Evidence

It describes the Importance of Law of Evidence in the World in General and India in Particular.

1. LAW OF EVIDENCELAW OF EVIDENCE
  
ByBy
Dr.P.R.L.RajavenkatesanDr.P.R.L.Rajavenkatesan
Assistant Professor(Senior)Assistant Professor(Senior)
VIT LAW SCHOOLVIT LAW SCHOOL
ChennaiChennai

2. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
 There was no complete or systematic There was no complete or systematic
enactment.enactment.
 Calcutta, Bombay and Madras-The Courts Calcutta, Bombay and Madras-The Courts
established by Royal Charter followed the established by Royal Charter followed the
English rules of Evidence.English rules of Evidence.
 Outside the Presidency Towns, there were no Outside the Presidency Towns, there were no
fixed rules of evidence.fixed rules of evidence.
 Mofussil courts used to be guided by occasional Mofussil courts used to be guided by occasional
directions-Old Regulations-between 1793-1834.directions-Old Regulations-between 1793-1834.

3. IntroductionIntroduction
 English law of evidence based as it is on the English law of evidence based as it is on the
social and legal institutions of England was not social and legal institutions of England was not
applicable here in its entirety , owing to the applicable here in its entirety , owing to the
peculiar circumstances of this country.peculiar circumstances of this country.
 Competent knowledge of the English law could Competent knowledge of the English law could
then be hardly expected from the judges, and so then be hardly expected from the judges, and so
a strict application of that law would result in a strict application of that law would result in
miscarriage of justice.miscarriage of justice.

4. R v. Khairulla,R v. Khairulla, 6 WR Cr 21. 6 WR Cr 21.
 English law of evidence was not the law of the English law of evidence was not the law of the
mofussil courts and it was further held that the mofussil courts and it was further held that the
rules of evidence contained in the Hindu and rules of evidence contained in the Hindu and
Mahomedan laws were also not applicable to Mahomedan laws were also not applicable to
those courts.those courts.

5. IntroductionIntroduction
 First attempt-Act of 10 of 1835 – which was First attempt-Act of 10 of 1835 – which was
applicable to all Courts in British India.applicable to all Courts in British India.
 Between 1835 and 1853, a series of Acts were Between 1835 and 1853, a series of Acts were
passed by the Indian Legislature-Which was passed by the Indian Legislature-Which was
advocated by advocated by BenthamBentham and introduced in and introduced in
England by Lords England by Lords BroughanBroughan and and Denman.Denman.

6. IntroductionIntroduction
In 1856, Sir In 1856, Sir Henry Summer MaineHenry Summer Maine, the then law , the then law
member of the Governor General’s Council was member of the Governor General’s Council was
asked to prepare and Indian Evidence Act. His asked to prepare and Indian Evidence Act. His
draft was found unsuitable for the Indian draft was found unsuitable for the Indian
conditions. So it fell to Sir conditions. So it fell to Sir James Fitzjames James Fitzjames
Stephan Stephan who became the law member in 1871 to who became the law member in 1871 to
come up with the Indian Evidence Act. His come up with the Indian Evidence Act. His
draft bill was approved and came into being as draft bill was approved and came into being as
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and came into the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and came into
force from 1st September 1872.force from 1st September 1872.
    The Act is based entirely on the English law of The Act is based entirely on the English law of
Evidence- Only 167 sections.Evidence- Only 167 sections.

7. IntroductionIntroduction
 Ram jas v. Surendra NathRam jas v. Surendra Nath, AIR 1990 All 385., AIR 1990 All 385.
 It is the It is the procedural side of law procedural side of law which lays down which lays down
the rules of evidence.the rules of evidence.
 How a fact is to be proved and it helps in How a fact is to be proved and it helps in
preventing the wastage of court’s valuable time preventing the wastage of court’s valuable time
upon irrelevant issues.upon irrelevant issues.

8. EvidenceEvidence
Judicial investigation is the enforcement of a Judicial investigation is the enforcement of a
right or liability that depends on certain facts.right or liability that depends on certain facts.
 Procedural LawProcedural Law
 The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the Latin The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the Latin
terms ‘terms ‘evident’ or ‘evidereevident’ or ‘evidere’ that mean ‘’ that mean ‘to show to show
clearly, to discover, to ascertain or to proveclearly, to discover, to ascertain or to prove.’.’
 Evidence is a Evidence is a means of proofmeans of proof. Facts have to be . Facts have to be
proved before the relevant laws and its proved before the relevant laws and its
provisions can be applied.provisions can be applied.

9. EvidenceEvidence
 According to According to Sir BlackstoneSir Blackstone, ‘Evidence’ , ‘Evidence’
signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear or signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear or
ascertain the truth of the facts or points in issue ascertain the truth of the facts or points in issue
either on one side or the other.either on one side or the other.
According to According to Sir Taylor, Sir Taylor, Law of Evidence means Law of Evidence means
through argument to through argument to prove or disprove any prove or disprove any
matter of fact.matter of fact. The truth of which is submitted The truth of which is submitted
to judicial investigation.to judicial investigation.

10. Evidence Evidence
 Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872
 All the statements which the All the statements which the court permits court permits or or
requires to be made before it by witnesses, in requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such
statements are called Oral evidence;statements are called Oral evidence;
  All the documents including All the documents including electronic records electronic records
produced for the inspection of the court; such produced for the inspection of the court; such
documents are called documentary evidence.documents are called documentary evidence.

11. Case LawCase Law
 Sivrajbhan v. Harchandgir Sivrajbhan v. Harchandgir AIR 1954 SC 564AIR 1954 SC 564
 “ “The word evidence in connection with Law, all The word evidence in connection with Law, all
valid meanings, includes all except agreement valid meanings, includes all except agreement
which prove, disprove any fact or matter whose which prove, disprove any fact or matter whose
truthfulness is presented for Judicial truthfulness is presented for Judicial
Investigation. At this stage it will be proper to Investigation. At this stage it will be proper to
keep in mind that where a party and the other keep in mind that where a party and the other
party party don’t get the opportunity to cross-examine don’t get the opportunity to cross-examine
his statements to his statements to ascertain the truth ascertain the truth then in such then in such
a condition this party’s statement is not a condition this party’s statement is not
Evidence.”Evidence.”

12. Evidence Evidence
 Admit guilty- No issue-If not-Evidence Admit guilty- No issue-If not-Evidence
required.required.
 Administration of Justice-Based on EvidenceAdministration of Justice-Based on Evidence
 Parties cannot contract to exclude the Act.Parties cannot contract to exclude the Act.
 Direct- Circumstantial-Hearsay  Documentary-  Oral- Direct- Circumstantial-Hearsay  Documentary-  Oral- 
Scientific- Real-DigitalScientific- Real-Digital

13. LEX FORILEX FORI
Law of Evidence is part of the law of procedure.Law of Evidence is part of the law of procedure.
 Lex Fori-Law of the Court or ForumLex Fori-Law of the Court or Forum
 Indian Courts Know and apply only the Indian Indian Courts Know and apply only the Indian
Law of EvidenceLaw of Evidence
 A civil case of will and murder will have the A civil case of will and murder will have the
same law of evidence. same law of evidence. 

14. Types of EvidencesTypes of Evidences
 Oral EvidenceOral Evidence– Section 60 of the Indian – Section 60 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872Evidence Act, 1872 prescribed the provision of prescribed the provision of
recording oral evidence. All those statements recording oral evidence. All those statements
which the court permits or expects the witnesses which the court permits or expects the witnesses
to make in his presence regarding the to make in his presence regarding the truth of truth of
the facts the facts are called Oral Evidence. Oral are called Oral Evidence. Oral
Evidence is that evidence which the witness has Evidence is that evidence which the witness has
personally seen or heard. Oral evidence must personally seen or heard. Oral evidence must
always be direct or positive. always be direct or positive.

15. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence
 Documentary EvidenceDocumentary Evidence– Section 3 of The – Section 3 of The
Indian Evidence Act says that all those Indian Evidence Act says that all those
documents which are presented in the court for documents which are presented in the court for
inspection such documents are called inspection such documents are called
documentary evidences. In a case like this it is documentary evidences. In a case like this it is
the documentary evidence that would show the the documentary evidence that would show the
actual attitude of the parties and their actual attitude of the parties and their
consciousness regarding the custom is more consciousness regarding the custom is more
important than any oral evidenceimportant than any oral evidence

16. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence
 Primary EvidencePrimary Evidence-Section 62 of The Indian -Section 62 of The Indian
Evidence Act says Primary Evidence is the Top-Evidence Act says Primary Evidence is the Top-
Most class of evidences. It is that proof which in Most class of evidences. It is that proof which in
any possible condition gives the vital hint in a any possible condition gives the vital hint in a
disputed fact and establishes through disputed fact and establishes through
documentary evidence on the production of an documentary evidence on the production of an
original document for inspection by the court.original document for inspection by the court.

17. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence
 Secondary EvidenceSecondary Evidence– Section 63 says – Section 63 says
Secondary Evidence is the inferior evidence. It is Secondary Evidence is the inferior evidence. It is
evidence that occupies a secondary position. It is evidence that occupies a secondary position. It is
such evidence that on the presentation of which such evidence that on the presentation of which
it is felt that superior evidence yet remains to be it is felt that superior evidence yet remains to be
produced. It is the evidence which is produced produced. It is the evidence which is produced
in the absence of the primary evidence therefore in the absence of the primary evidence therefore
it is known as secondary evidence.it is known as secondary evidence.

18. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence
 Real EvidenceReal Evidence– Real Evidence means real or – Real Evidence means real or
material evidence. Real evidence of a fact is material evidence. Real evidence of a fact is
brought to the knowledge of the court by brought to the knowledge of the court by
inspection of a physical object and not by inspection of a physical object and not by
information derived from a witness or a information derived from a witness or a
document.document.

19. Types of Evidence Types of Evidence
 Hearsay EvidenceHearsay Evidence– Hearsay Evidence is very – Hearsay Evidence is very
weak evidence. It is only the reported evidence weak evidence. It is only the reported evidence
of a witness which he has not seen either heard. of a witness which he has not seen either heard.
Sometime it implies the saying of something Sometime it implies the saying of something
which a person has heard others say.  witness which a person has heard others say.  witness
has neither has neither personally seen or heardpersonally seen or heard, nor has he , nor has he
perceived through his senses and has come to perceived through his senses and has come to
know about it through some third personknow about it through some third person
 Nexus and CredibilityNexus and Credibility

20. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence
 Judicial EvidenceJudicial Evidence– Evidence received by – Evidence received by
court of justice in proof or disproof of facts court of justice in proof or disproof of facts
before them is called judicial evidence. The before them is called judicial evidence. The
confession made by the accused in the court confession made by the accused in the court is is
also included in judicial evidence. Statements of also included in judicial evidence. Statements of
witnesses and documentary evidence and facts witnesses and documentary evidence and facts
for the examination by the court are also Judicial for the examination by the court are also Judicial
Evidence.Evidence.

21. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence
 Non-Judicial EvidenceNon-Judicial Evidence– Any confession – Any confession
made by the accused outside the court in the made by the accused outside the court in the
presence of any person or the admission of a presence of any person or the admission of a
party are called Non-Judicial Evidence, if proved party are called Non-Judicial Evidence, if proved
in the court in the form of Judicial Evidence.in the court in the form of Judicial Evidence.

22. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence
 Direct EvidenceDirect Evidence– Evidence is either direct or – Evidence is either direct or
indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence which indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence which
is very important for the decision of the matter is very important for the decision of the matter
in issue. The main fact when it is presented by in issue. The main fact when it is presented by
witnesses, things and witnesses is direct, witnesses, things and witnesses is direct,
evidence whereby main facts may be proved or evidence whereby main facts may be proved or
established that is the evidence of person who established that is the evidence of person who
had actually seen the crime being committed and had actually seen the crime being committed and
has described the offence.has described the offence.
 Eye witnessEye witness

23. Case LawCase Law
Vikram v. State of MaharashtraVikram v. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2007 SC ,AIR 2007 SC
1893 1893
 Where the eye-witnesses were examined in the Where the eye-witnesses were examined in the
Court two and half years latter, some Court two and half years latter, some
contradictions or even omissions to state the contradictions or even omissions to state the
incident in great details by itself would not lead incident in great details by itself would not lead
to a conclusion that the appellants had been to a conclusion that the appellants had been
falsely implicated in the case.falsely implicated in the case.

24. Case LawCase Law
 State of U.P. v. Krishna MasterState of U.P. v. Krishna Master,AIR 2010 SC ,AIR 2010 SC
30713071
 Generally in oral evidence of crime normal Generally in oral evidence of crime normal
discrepancies exist. They are due to errors of discrepancies exist. They are due to errors of
observation , mental disposition, shock and observation , mental disposition, shock and
horror at the time of incident. Such horror at the time of incident. Such
discrepancies do not make evidence unreliable discrepancies do not make evidence unreliable
unless they go to root of matter.unless they go to root of matter.

25. Case LawCase Law
 Inimical WitnessInimical Witness-The testimony of eye--The testimony of eye-
witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the
ground of being inimical to the accused persons.ground of being inimical to the accused persons.
 Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari v. State of Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari v. State of
MaharashtraMaharashtra ,AIR 2008 SC 161 ,AIR 2008 SC 161
There were enmity between witnesses and There were enmity between witnesses and
accused person.accused person.
 Previous police complaint. Previous police complaint.

26. Case LawCase Law
 Absence of Injury on eye-witness to crimeAbsence of Injury on eye-witness to crime
 Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana,AIR Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana,AIR 2011 SC 2011 SC
27192719
 Merely because there is absence of injury on the Merely because there is absence of injury on the
person of the eye-witness, his presence at the person of the eye-witness, his presence at the
place of occurrence does not become doubtful.place of occurrence does not become doubtful.

27. Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence
Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect
EvidenceEvidence– – There is no difference between There is no difference between
circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence. circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence attempts to prove the Circumstantial Evidence attempts to prove the
facts in issue by providing other facts and facts in issue by providing other facts and
affords an instance as to its existence.affords an instance as to its existence.

28. Case LawsCase Laws
 Durga Prasad Singh v. Ram Dayal Durga Prasad Singh v. Ram Dayal
ChaudhariChaudhari,ILR 38 Cal.153,ILR 38 Cal.153
 FIR is not a substantive peace of evidence.FIR is not a substantive peace of evidence.
 It can be used to corroborate the evidence of It can be used to corroborate the evidence of
the person lodging the same.the person lodging the same.
 State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai AIR AIR
2003 SC 2053. 2003 SC 2053.
 Examination of witness through Video Examination of witness through Video
Conferencing has been approved.Conferencing has been approved.

29. Case LawsCase Laws
 Ram Singh v. Ramsing Ram Singh v. Ramsing (Col.) AIR 1986 SC 3(Col.) AIR 1986 SC 3
 Justice Fazal Ali laid down the following tests Justice Fazal Ali laid down the following tests
regarding the admissibility of tape-recorded regarding the admissibility of tape-recorded
version.version.
 The voice of the speaker must be identified by The voice of the speaker must be identified by
the maker of the record or other person the maker of the record or other person
recognizing his voice.recognizing his voice.
 Tape recorded statement must be relevant.Tape recorded statement must be relevant.
 The voice of the particular speaker must be The voice of the particular speaker must be
clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted
by other sounds or disturbances.by other sounds or disturbances.

30. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACTACT
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is divided into 3 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is divided into 3
parts, 11 chapters and comprises of 167 sections. parts, 11 chapters and comprises of 167 sections.
 Part-I answers the question ‘what facts may or  Part-I answers the question ‘what facts may or
may not be proved?’ (Ch.I & II – Ss-1 to 55)  may not be proved?’ (Ch.I & II – Ss-1 to 55) 
Part-II deals with ‘what sort of evidence is to be Part-II deals with ‘what sort of evidence is to be
given of these facts?’ (Ch.III – VI Ss-56 to100) given of these facts?’ (Ch.III – VI Ss-56 to100)
 Part-III covers ‘by whom and in what manner  Part-III covers ‘by whom and in what manner
the facts are to be proved?’ (Ch-VII to XI; Ss-the facts are to be proved?’ (Ch-VII to XI; Ss-
101 to 167)  Sec-5 to 55 deal with 101 to 167)  Sec-5 to 55 deal with
RELEVANCY and  Sec-56 to 167 deal with RELEVANCY and  Sec-56 to 167 deal with
the ADMISSIBILITY.the ADMISSIBILITY.

31. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACTACT
The Indian Evidence Act,1872 came into force The Indian Evidence Act,1872 came into force
on 1st. September, 1872. It applies to the whole on 1st. September, 1872. It applies to the whole
of India except J & K. It applies to all judicial of India except J & K. It applies to all judicial
proceedings in or before a court, including court proceedings in or before a court, including court
martials.martials.
 Affidavits ii) Arbitration proceedings. The Affidavits ii) Arbitration proceedings. The
provisions of this Act are not applicable to provisions of this Act are not applicable to
Departmental Inquiries / Domestic Departmental Inquiries / Domestic
Inquiries/Commissions of Inquiries / Inquiries/Commissions of Inquiries /
Administrative TribunalsAdministrative Tribunals

32. Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause
 Sec.3. “Court”-Includes all Judges and Sec.3. “Court”-Includes all Judges and
Magistrate and all persons ,except arbitrators, Magistrate and all persons ,except arbitrators,
legally authorized to take evidence.legally authorized to take evidence.
 Sec.391 of Cr.P.C., Order 41,R.27 of C.P.C.Sec.391 of Cr.P.C., Order 41,R.27 of C.P.C.
 Fact- Fact means and includes-Fact- Fact means and includes-
 (1) Anything, state of things, or relation of (1) Anything, state of things, or relation of
things, capable of being perceived by the sensesthings, capable of being perceived by the senses
 (2) Any mental condition of which any person (2) Any mental condition of which any person
is conscious.is conscious.

33. Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause
IllustrationsIllustrations
 (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a
certain order in a certain place, is a fact.certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
 (b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.(b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.
 (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
 (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a
certain intention, acts in good faith or certain intention, acts in good faith or
fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a
particular sense, or is or was at a specified time particular sense, or is or was at a specified time
conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
 That a man has certain reputation , is a fact.That a man has certain reputation , is a fact.

34. FactFact
 Fact means an existing thingsFact means an existing things
 Physical and Psychological Facts-A horse, a Physical and Psychological Facts-A horse, a
man, are physical facts.man, are physical facts.
 Psychological Facts- The sensation or Psychological Facts- The sensation or
recollection of which man is conscious , his recollection of which man is conscious , his
desires , his intentions in doing particular desires , his intentions in doing particular
acts,etc.acts,etc.
 Positive Facts-Existence of certain state of Positive Facts-Existence of certain state of
thingsthings
 Negative Facts-Non existence of it.Negative Facts-Non existence of it.

35. Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause
 ““Relevant”-One fact is said to be relevant to another Relevant”-One fact is said to be relevant to another 
when the one is connected when the one is connected with the other in any of the with the other in any of the 
ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating 
to the relevancy of the facts.to the relevancy of the facts.
  Logically relevant-When a fact is connected with Logically relevant-When a fact is connected with 
other factother fact
  Legally relevant-If the law relevant it to be relevant.Legally relevant-If the law relevant it to be relevant.

36. Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause
““Facts in Issue”-Facts in Issue”-Any fact from which, either Any fact from which, either 
by itself or in connection with the other facts, by itself or in connection with the other facts, 
the existence, non-existence, nature or extent the existence, non-existence, nature or extent 
of any right , liability or disability, asserted or of any right , liability or disability, asserted or 
denied in any suit or proceedings. denied in any suit or proceedings. 
 No list is given in Evidence Act of the Facts in No list is given in Evidence Act of the Facts in
Issue. The Court has to frame in every case.Issue. The Court has to frame in every case.
Interpretation Clause

37. Fact in IssueFact in Issue
 A is a cashier in a factory. It is his duty to bring A is a cashier in a factory. It is his duty to bring
money from bank and distribute it to the money from bank and distribute it to the
labourers. A case under sec.409,I.P.C., “Criminal labourers. A case under sec.409,I.P.C., “Criminal
Breach of Trust” is started against him. The case Breach of Trust” is started against him. The case
against him is that he brought Rs.25,000 from against him is that he brought Rs.25,000 from
the bank and misappropriated Rs.13,000 out of the bank and misappropriated Rs.13,000 out of
it. A says in his defence that he brought the it. A says in his defence that he brought the
case from the bank and as he was to go on leave case from the bank and as he was to go on leave
that day, he according to the direction of the that day, he according to the direction of the
Manager of the company , handed over Manager of the company , handed over
Rs.25,000 to B,the Assistant Cashier.Rs.25,000 to B,the Assistant Cashier.

38. Fact in IssueFact in Issue
 Order XIV,Rule 1,C.P.C. lays down that “issues Order XIV,Rule 1,C.P.C. lays down that “issues
arises when a material proposition of fact or law arises when a material proposition of fact or law
is affirmed by the one party and denied by the is affirmed by the one party and denied by the
other”.other”.
 Sec.6 of Indian Evidence Act-Facts forming Sec.6 of Indian Evidence Act-Facts forming
part of the same transaction.part of the same transaction.
 Sec.7.Facts which are occassion,cause or effect Sec.7.Facts which are occassion,cause or effect
of the facts in Issueof the facts in Issue

39. Relevant FactsRelevant Facts
Sec.8.Motive,preparation, conduct of a party.Sec.8.Motive,preparation, conduct of a party.
 Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain the facts in Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain the facts in
IssueIssue
 Sec.10.Things said or done by conspirators.Sec.10.Things said or done by conspirators.
 Sec.11.Facts inconsistent with facts in issue.Sec.11.Facts inconsistent with facts in issue.
 Sec.12. Facts helping in estimate of damagesSec.12. Facts helping in estimate of damages
 Sec.13.Transaction creating rightSec.13.Transaction creating right
 Sec.14.Facts stating of mind or bodySec.14.Facts stating of mind or body

40. Relevant FactsRelevant Facts
 Sec.15.Facts showing whether act is intentional Sec.15.Facts showing whether act is intentional
or accidentalor accidental
 Sec.16.Existence of course of businessSec.16.Existence of course of business
 (Sections 17 to 23 and 31)-Admission(Sections 17 to 23 and 31)-Admission
 Sections(24 to 30) –ConfessionSections(24 to 30) –Confession
 Sections(32-33)-Statements of persons who are Sections(32-33)-Statements of persons who are
dead or cannot be founddead or cannot be found
 Sections(34-39)-Statements made under special Sections(34-39)-Statements made under special
circumstances.circumstances.

41. Relevant FactsRelevant Facts
 Sections-40 to 44(Judgments)Sections-40 to 44(Judgments)
 Sections-45 to 47-Opinions of experts and Sections-45 to 47-Opinions of experts and
othersothers
 Sections-48-49- Opinions as to the existence of Sections-48-49- Opinions as to the existence of
customs and usagescustoms and usages
 Section-50-Opinion on relationshipSection-50-Opinion on relationship
 Section-52 to 55-CharactorSection-52 to 55-Charactor

42. Exaggeration in EvidenceExaggeration in Evidence
 Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.PRamesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC ., AIR 2012 SC
19791979
 If the witness exaggerates evidence , it does not If the witness exaggerates evidence , it does not
make it completely unreliable. The Court has to make it completely unreliable. The Court has to
separate separate grain from chaff.grain from chaff.
 Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery
to a story , however, true in the main. It has to to a story , however, true in the main. It has to
be appraised in each case as to what extent the be appraised in each case as to what extent the
evidence is worthy of credence.evidence is worthy of credence.

43. ProofProof
 Proof of Drunkenness-Proof of Drunkenness-
 George Kutty v. State of Kerala George Kutty v. State of Kerala ,1992 Cr LJ ,1992 Cr LJ
1663 (Ker)1663 (Ker)
Blood or urine test is not a must for proving the Blood or urine test is not a must for proving the
charge of drunkenness. Drunkenness is a charge of drunkenness. Drunkenness is a
question of fact and smelling of alcohol, question of fact and smelling of alcohol,
unsteady gait, dilation of pupils, incoherent unsteady gait, dilation of pupils, incoherent
speech would all be relevant considerations.speech would all be relevant considerations.

44. Last Seen TheoryLast Seen Theory
 State of UP V. Satish State of UP V. Satish 2005 (3) SCC 1142005 (3) SCC 114
 The last seen theory comes into play where the The last seen theory comes into play where the
time-gap between the point of time when the time-gap between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were last seen alive accused and the deceased were last seen alive
and the deceased is found dead is so small that and the deceased is found dead is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused possibility of any person other than the accused
being the author of the crime becomes being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. Even in such a case, the Courts impossible. Even in such a case, the Courts
should look for corroboration.should look for corroboration.

45. Standard of Proof in Civil and Standard of Proof in Civil and
Criminal CasesCriminal Cases
 In Civil cases,mere preponderance of In Civil cases,mere preponderance of
probabilityprobability
 Criminal Proceedings – Much higher degree of Criminal Proceedings – Much higher degree of
proof is needed before the person is convicted.proof is needed before the person is convicted.
 In Civil cases the burden may lie on either of In Civil cases the burden may lie on either of
the parties.the parties.

46. ProvedProved
 Sec.3.Proved-A fact is said to be proved when, Sec.3.Proved-A fact is said to be proved when,
after considering the matter before it, the court after considering the matter before it, the court
either believes it to exist , or considers its either believes it to exist , or considers its
existence so probable that a prudent man ought , existence so probable that a prudent man ought ,
under the circumstances of the particular case, under the circumstances of the particular case,
to act upon the supposition that it exists.to act upon the supposition that it exists.

47. ProvedProved
 Proof- It must mean such evidence as would Proof- It must mean such evidence as would
induce a reasonable man to come to the induce a reasonable man to come to the
conclusion- conclusion- Bhano v. Babu Singh,Bhano v. Babu Singh, 1998 Cr LJ 1998 Cr LJ
4768(Raj), Facts must be proved by the best 4768(Raj), Facts must be proved by the best
evidence available.evidence available.
 Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
perfect proof , which may sound artificial.perfect proof , which may sound artificial.
 Inder Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.,) Inder Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.,) AIR 1978 AIR 1978
SC 1091SC 1091

48. Conjecture and SurmiseConjecture and Surmise
 Circumstantial Evidence-Chain and Circumstantial Evidence-Chain and
ConnectivityConnectivity
 The court must keep in mind that there lies a The court must keep in mind that there lies a
long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and
‘must be true’.‘must be true’.
 Civil Cases and Criminal CasesCivil Cases and Criminal Cases

49. Falsus in Uno Falsus in OmnibusFalsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus
 False in one thing, false in everythingFalse in one thing, false in everything
 It is neither sound rule of law or a rule of It is neither sound rule of law or a rule of
practice.practice.
 This maxim does not apply to criminal trial This maxim does not apply to criminal trial
because the court has to disengage the truth because the court has to disengage the truth
from falsehood.from falsehood.
 Hari Chand v. State of DelhiHari Chand v. State of Delhi,AIR 1996 SC 1477 ,AIR 1996 SC 1477
 It is well settled law that evidence may be It is well settled law that evidence may be
accepted partially or in the whole.accepted partially or in the whole.

