by the other party is called a fact in issue. In other words, the controversial fact is the fact in issue. In short, the questions, which give rise to a right or liability are called Fact in Issue. The fact in issue is also known by its Latin name ‘Factum Probandum’ or that which is to be proved.

For example, A accused B of theft, but B denies the performance of any such activity. Here, the question of whether B had committed theft or not, is a fact in issue.

Importance of Facts in Issue:

Knowledge of facts in issue and how to prove it with the available evidence and relevant facts composes the effective use of rules of evidence.
Identification of the facts in issue is integral to a systematic approach to problems of evidence.
Once the facts in issue in a particular case are clear then attention can be focused on the precise manner in which the evidence in question is probative of them.

3) Relevant Facts:

According to Section 3 of the Indian evidence Act, 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 provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. ” The said provisions are contained in sections 5 to 55 of the Evidence Act.

Where in a case direct evidence is not available to prove a fact in issue then it may be proved by any circumstantial evidence and in such a case every piece of circumstantial evidence would be an instance of a “relevant fact”.

The relevant facts are different from the facts at issue. These are facts that are not in dispute/issue, but they are related to facts that are in dispute/issue. But the connection must be real or logical. In other words, not all connections make the facts meaningful. To be relevant, the facts in question must be logically connected to the facts at issue.

For example, A is accused of B’s murder, and A denies any such act. C saw A with B on the day of the murder. Here, the question of whether A had committed murder or not is a “fact in issue” and the fact that C saw A on the day of murder with B will be the “relevant fact”, i.e., a fact connected to the fact in issue which either helps to prove or disprove.

A relevant fact is admissible if there is a nexus to the fact in issue and not by the exclusionary rule. Also, a relevant fact’s admissibility may well depend upon the particular way in which it is intended to be used.

Facts Recognized to be Relevant Under the IEA:

The facts, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 recognizes as relevant facts are given under Sections 5 to 55 and they may be grouped as follows:

Facts logically connected with facts in issue or relevant facts (Sections 5 to 16)
Admissions and Confessions (Sections 17 to 31)
Statements by persons who cannot be called as witness (Sections 32 and 33)
Statements under special circumstances (Sections 34 to 37)
Judgments in other cases (Sections 40 to 44)
Opinion of third persons (sections 45 -51)
Evidence as to Character (Sections 52 to 55)

4) Admissibility:

The term “admissibility” means the state or quality of being admissible or permissible. In the legal sense, the term “evidence” means anything admitted by a Court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial. Thus, the admissibility of evidence means any document, testimony, or tangible evidence used in a Court of Law. All evidence is not allowed in the Court, only those evidence which is reliable and relevant are admitted in the Court of Law. Evidence is introduced to a judge or a jury to prove a point or an important element in a case.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, admissibility of evidence depends on various factors outlined in the Act itself. The Act lays down rules regarding what evidence may be admitted or rejected in Indian courts. Here are some key points regarding the admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act:

Relevance (Sections 5 to 55): Evidence that is relevant to the matter in question is generally admissible. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence that tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue. However, evidence that is not relevant is generally not admissible.
Oral and Documentary Evidence (Sections 59 to 90): The Act recognizes two main types of evidence: oral and documentary. Oral evidence refers to statements made by witnesses during the course of a judicial proceeding, while documentary evidence includes any document produced for the inspection of the court.
Admissibility of Opinions (Sections 45 to 51): Under certain circumstances, opinions of witnesses are admissible. Expert opinions, for instance, are admissible when the court requires expertise to understand certain facts.
Admissions and Confessions (Sections 17 to 31): Admissions made by a party to the suit are generally admissible against them, subject to certain conditions. Confessions made by an accused person are also admissible if they are made voluntarily and in the manner provided by law.
Public and Private Documents (Sections 74 to 90A): Public documents are generally admissible without the need for further proof, while private documents require additional proof of their execution and authenticity.
Testimony of Witness (Sections 122 to 134): The Act also provides for certain situations where otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded, such as communications made in furtherance of any illegal purpose, or evidence obtained improperly.
Burden of Proof (Sections 101 to 114A): The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue, and it shifts from one party to another as the case progresses.

These are some of the fundamental principles governing the admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. It’s important to note that the Act is quite comprehensive and contains detailed provisions regarding various aspects of evidence and its admissibility in Indian courts.

5) Proved, Disproved and Not Proved:

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,

“Fact” means and includes:

anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
any mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Proved:

From the analysis of the definition we can conclude that the criteria that goes into the process of proof is:

There should be a matter for consideration before the Court
The Court either definitely believe upon it, or Considers its existence to be highly probable
that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists

In M. Narsingha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (Crl) 719 1995 Case, the Supreme Court held that a fact is said to be proved when after considering the matter before it the court believes it to be true. The standard of proof required is proving beyond a reasonable doubt, yet it need not be absolute.

Disproved:

From the analysis of the definition we can conclude that the criteria that goes into the process of “disproved fact” is:

There should be a matter for consideration before the Court
The Court either definitely not believe upon it, or Considers its non-existence to be highly probable
that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.