50. ProvedProved
 Letters of married woman to her father Letters of married woman to her father
apprehending danger.apprehending danger.
 Mass Killing by Mob- Overt act-Participation in Mass Killing by Mob- Overt act-Participation in
Crime.Crime.
 Rajendra Kumar v. State of UP., 1998 Cr LJ Rajendra Kumar v. State of UP., 1998 Cr LJ
32933293
 Medicial opinion about husband conduct Medicial opinion about husband conduct
towards wife dying burns.towards wife dying burns.
 He tried to hold her by his hands and prevented He tried to hold her by his hands and prevented
her from going out of room.her from going out of room.

51. Sole WitnessSole Witness
 A conviction can be based on the single A conviction can be based on the single
testimony of an eye-witness if the witness is testimony of an eye-witness if the witness is
wholly reliable and his statements inspires full wholly reliable and his statements inspires full
confidence.confidence.
 Bachchu v. State of U.PBachchu v. State of U.P., 1999 Cr LJ 1967 (All).., 1999 Cr LJ 1967 (All).
 In a case of bribery , corroboration of the In a case of bribery , corroboration of the
evidence of the complainant need not be a evidence of the complainant need not be a
direct. It can be by circumstantial evidence also.direct. It can be by circumstantial evidence also.

52. Mode of Obtaining EvidenceMode of Obtaining Evidence
 Pushpadevi M Jatia v. M L Wadhawan Pushpadevi M Jatia v. M L Wadhawan AIR AIR
1987 SC 17481987 SC 1748
 Relevant evidence can be taken into account Relevant evidence can be taken into account
irrespective of the methods by which it was irrespective of the methods by which it was
obtained.obtained.

54. DNA TestDNA Test
 Divorce Divorce
 AdulteryAdultery
 Property DisputeProperty Dispute
 High Court has an inherent power .High Court has an inherent power .

55. Case LawCase Law
Mavada Venkateswara Rao v. Oleti Vana Mavada Venkateswara Rao v. Oleti Vana
LakshmiLakshmi, AIR 2008 AP 195, AIR 2008 AP 195
 The property in dispute was the self acquired The property in dispute was the self acquired
property of the mother. The suit for partition property of the mother. The suit for partition
was filed by the plaintiff(daughter). The son was was filed by the plaintiff(daughter). The son was
defendant. He stated that the plaintiff and her defendant. He stated that the plaintiff and her
brother were destitute and not born to his brother were destitute and not born to his
mother. As such they had no right of mother. As such they had no right of
inheritanceinheritance. The court said that the maternity of . The court said that the maternity of
the parties was thus disputed. The court directed the parties was thus disputed. The court directed
both the parties to undergo DNA test.both the parties to undergo DNA test.

57. Contradictory StatementContradictory Statement
 Murugan v. State Murugan v. State , 1993 Cr LJ 1259, 1993 Cr LJ 1259
 Where the statement of an injured eye witness Where the statement of an injured eye witness
before the police and thereafter before the court before the police and thereafter before the court
were were contradictorycontradictory, it was held that his , it was held that his
testimony was not reliable.testimony was not reliable.
 State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh AIR 1997 SC AIR 1997 SC
27802780
 Where the postmortem report was prepared Where the postmortem report was prepared
jointly by two doctors , examination of one of jointly by two doctors , examination of one of
them who had done them who had done major work major work was held to be was held to be
sufficient.sufficient.

58. Variance between Medical Evidence and Circumstantial Variance between Medical Evidence and Circumstantial
EvidenceEvidence
 State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik,State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik,1995 Cr LJ 1995 Cr LJ
483 (SC) 483 (SC)
 The domestic servant killed three members of The domestic servant killed three members of
the family , the fourth (the witness) managed to the family , the fourth (the witness) managed to
save herself by locking herself in the bathroom. save herself by locking herself in the bathroom.
She heard voices which clinchingly showed the She heard voices which clinchingly showed the
involvement of the domestic servant. Her involvement of the domestic servant. Her
evidence , though not direct, was that of evidence , though not direct, was that of
circumstances surrounding the transactioncircumstances surrounding the transaction. It . It
was relevant and sufficient to support was relevant and sufficient to support
conviction.conviction.

59. State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji
Naik Naik,Naik Naik,1995 Cr LJ 483 (SC) 1995 Cr LJ 483 (SC)
 Where the doctor conducting autopsy was not Where the doctor conducting autopsy was not
in a position to give definite opinion regarding in a position to give definite opinion regarding
the cause of death, it was held that the court the cause of death, it was held that the court
could convict the accused on the basis of could convict the accused on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.circumstantial evidence.

60. DisprovedDisproved
 Sec.3.Disproved: A fact is said to be disproved Sec.3.Disproved: A fact is said to be disproved
when, after considering the matters before it, the when, after considering the matters before it, the
Court either believes that it Court either believes that it does not exist, or does not exist, or
considers its non-existenceconsiders its non-existence so probable that a so probable that a
prudent man ought , under the circumstances of prudent man ought , under the circumstances of
the particular case, to act upon the supposition the particular case, to act upon the supposition
that it does not exist.that it does not exist.
 The term ‘not proved’ indicates a state of mind The term ‘not proved’ indicates a state of mind
between two states of mind “proved and between two states of mind “proved and
disproved” when one is unable to say precisely disproved” when one is unable to say precisely
how the matter stands.how the matter stands.

61. May Presume-Shall Presume-May Presume-Shall Presume-
Conclusive ProofConclusive Proof
 May PresumeMay Presume-Sec.4. Whenever it is provided by -Sec.4. Whenever it is provided by
this Act that the Court may presume a fact , it this Act that the Court may presume a fact , it
maymay either regard such fact as proved, unless either regard such fact as proved, unless
and untill it is disproved, or may call forand untill it is disproved, or may call for
 Shall PresumeShall Presume-Sec.4.Whenever it is directed by -Sec.4.Whenever it is directed by
this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it
shall regard such fact as proved, unless and untill shall regard such fact as proved, unless and untill
it is disproved.it is disproved.

62. May Presume-Shall Presume-May Presume-Shall Presume-
Conclusive ProofConclusive Proof
 Conclusive ProofConclusive Proof-When one fact is declared by -When one fact is declared by
this Act to be this Act to be conclusive proof of anotherconclusive proof of another, the , the
Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the
other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to
be given for the purpose of disproving it.be given for the purpose of disproving it.
 A presumption means a rule of law that Courts A presumption means a rule of law that Courts
and Judges shall draw and Judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular inference from
a particular facta particular fact, or , or from particular evidencefrom particular evidence, ,
unless and untill the truth of such inference is unless and untill the truth of such inference is
disproved.disproved.

63. Case LawCase Law
 Umashanker v. State of ChhatisgarhUmashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh,AIR 2001 ,AIR 2001
SC 3074SC 3074
 It was alleged against an eighteen year old It was alleged against an eighteen year old
student that he had passed a fake not of Rs.100 student that he had passed a fake not of Rs.100
to a shop keeper and 13 more such notes were to a shop keeper and 13 more such notes were
recovered from him, it was held by the Supreme recovered from him, it was held by the Supreme
Court that the presumption thus created was not Court that the presumption thus created was not
sufficient to prove the sufficient to prove the mens rea mens rea requirement requirement
under s.489-B ,IPC, that he knew or had reason under s.489-B ,IPC, that he knew or had reason
to believe that notes in question were forged or to believe that notes in question were forged or
counterfeit.counterfeit.

64. Nirmal Das Bose v. Mamta GulatiNirmal Das Bose v. Mamta Gulati AIR 1997 AIR 1997
All 401All 401
 A marriage certificate issued under the Special A marriage certificate issued under the Special
Marriage Act is a conclusive evidence of the Marriage Act is a conclusive evidence of the
solemnization of marriage under the Act and solemnization of marriage under the Act and
also compliance of formalities and signatures of also compliance of formalities and signatures of
parties and witnesses. The genuineness of the parties and witnesses. The genuineness of the
compliance procedure is a different question. It compliance procedure is a different question. It
remains questionable.remains questionable.

65. RELEVANCY OF FACTSRELEVANCY OF FACTS
 From section 5 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts.From section 5 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts.
 Sec.5.Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding Sec.5.Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding
of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue
and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be
relevant and of no others.relevant and of no others.
 Illustrations- A is tried for the murder of B by beating Illustrations- A is tried for the murder of B by beating
him with a club with the intention of causing his death-him with a club with the intention of causing his death-
 A’s beating B with the club,A’s causing B’s death by A’s beating B with the club,A’s causing B’s death by
such beating,A’s intention to cause B’s death.such beating,A’s intention to cause B’s death.

66. Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra, Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra,
(2012) 11 SCC 685(2012) 11 SCC 685
 Where the entire evidence of eyewitnesses was Where the entire evidence of eyewitnesses was
not accepted by the High Court, it was held by not accepted by the High Court, it was held by
Supreme Court that the accused cannot be Supreme Court that the accused cannot be
convicted for an offence under s.302 Indian convicted for an offence under s.302 Indian
Penal Code merely on the basis of the post-Penal Code merely on the basis of the post-
mortem report. The mortem report. The post-mortem report should post-mortem report should
be in corroboration with the evidence of be in corroboration with the evidence of
eyewitnesseseyewitnesses and cannot be an evidence and cannot be an evidence
sufficient to reach the conclusion for convicting sufficient to reach the conclusion for convicting
the accused. the accused.

67. Relevancy of Facts forming part Relevancy of Facts forming part
of same transactionof same transaction
 Sec.6.Facts which, though not in issue, are so Sec.6.Facts which, though not in issue, are so
connected with a fact in issue as to form part of connected with a fact in issue as to form part of
the same transaction , are relevant , whether they the same transaction , are relevant , whether they
occurred at the same time and place or at occurred at the same time and place or at
different times and places.different times and places.
 A is accused of the murder of B by A is accused of the murder of B by beating himbeating him. .
Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-
standers at standers at the beatingthe beating, or so shortly or after it as , or so shortly or after it as
to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

68. Relevancy of Facts forming part Relevancy of Facts forming part
of same transactionof same transaction
 A is accused of waging war against A is accused of waging war against
the [ Government of India] by taking part in an the [ Government of India] by taking part in an
armed insurrection in which property is armed insurrection in which property is
destroyed troops are attacked and goals are destroyed troops are attacked and goals are
broken open. The occurrence of these facts is broken open. The occurrence of these facts is
relevant, as forming part of the general relevant, as forming part of the general
transaction, though A may not have been transaction, though A may not have been
present at all of them.present at all of them.

69. Relevancy of Facts forming part Relevancy of Facts forming part
of same transactionof same transaction
 A sues B for a A sues B for a libellibel contained in a letter forming part contained in a letter forming part
of a correspondence. Letters between the parties of a correspondence. Letters between the parties
relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and
forming part of the correspondence in which it is forming part of the correspondence in which it is
contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contained, are relevant facts, though they do not
contain the libel itself.contain the libel itself.
 The question is, whether The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B certain goods ordered from B
were delivered to Awere delivered to A. The goods were delivered to . The goods were delivered to
several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery
is a relevant fact. is a relevant fact.

70. Relevancy of Facts forming part Relevancy of Facts forming part
of same transactionof same transaction
 Res gestae- Res gestae- The Things done(including words The Things done(including words
spoken in the course of a transaction) spoken in the course of a transaction)

  But in the nineteenth century, the borrowing of But in the nineteenth century, the borrowing of 
the concept of res gestae from English the concept of res gestae from English
Law offerean exception to this rule. Res gestae isLaw offerean exception to this rule. Res gestae is
 based on the belief that because certain stateme based on the belief that because certain stateme
nts are made naturally, nts are made naturally,
spontaneously, and without deliberation during tspontaneously, and without deliberation during t
he course of an event, they carry a high degree ohe course of an event, they carry a high degree o
f redibility and leave little f redibility and leave little
room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

71. Case LawCase Law
Rattan v. ReginamRattan v. Reginam--
 which dealt with the admissibility of the which dealt with the admissibility of the
statement of a telephone operator who received statement of a telephone operator who received
a call from the deceased minutes before she was a call from the deceased minutes before she was
allegedly murdered by her husband. The Council allegedly murdered by her husband. The Council
characterised the statement as original evidence characterised the statement as original evidence
of 'verbal facts', as opposed to hearsay evidence, of 'verbal facts', as opposed to hearsay evidence,
as the object of admitting the statement was not as the object of admitting the statement was not
to establish the truth of the statement made, but to establish the truth of the statement made, but
merely to establish the fact that it was made. merely to establish the fact that it was made. 

72. Newspaper ReportNewspaper Report
 All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v.
State Election Commission,AIR 2007 NOC State Election Commission,AIR 2007 NOC
1801 (Mad-FB)1801 (Mad-FB)
 A newspaper report can be relied on by the A newspaper report can be relied on by the
Election Commission while deciding a petition Election Commission while deciding a petition
in connection with repolling. In similar in connection with repolling. In similar
circumstances the High Court can also rely on circumstances the High Court can also rely on
newspaper reports.newspaper reports.

73. FACTS-OCCASSION-FACT IN FACTS-OCCASSION-FACT IN
ISSUEISSUE
Sec.7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or Sec.7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or
effect of facts in issueeffect of facts in issue
Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect,
immediately or otherwise, of relevant facts, or immediately or otherwise, of relevant facts, or
facts in issue, or which constitute the state of facts in issue, or which constitute the state of
things under which they happened, or which things under which they happened, or which
afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or
transaction, are relevant.transaction, are relevant.

74. IllustrationsIllustrations
 The question is, whether A robbed B.The question is, whether A robbed B.
  The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B
went to a fair with money in his possession, and went to a fair with money in his possession, and
that that he showed it or mentioned he showed it or mentioned the fact that he the fact that he
had it, to third persons, are relevant.had it, to third persons, are relevant.
  The question is whether A Poisoned B.The question is whether A Poisoned B.
  The state of B’s health before the symptoms The state of B’s health before the symptoms
ascribed to poison, and ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to habits of B, known to A, A,
which afforded an opportunity for the which afforded an opportunity for the
administration of poison, are relevant facts.administration of poison, are relevant facts.

75. Annasuyamma v. State of Karnataka , 2002 Cr Annasuyamma v. State of Karnataka , 2002 Cr
LJ 4401 (Kant)LJ 4401 (Kant)
 Property recovered from accused by the Property recovered from accused by the
deceased, murder of the deceased. The court deceased, murder of the deceased. The court
said that unless it could be conclusively said that unless it could be conclusively
established that the property was with the established that the property was with the
deceased at the time of the offence , the deceased at the time of the offence , the
question of property would not be good enough question of property would not be good enough
to establish nexus with the murder.to establish nexus with the murder.

76. Motive -PreparationMotive -Preparation
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conductconduct
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a
motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant
fact.fact.
  The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party,
to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or
proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein
or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an
offence against whom is subject of any proceeding, is offence against whom is subject of any proceeding, is
relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by
any fact ins issue or relevant fact, and whether it was any fact ins issue or relevant fact, and whether it was
previous or subsequent thereto.previous or subsequent thereto.

77. IllustrationsIllustrations
 (a) A is tried for the murder of B.(a) A is tried for the murder of B.
The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that
A had murdered C, and B had tried to had A had murdered C, and B had tried to had
extort money from A by threatening to make his extort money from A by threatening to make his
knowledge public, are relevant.knowledge public, are relevant.
  (b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of (b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of
money. B denies the making of the bond.money. B denies the making of the bond.
the fact that, at the time when the bound was the fact that, at the time when the bound was
alleged to be made, B required money for a alleged to be made, B required money for a
particular purpose, is relevant.particular purpose, is relevant.
  

78. Illustrations Illustrations
 (c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.
  The fact that, before the death of B, A procured The fact that, before the death of B, A procured
poison similar to that which was administered to B, is poison similar to that which was administered to B, is
relevant.relevant.
  (d) The question is, whether a certain document is the (d) The question is, whether a certain document is the
will of A. will of A. 
The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged
will, A made inquiry into matters to which the will, A made inquiry into matters to which the
provisions of the alleged will relate that the consulted provisions of the alleged will relate that the consulted
vakils in reference to making the will, and that he vakils in reference to making the will, and that he
caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which he caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which he
did not approve, are relevant.did not approve, are relevant.

79. IllustrationsIllustrations
 (e) A is accused of a crime.(e) A is accused of a crime.
  The facts that, after the commission of the The facts that, after the commission of the
alleged crime, he absconded, or was in alleged crime, he absconded, or was in
possession of property of the proceeds of possession of property of the proceeds of
property acquired by the crime, or attempted to property acquired by the crime, or attempted to
conceal things which were or might have been conceal things which were or might have been
used in committing if, are relevant.used in committing if, are relevant.

80. Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 Cal 482Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 Cal 482
 Previous threats, previous altercations, or Previous threats, previous altercations, or
previous litigations between parties are admitted previous litigations between parties are admitted
to show motive.to show motive.
 Sarojini v. State of M.P Sarojini v. State of M.P 1993 AIR SCW 8171993 AIR SCW 817
 It was held that pre-marital demand of dowry It was held that pre-marital demand of dowry
and its non-compliance are relevant facts to and its non-compliance are relevant facts to
establish motive. In a bride burning case , the establish motive. In a bride burning case , the
parents of the deceased did not agree to transfer parents of the deceased did not agree to transfer
and register the land in the name of their son-in-and register the land in the name of their son-in-
law.law.