In Naval Kishore Somani v. Poonam Somani, AIR 1999 AP 1 case, the Court observed that a fact is disproved normally by the person, who claims that an alleged fact is not true.

Not Proved:

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.

In Emperor v. Shashi Ahme (1925) 31 Bom LR 515 case, the Court observed that the term “not proved” indicates a state of mind between two states of mind (“proved” and “disproved”) when one is unable to say precisely how the matter stands.

6) Presumption of Fact:

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a presumption of fact is an assumption made by the court regarding the existence of a certain fact based on the existence of another fact which is proven. Presumptions are important legal tools that help the court arrive at conclusions in the absence of direct evidence. Here are some key points regarding presumptions of fact under the Indian Evidence Act:

Presumptions of Law vs. Presumptions of Fact: In Indian law, a distinction is made between presumptions of law and presumptions of fact. Presumptions of law are deductions made by the court based on legal principles and are conclusive unless rebutted. Presumptions of fact, on the other hand, are rebuttable and may be overcome by contrary evidence.
Types of Presumptions of Fact: The Indian Evidence Act lays down several presumptions of fact under different sections. Some of the important presumptions of fact include:
- Presumption of Death: Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who asserts it.
- Presumption of Legitimacy: Section 112 of the Act provides that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate, unless proven otherwise.
- Presumption as to Certain Documents: Sections 79 to 90 of the Act provide various presumptions regarding the genuineness and validity of certain documents, such as certified copies, official publications, and documents produced by certain public officers.
Rebuttal of Presumptions: While presumptions of fact may assist in arriving at a decision, they are not conclusive proof of the fact presumed. They can be rebutted by presenting evidence to the contrary. If sufficient evidence is presented to disprove the presumed fact, the presumption will not hold.
Burden of Proof: Presumptions often shift the burden of proof from one party to another. For instance, when a presumption of fact is established, the burden of proof may shift to the opposing party to prove otherwise.

Thus, presumptions of fact play an important role in Indian evidence law by assisting the court in arriving at conclusions based on available evidence. However, they are not absolute and can be rebutted by presenting evidence to the contrary.

7) May Presume:

Under the Indian Evidence Act, the term “may presume” refers to the discretionary power vested in the court to draw certain inferences or presumptions from the evidence presented before it. Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the term “may presume” as follows:

“Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.” Here’s what this means:

Discretion of the Court: The phrase “may presume” gives discretion to the court to decide whether to accept a certain fact as proved or to call for further evidence to prove it.
Rebuttable Presumption: When the court “may presume” a fact, it implies that the court is allowed to draw an inference based on the evidence before it, but this presumption is not conclusive. It can be rebutted by presenting evidence to the contrary.
Weight of Evidence: The court, when considering whether to apply a presumption, will evaluate the strength and sufficiency of the evidence presented. If the evidence is strong and convincing, the court may accept the presumed fact without further proof. However, if the evidence is insufficient or there are doubts, the court may call for additional evidence to establish the fact.
Flexibility in Judicial Decision-making: The discretion provided by the phrase “may presume” allows courts to exercise flexibility in their decision-making process. It enables them to consider the circumstances of each case and make judgments based on the available evidence and legal principles.

Thus, when the Indian Evidence Act states that the court “may presume” a fact, it means that the court has the discretion to accept that fact as proved based on the evidence presented, but this presumption is rebuttable and subject to further proof if necessary.

8) Shall Presume:

In the context of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the term “shall presume” indicates a mandatory presumption that the court is required to make under certain circumstances. Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act defines “shall presume” as follows:

“Whenever it is directed by this Act that the court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.” Here’s what this means:

Mandatory Nature: When the Indian Evidence Act states that the court “shall presume” a fact, it means that the court is obligated to treat that fact as proven unless there is evidence presented to disprove it.
Conclusive Presumption: Unlike presumptions where the court has discretion (“may presume”), a “shall presume” instruction is conclusive. This means that unless the presumption is successfully rebutted by contrary evidence, the court must accept the presumed fact as true.
Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is shifted to the party opposing the presumed fact. It becomes their responsibility to present evidence to disprove the presumed fact if they wish to challenge it.
Legal Certainty: “Shall presume” provisions in the Indian Evidence Act are intended to provide legal certainty and clarity in certain situations where the law deems it appropriate to presume a fact without requiring further proof.

Thus, when the Indian Evidence Act states that the court “shall presume” a fact, it means that the court is required to accept that fact as proved unless evidence is presented to disprove it. This provides a level of legal certainty and streamlines the judicial process in certain circumstances.

9) Conclusive Proof:

In the context of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, “conclusive proof” refers to evidence or a fact that is deemed to be final and conclusive, leaving no room for further argument or dispute. When a provision of the Indian Evidence Act specifies conclusive proof, it means that the matter is settled by law, and the court must accept the evidence as conclusive without allowing any further evidence to the contrary. Here are some key points regarding conclusive proof under the Indian Evidence Act:

Binding Nature: Conclusive proof is binding on the court. Once a fact is established as conclusive proof, the court is required to accept it as true and cannot entertain any evidence to the contrary.
No Rebuttal: Unlike presumptions or ordinary evidence, conclusive proof cannot be rebutted or challenged by presenting contrary evidence. The law treats conclusive proof as final and conclusive on the matter it addresses.
Examples: The Indian Evidence Act contains provisions that specify certain types of evidence as conclusive. For example:
- Section 114 of the Act provides that the court may presume the existence of certain facts, such as the existence of official acts, the truth of electronic records, and the genuineness of certified copies of public documents.
- Section 112 of the Act establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for children born during the continuance of a valid marriage.
Legal Certainty: Conclusive proof provisions are intended to provide legal certainty and clarity in certain situations where the law deems it appropriate to establish certain facts without allowing for further debate or inquiry.

Thus, conclusive proof under the Indian Evidence Act refers to evidence or facts that are considered final and binding on the court, leaving no room for further argument or dispute. The court is required to accept conclusive proof as true and cannot entertain any evidence to the contrary.

10) Distinguish between Physical facts and psychological facts:

Physical Facts	Psychological Facts
Clause (1) of Section 3 refers to the things which are subject to perception by bodily senses (vision, touch, taste, hearing, Smell) are called physical facts.	Clause (2) of Section 3 refers to those facts, which cannot be perceived by senses and are ‘Psychological Facts’
They are also called external facts because they are present outside the body.	They are also called Internal facts because they are present inside the body in the mind of a person.
These facts can be felt by other persons easily.	They can only be felt by the person who is entertaining those feelings and not by others unless those internal feelings are manifested through expressions and actions by that person.
Examples: a man heard or saw something, a man said certain words, etc.	Examples: a man holds a certain opinion, a man has a certain reputation, etc.

11) Distinguish between facts in issue and relevant facts:

Facts at Issue	Relevant Facts
According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the expression facts in issue means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.	According to Section 3 of the Indian evidence Act, 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 provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. ” The said provisions are contained in sections 5 to 55 of the Evidence Act.
A fact in issue is the ultimate facts in dispute, i.e., “principal facts” or “factum probandum”.	A relevant fact is which helps to prove/disprove the facts in issue, i.e., “evidentiary fact” or “Factum probandi”.
Facts at issue are significant in nature	Relevant facts are non-significant.
The facts at issue are the basis of the “law of evidence”.	They are part of the law of evidence.
These are confirmed by one party but denied by the other party.	The relevant facts are the foundation of the inferences made.
They are a necessary ingredient of a right or liability.	It is a not necessary ingredient of a right or liability.

12) Distinguish between relevancy and admissibility:

Relevancy	Admissibility
Relevancy refers to the logical connection or significance of a piece of evidence to the matter in question.	Admissibility refers to whether the evidence, which is relevant, is legally permissible and can be considered by the court.
Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with relevancy. These sections define what evidence is considered relevant or irrelevant to the case.	Admissibility is addressed throughout the Indian Evidence Act, particularly in Sections 59 to 90A, which deal with oral and documentary evidence.
Relevancy is determined by whether the evidence tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or is connected with the fact in issue.	Admissibility depends on various factors, including whether the evidence is obtained legally, whether it falls within the rules of privilege, and whether it satisfies the requirements set forth in the Act.
The objective of determining relevancy is to allow only evidence that has a logical connection to the case to be considered during trial.	The objective of determining admissibility is to ensure that only relevant evidence meeting legal standards is considered by the court, thus upholding the fairness and integrity of the legal process.
Relevancy focuses on the logical connection of evidence to the matter in question	Admissibility concerns whether the evidence, which is relevant, meets the legal requirements and can be considered by the court.
Relevancy establishes the logical link between evidence and the case	Admissibility determines whether that evidence can be legally presented and considered during trial.

13) Distinguish between logical relevancy and legal relevancy:

Logical Relevancy	Legal Relevancy
A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when by application of our logic it appears that one fact has a bearing on another fact.	A fact is said to be legally relevant when it is expressed as relevant under Section 5 to 55 (Relevancy of Fact).
If logically relevant fact is not declared by the law to be relevant, it is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act.	Legally relevant fact is admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act.
Logical relevancy is not defined under the Section 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act.	Legal relevancy is defined under the Section 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Example: where it is to be determined whether A has placed the murder weapon in the field or not, the fact that B saw A walking towards the field with the murder weapon is logically relevant.	Example: an accused gives the following statement- “I have kept in the field the knife with which I killed A.” While the statement may be logically relevant to establish the guilt of the accused, its legal relevancy extends to only so far as it confirms the fact that the accused had kept the knife in the field.

Type III: Essay Type Question (12 M) (1000 to 1200 words)

What is the difference between relevancy and admissibility? Illustrate your answer by giving at least two examples and appropriate case laws.
Explain the concept ‘May presume’, ‘Shall presume’ and ‘Conclusive Proof’ in the light of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Legal Quotient

Frequently Asked Questions (Ss. 1 to 5 IEA)

Like this:

Categories

Archives

Frequently Asked Questions (Ss. 1 to 5 IEA)

Share this:

Like this:

Categories

Archives