81. Distinction between Admissibility and RelevancyDistinction between Admissibility and Relevancy
Admissibility Relevancy
Admissibility is not based on
logic but on strict rules of law
Relevancy is based on logic and
probability
The rules of admissibility are
prescribed after section 56 of
Evidence Act,1872
The rules of relevancy are
described under Sections 5-55
The admissibility declares
whether certain type of relevant
evidence are admissible
The rules of relevancy declares
what is relevant
Modes of admissibility of
relevant evidence
Under Evidence Act the rules of
relevancy means relevant
evidence. They may be
admissible or not
The facts which are admissible
are necessarily relevant
The facts which are relevant are
not necessarily admissible

82. RelevancyRelevancy
Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain or introduce Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain or introduce
relevant facts. relevant facts.
Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in
issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut
an inference suggested by a fact in issue or an inference suggested by a fact in issue or
relevant fact, or which establish the identity of relevant fact, or which establish the identity of
any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or
fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or
relevant fact happened, or which show the relevant fact happened, or which show the
relation of parties by whom any such fact was relation of parties by whom any such fact was
transacted, are relevant in so far as they are transacted, are relevant in so far as they are
necessary for that purpose.necessary for that purpose.

83. IllustrationsIllustrations
 The question is, whether a given document is The question is, whether a given document is
the will of A.the will of A.
The state of A’s property and of his family at the The state of A’s property and of his family at the
date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.
(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful (b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful
conduct to A;B affirms that the matter alleged to conduct to A;B affirms that the matter alleged to
be libelous is true.be libelous is true.
The position and relations of the parties at the The position and relations of the parties at the
time when the libel was published may be time when the libel was published may be
relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issuerelevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue

84. Case LawsCase Laws
 Noor Mohammad v. Emperor Noor Mohammad v. Emperor AIR 1944 Sind AIR 1944 Sind
9393
 Noor Mohammad was tried for abducting Noor Mohammad was tried for abducting
Mst.Saidan. Once during the investigation Mst.Saidan. Once during the investigation
Mst.Saidan was being taken to the police station. Mst.Saidan was being taken to the police station.
Noor Mohammad was loitering in the way. On Noor Mohammad was loitering in the way. On
Seeing Noor Mohammad,Mst.Saidan once cried Seeing Noor Mohammad,Mst.Saidan once cried
out to her brother Kasim that this man was one out to her brother Kasim that this man was one
of her abductor.kasim tole headconstable who of her abductor.kasim tole headconstable who
was with them and the head constable forthwith was with them and the head constable forthwith
arrested him.arrested him.

85. Rahan Lalu v. Emperor Rahan Lalu v. Emperor AIR 1938 AIR 1938
Sind.97.Sind.97.
The prosecution case was that Rahan Lalu killed The prosecution case was that Rahan Lalu killed
his wife on one morning with an axe. Their son his wife on one morning with an axe. Their son
a child of 5 years was beside them. He made a a child of 5 years was beside them. He made a
cry and his cry attracted the witnesses who cry and his cry attracted the witnesses who
found Rahan with an axe in his hand and his found Rahan with an axe in his hand and his
deceased wife near him.deceased wife near him.

86. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade
 The identification of the accused either in test The identification of the accused either in test
identification parade or in the Court is not a sine identification parade or in the Court is not a sine
qua non in every case if from the circumstances qua non in every case if from the circumstances
the quilt is otherwise established. the quilt is otherwise established.
 Many a times crimes are committed under the Many a times crimes are committed under the
cover of darkness when none is able to identify cover of darkness when none is able to identify
the accused.the accused.

87. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade
 Mulla v. State of UP Mulla v. State of UP (2010) 3 SCC 508(2010) 3 SCC 508
 “ “The identification parades are not primarily The identification parades are not primarily
meant for the court. They are meant for meant for the court. They are meant for
investigation purpose”.investigation purpose”.
 There are two purposes namely-Enable There are two purposes namely-Enable
witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused
whom they suspect is really one who was seen whom they suspect is really one who was seen
by them in connection with the commission of by them in connection with the commission of
crime. crime.
 Investigation authority-Suspect is a real person.Investigation authority-Suspect is a real person.

88. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade
 Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra , Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra ,
AIR 2000 SC 160: 2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).AIR 2000 SC 160: 2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).
 If the test identification parade regarding If the test identification parade regarding
accused was not conducted properly and accused was not conducted properly and
suffered from unexplained delay, he is entitled to suffered from unexplained delay, he is entitled to
benefit of doubt.benefit of doubt.

89. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade
 Mullagiri Vajiram v. State of Andhra Mullagiri Vajiram v. State of Andhra
PradeshPradesh,AIR 1993 SC 1243.,AIR 1993 SC 1243.
 When conviction was based on evidence of eye When conviction was based on evidence of eye
witness and not on identification parade it witness and not on identification parade it
cannot be set aside on ground that identification cannot be set aside on ground that identification
was not reliable.was not reliable.

90. Test of Identification ParadeTest of Identification Parade
Raj Nath v . State of Uttar PradeshRaj Nath v . State of Uttar Pradesh,,  1988 Cr LJ 1988 Cr LJ
422: AIR 1988 SC 345.422: AIR 1988 SC 345.
 If there is unexplained and unreasonable delay If there is unexplained and unreasonable delay
in putting up the accused persons for a test in putting up the accused persons for a test
identification the delay by itself detracts from identification the delay by itself detracts from
the credibility of the test.the credibility of the test.

91. Role of ConspiratorRole of Conspirator
Sec.Sec.10. Things said or done by conspirator in 10. Things said or done by conspirator in
reference to common designreference to common design
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or two or
more persons have conspired together to commit an more persons have conspired together to commit an
offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or
written by any one of such personswritten by any one of such persons  in reference to   in reference to
their common intention, after the time when such their common intention, after the time when such
intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a
relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to
be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the
existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of
showing that any such person was a party to it.showing that any such person was a party to it.
 Procured arms in Europe.Procured arms in Europe.

92. Case LawCase Law
 State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde
AIR 2000 SC 1691AIR 2000 SC 1691
There was no doubt that there was reasonable There was no doubt that there was reasonable
ground to believe that four of the accused ground to believe that four of the accused
conspirators had conspired to commit the conspirators had conspired to commit the
offence of abduction and murder of children offence of abduction and murder of children
involved in the case.involved in the case.
 Accused had spoken to each other in reference Accused had spoken to each other in reference
to common intention. to common intention.

93. Case LawCase Law
 Bhagwandas v. State of RajasthanBhagwandas v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC , AIR 1974 SC
878.878.
 Anything written by a conspirator will not be Anything written by a conspirator will not be
admissible against him or others if it is not done admissible against him or others if it is not done
in reference to the common intention of the in reference to the common intention of the
conspiracy.conspiracy.

94.  Section.11. When facts not otherwise relevant Section.11. When facts not otherwise relevant
become relevant.become relevant.
Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-
  (1) If they are inconsistent with any fact is issue (1) If they are inconsistent with any fact is issue
or relevant fact; (2) If by themselves or in or relevant fact; (2) If by themselves or in
connection with other facts they make the connection with other facts they make the
existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or
relevant fact highly probable or improbablerelevant fact highly probable or improbable
Illustration Illustration 
(a) The question is, whether A committed a (a) The question is, whether A committed a
crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that,
on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.

95. AlibiAlibi
 The plea of absence of a person ,charged with The plea of absence of a person ,charged with
an offence, from the place of occurrence at the an offence, from the place of occurrence at the
time of the commission of the offence is called time of the commission of the offence is called
the plea of alibi.the plea of alibi.
 Rajindra Singh v. State of U.P., Rajindra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2007 SC at AIR 2007 SC at
p.2791.p.2791.
 No finding of plea of alibi can be recorded by No finding of plea of alibi can be recorded by
the High Court for the first time in a petition the High Court for the first time in a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
 Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Statement recorded-In Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Statement recorded-In
admissible.admissible.

96. Case LawCase Law
 Binay Kumar and Other v. State of Bihar Binay Kumar and Other v. State of Bihar AIR AIR
1997 SC 3211997 SC 321
 It was held by Supreme Court that, it is basic It was held by Supreme Court that, it is basic
law in the criminal case in which the accused is law in the criminal case in which the accused is
alleged to have inflicted physical injury to alleged to have inflicted physical injury to
another person , the burden is on prosecution to another person , the burden is on prosecution to
prove that the accused was present at the scene prove that the accused was present at the scene
and has participated in the crime.and has participated in the crime.
 Encounter CasesEncounter Cases

97. Suit for DamagesSuit for Damages
Sec. Sec. 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to
enable Court to determine amount are enable Court to determine amount are
relevantrelevant
In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact
which will enable the Court to determine the which will enable the Court to determine the
amount of damages which ought to be awarded, amount of damages which ought to be awarded,
is relevant.is relevant.
 Contract or tort- In an action for libel,the other Contract or tort- In an action for libel,the other
defamatory statements by the defendant , defamatory statements by the defendant ,
whether made before or after the whether made before or after the
commencement of the suit, are admissible for commencement of the suit, are admissible for
the plaintiff so as to enhance the damages.the plaintiff so as to enhance the damages.

98. FACTS-CUSTOMFACTS-CUSTOM
 Sec.13-Facts relevant when right or custom is in Sec.13-Facts relevant when right or custom is in
question.question.
 Where the question is as to the existence of any right Where the question is as to the existence of any right
or custom, the following facts are relevant.or custom, the following facts are relevant.
  (a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in (a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in
question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, question was created, claimed, modified, recognized,
asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its
existence;existence;
  (b) Particular instances in which the right or custom (b) Particular instances in which the right or custom
was claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in which its was claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in which its
exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.

99. IllustrationsIllustrations
 IllustrationIllustration
  The question is, whether A has a right to a The question is, whether A has a right to a
fishery.fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A’s A deed conferring the fishery on A’s
ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s
father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s
father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, father, irreconcilable with the mortgage,
instances in which A’s father exercised the right, instances in which A’s father exercised the right,
or in which the exercise of the right was stopped or in which the exercise of the right was stopped
by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.

101. CustomCustom
Subramanian Chettiar v.Kamnappa ChettiarSubramanian Chettiar v.Kamnappa Chettiar,AIR ,AIR
1955 Mad.145.1955 Mad.145.
A custom is a particular rule which has existed A custom is a particular rule which has existed
from the time immemorial and has obtained the from the time immemorial and has obtained the
force of law in a particular locality.force of law in a particular locality.
Valid Custom-immemorial-reasonable-Without Valid Custom-immemorial-reasonable-Without
any interruption-any interruption-
Private Custom-General Custom-Local CustomPrivate Custom-General Custom-Local Custom
Caste or Class CustomCaste or Class Custom

103. Person State of MindPerson State of Mind
Sec.14. Facts showing existence of state of Sec.14. Facts showing existence of state of
mind, or of body or bodily feelingmind, or of body or bodily feeling
Facts showing the existence of any state of Facts showing the existence of any state of
mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith,
negligence, rashness, Ill will or good-will negligence, rashness, Ill will or good-will
towards any particular person, or showing the towards any particular person, or showing the
existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, existence of any state of body or bodily feeling,
are relevant, when the existence of any such are relevant, when the existence of any such
state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in
issue or relevant.issue or relevant.

104. IllustrationsIllustrations
(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods (a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods
knowing them to be stolen, It is proved that he knowing them to be stolen, It is proved that he
was in possession of a particular stolen article. was in possession of a particular stolen article. 
The fact that at the same time, he was in The fact that at the same time, he was in
possession of many other stolen articles is possession of many other stolen articles is
relevant, as tending to show that he knew each relevant, as tending to show that he knew each
and all of the articles off which he was in and all of the articles off which he was in
possession to be stolen.possession to be stolen.

105. IllustrationsIllustrations
(b) A is accused of (b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to fraudulently delivering to
another person another person a counterfeit coin which, at the a counterfeit coin which, at the
time when he delivered it, he know to be time when he delivered it, he know to be
counterfeit.counterfeit.
The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was
possessed of a number of other pieces of possessed of a number of other pieces of
counterfeit is relevant. The fact that A had been counterfeit is relevant. The fact that A had been
previously convicted of delivering to another previously convicted of delivering to another
person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it
to be counterfeit is relevant.to be counterfeit is relevant.

106. Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional
Sec. Sec. 15. Facts bearing on question whether 15. Facts bearing on question whether
act was accidental or intentionalact was accidental or intentional
When there is a question whether an act was When there is a question whether an act was
accidental or intentional,  or done with a accidental or intentional,  or done with a
particular knowledge or intention, the fact that particular knowledge or intention, the fact that
such act formed part of a such act formed part of a series of similar series of similar
occurrences,occurrences, in each of which the person doing in each of which the person doing
the act was concerned, is relevant.the act was concerned, is relevant.

107. Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional
 (a) A is accused of (a) A is accused of burning down burning down his house in his house in
order to obtain money for which it is insured.order to obtain money for which it is insured.
  The facts that a lived in several houses The facts that a lived in several houses
successively, each of which he insured, in each successively, each of which he insured, in each
of which a fire occurred, and after each of which of which a fire occurred, and after each of which
fires. A received payment from a different fires. A received payment from a different
insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show
that the fires were not accidental.that the fires were not accidental.

108. Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional
 A is employed to receive money from the A is employed to receive money from the
debtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a debtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a
book showing the amounts received by him. He book showing the amounts received by him. He
makes an entry showing that on a particular makes an entry showing that on a particular
occasion he received less than he really did occasion he received less than he really did
receive.receive.
  The question is, whether this false entry was The question is, whether this false entry was
accidental or intentional.accidental or intentional.
  The facts that other entries made by A in the The facts that other entries made by A in the
same book are false, same book are false, and that the false entry is in and that the false entry is in
each case in favor of A, relevant.each case in favor of A, relevant.

109. Moti Lal Roy v. Panch Bihi Industrial Bank Ltd., Moti Lal Roy v. Panch Bihi Industrial Bank Ltd.,
AIR 1946 Cal . 440AIR 1946 Cal . 440
 The accused who was entrusted with The accused who was entrusted with collection collection
of money from the debtors of a bank of money from the debtors of a bank ,collected ,collected
a certain amount from a debtor and did not a certain amount from a debtor and did not
credit it in the cash book of the bank. To Charge credit it in the cash book of the bank. To Charge
under section 408,IPC,his defence was that there under section 408,IPC,his defence was that there
was no misappropriation but owing to was no misappropriation but owing to pressure pressure
of workof work he forgot to credit the amount in the he forgot to credit the amount in the
cash book. To prove dishonest intention on his cash book. To prove dishonest intention on his
part evidence was led in of another instance of a part evidence was led in of another instance of a
similar omission by him to credit an amount similar omission by him to credit an amount
collected from another debtor.collected from another debtor.

110. Existence of Course of BusinessExistence of Course of Business
Sec.1Sec.16. Existence of course of business when 6. Existence of course of business when
relevant-relevant-When there is a question whether a particular When there is a question whether a particular
act was done, the existence of any course of business, act was done, the existence of any course of business,
according to which it naturally would have been done, according to which it naturally would have been done,
is a relevant fact. is a relevant fact.
(a) The question is, whether a (a) The question is, whether a particular letter was particular letter was
dispatched.dispatched.
  The facts that it was the ordinary course of business The facts that it was the ordinary course of business
for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the
post, and that that particular letter was put in that place post, and that that particular letter was put in that place
are relevant.are relevant.

111. Budha v. Bedariya AIR 1981 MP 76Budha v. Bedariya AIR 1981 MP 76
 A person refusing a registered letter sent by A person refusing a registered letter sent by
post cannot afterwards plead ignorance of its post cannot afterwards plead ignorance of its
contents. Similarly, if a letter is put into post contents. Similarly, if a letter is put into post
office , that is prima facie evidence , till rebutted, office , that is prima facie evidence , till rebutted,
that the addressee received it in due course.that the addressee received it in due course.

112. Dr.Kripa Ram Mathur v. State of Dr.Kripa Ram Mathur v. State of
UP AIR 2001 SC 3071UP AIR 2001 SC 3071
 The procedure adopted by selection committee The procedure adopted by selection committee
showed that the selection was made on merit and showed that the selection was made on merit and
ranking to selected candidates was given accordingly. ranking to selected candidates was given accordingly.
Merely because, the state failed to produce marks Merely because, the state failed to produce marks
obtained by each candidate at such a belated stage, it obtained by each candidate at such a belated stage, it
could not be said that selection process was not based could not be said that selection process was not based
on comparative merit of candidates appearing before on comparative merit of candidates appearing before
Selection Committee. Appellant challenged the merit Selection Committee. Appellant challenged the merit
list after success it was held by Supreme Court that the list after success it was held by Supreme Court that the
presumption of genuineness of official would also presumption of genuineness of official would also
apply. apply.

113. R v. Ewing (1983) 2 All ER 645R v. Ewing (1983) 2 All ER 645
 The accused was charged with The accused was charged with forgeryforgery. One of . One of
the issues was whether he had drawn a certain the issues was whether he had drawn a certain
sum of money from his bank account. For sum of money from his bank account. For
proving this, the prosecution adduced a proving this, the prosecution adduced a
computer print-out showing the state of the computer print-out showing the state of the
accused ‘s bank account. It was held that the accused ‘s bank account. It was held that the
print-out was relevant because it was a print-out was relevant because it was a
document which was or formed part of a record document which was or formed part of a record
relating to any trade or business.relating to any trade or business.

114. AdmissionAdmission
 Sec.Sec.17. Admission defined17. Admission defined
An admission is a statement, [oral or An admission is a statement, [oral or
documentary or contained in electronic form], documentary or contained in electronic form],
which suggests any inference as to any fact in which suggests any inference as to any fact in
issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any
of the persons, and under the circumstances, of the persons, and under the circumstances,
hereinafter mentioned.hereinafter mentioned.

115. AdmissionAdmission
 Very Important role in Judicial ProceedingsVery Important role in Judicial Proceedings
Sec. Sec. 18. Admission- by party to proceeding or his 18. Admission- by party to proceeding or his
agentagent
Statements made by party to the proceeding, or by an Statements made by party to the proceeding, or by an
agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under
the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly
authorized by him to make them, are admissions. By authorized by him to make them, are admissions. By
suitor in representative character — Statements made suitor in representative character — Statements made
by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative
character, are not admissions, unless they are made character, are not admissions, unless they are made
while the party making them held that character.while the party making them held that character.

116. AdmissionAdmission
Sec.1Sec.19. Admissions by persons whose 9. Admissions by persons whose
position must be proved as against party to position must be proved as against party to
suitsuit
Statements made by persons whose position or Statements made by persons whose position or
liability it is necessary to prove as against any liability it is necessary to prove as against any
party to the suit are admissions, if such party to the suit are admissions, if such
statements would be relevant as against such statements would be relevant as against such
persons in relation to such position or liability in persons in relation to such position or liability in
a suit brought by or against them, and if they are a suit brought by or against them, and if they are
made whilst the person making them occupies made whilst the person making them occupies
such position or is subject to such liability.such position or is subject to such liability.

117. IllustrationsIllustrations
 A undertakes to collect rents for B.A undertakes to collect rents for B.
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to
B.B.
A denies that rent was due from C to B.A denies that rent was due from C to B.
A statement by C that he owned B rent is an A statement by C that he owned B rent is an
admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if
A denies that C did owe rent to B.A denies that C did owe rent to B.

118. AdmissionAdmission
Sec. Sec. 20. Admissions by persons expressly 20. Admissions by persons expressly
referred to by party to suitreferred to by party to suit
Statements made by persons to whom party to Statements made by persons to whom party to
the suit has expressly referred for information in the suit has expressly referred for information in
reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
IllustrationIllustration
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B
is sound.is sound.
A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about it" A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about it"
C’s statement is an admission.C’s statement is an admission.

119. AdmissionAdmission
 Kedar Nath Bejoria v. State of West Kedar Nath Bejoria v. State of West
BengalBengal,AIR 1954 SC 660,AIR 1954 SC 660
 The rules of admissibility are the same for the The rules of admissibility are the same for the
trial of civil and criminal cases. Whatever the trial of civil and criminal cases. Whatever the
agent does, within the scope of the authority agent does, within the scope of the authority
binds his principle and is deemed his act.binds his principle and is deemed his act.
 Relation of master and servant relationship Relation of master and servant relationship
must be strictly proved.must be strictly proved.

120. AdmissionAdmission
 Venkata v. Bhashya Venkata v. Bhashya 22 Mad.55322 Mad.553
 Admissions by Pleaders,attorneys abd counsels Admissions by Pleaders,attorneys abd counsels
in civil cases.in civil cases.
 Krishna Swami v. Rajya Pal,Krishna Swami v. Rajya Pal,18 Mad 7318 Mad 73
 An admission of law,where it is erroneous, by An admission of law,where it is erroneous, by
the vakil is not binding on the client.the vakil is not binding on the client.

121. Ram Sahai and Others v. Jai Prakash and Ram Sahai and Others v. Jai Prakash and
others AIR 1973 MP 147.others AIR 1973 MP 147.
 A person who had the power of attorney for A person who had the power of attorney for
the tenant accepted the arrears of rent. This the tenant accepted the arrears of rent. This
acceptance was made binding upon tenant acceptance was made binding upon tenant
because this was the statement of person because this was the statement of person
referred by plaintiff.referred by plaintiff.

122. Admission-Substantive EvidenceAdmission-Substantive Evidence
 Vishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka PrasadVishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad,AIR 1974 ,AIR 1974
SC 117SC 117
 Where in a civil suit a party produces documents Where in a civil suit a party produces documents
containing admissions by his opponent , which containing admissions by his opponent , which
documents are admitted by the opponent’s counsel and documents are admitted by the opponent’s counsel and
the opponents enters the witness box it is not the opponents enters the witness box it is not
obligatory on the party producing those documents to obligatory on the party producing those documents to
draw in cross-examination the attention of the draw in cross-examination the attention of the
opponent to the said admission ,before he be permitted opponent to the said admission ,before he be permitted
to use them for the purpose of contradictiong the to use them for the purpose of contradictiong the
opponentopponent
 Clear and unambiguous.Clear and unambiguous.

123. AdmissionAdmission
Sec. Sec. 21. Proof of admissions against persons 21. Proof of admissions against persons
making them, and by or on their behalfmaking them, and by or on their behalf
Admissions are relevant and may be proved as Admissions are relevant and may be proved as
against the person who makes them, or his against the person who makes them, or his
representative in interest; but they cannot be representative in interest; but they cannot be
proved by or on behalf of the person who proved by or on behalf of the person who
makes them or by his representative in interest.makes them or by his representative in interest.

124. IllustrationsIllustrations
 A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing
them to be stolen.them to be stolen.
  He offers to prove that he refused to sell them He offers to prove that he refused to sell them
below their value. A may prove these statements, below their value. A may prove these statements,
though they are admissions, because they are though they are admissions, because they are
explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in
issue.issue.

125. IllustrationsIllustrations
 The question between A and B is, whether a The question between A and B is, whether a
certain deed is or not forged. A affirms that it is certain deed is or not forged. A affirms that it is
genuine, B that it is forged. genuine, B that it is forged. 
A may prove a statement by B that the deed is A may prove a statement by B that the deed is
genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that
the deed is forged ; but A cannot prove a the deed is forged ; but A cannot prove a
statement y himself that the deed is genuine, nor statement y himself that the deed is genuine, nor
can B prove a statement by himself that the deed can B prove a statement by himself that the deed
is forged.is forged.

126. AdmissionAdmission
 Shri Krishna v. Kurkshetra University Shri Krishna v. Kurkshetra University AIR 1975 AIR 1975
SC 376.SC 376.
Any admission made in ignorance of law or Any admission made in ignorance of law or
under duress cannot bind the maker of the under duress cannot bind the maker of the
admissionadmission

127. AdmissionAdmission
Sec.Sec.22. When oral admissions as to contents 22. When oral admissions as to contents
of documents are relevantof documents are relevant
Oral admissions as to the contents of a Oral admissions as to the contents of a
documents are not relevant, unless and until the documents are not relevant, unless and until the
party proposing to prove them shows that party proposing to prove them shows that he is he is
entitled to give secondary evidence of the entitled to give secondary evidence of the
contents of such documentcontents of such document under the rules under the rules
herein after contained, or unless the geniuses of herein after contained, or unless the geniuses of
a document produced is in questiona document produced is in question

128. AdmissionAdmission
 A executed a deed of mortgage in favour of B. A executed a deed of mortgage in favour of B.
B files a suit for possession of the property B files a suit for possession of the property
mortgaged on the basis of that mortgage. mortgaged on the basis of that mortgage.
During the trial A denied the execution of the During the trial A denied the execution of the
mortgage. Now in this case B cannot prove by mortgage. Now in this case B cannot prove by
oral evidence that he had before some persons oral evidence that he had before some persons
admitted that he had mortgaged the property to admitted that he had mortgaged the property to
him. B can prove the execution of the mortgage him. B can prove the execution of the mortgage
and can get possession of the property only and can get possession of the property only
when he files that deed of mortgage in the court when he files that deed of mortgage in the court
and proves it.and proves it.

129. AdmissionAdmission
Sec. Sec. 22A. When oral admission as to contents 22A. When oral admission as to contents
of electronic records are relevantof electronic records are relevant
Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic
records are not relevant, unless the genuineness records are not relevant, unless the genuineness
of the electronic record produced is in question.of the electronic record produced is in question.

130. AdmissionAdmission
Sec. Sec. 23. Admission in civil cases relevant23. Admission in civil cases relevant
In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made
either upon an express condition that evidence of it is either upon an express condition that evidence of it is
not to be given, or under circumstances from which the not to be given, or under circumstances from which the
Court can infer that the parties agreed together that Court can infer that the parties agreed together that
evidence of it should both be given.evidence of it should both be given.
Explanation – Nothing in this section shall be taken to Explanation – Nothing in this section shall be taken to
exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil from exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil from
giving evidence of any matter of which he may be giving evidence of any matter of which he may be
compelled to give evidence under section 126.compelled to give evidence under section 126.
 Party in compromise and peace.Party in compromise and peace.

131. AdmissionAdmission
 Shiv Ram v. Sh Charn Shiv Ram v. Sh Charn AIR 1963 Raj.126.AIR 1963 Raj.126.
 An admission must be used either as a whole or An admission must be used either as a whole or
not at all. An admission made by a person not at all. An admission made by a person
cannot be split up and part of it used against cannot be split up and part of it used against
him. It must be accepted as whole. But if there is him. It must be accepted as whole. But if there is
other evidence which disproves a part of other evidence which disproves a part of
admission, the other part may be relied upon.admission, the other part may be relied upon.

133. ConfessionConfession
 The word confession has not been defined in The word confession has not been defined in
the Indian Evidence Act.the Indian Evidence Act.
 Mr.Justice Stephen quoted that : Confession is Mr.Justice Stephen quoted that : Confession is
an admission made at any time by a person an admission made at any time by a person
charged with a crime stating or suggesting the charged with a crime stating or suggesting the
inference that he committed that crime.inference that he committed that crime.
 Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer,Narcotic Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer,Narcotic
Control Bureau,ThirivanathapuramControl Bureau,Thirivanathapuram,AIR 2007 ,AIR 2007
SC 794 at p.796.SC 794 at p.796.
 A confession which is voluntary and free from A confession which is voluntary and free from
any pressure can be accepted.any pressure can be accepted.

135. Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565
 The question was whether the appellant who The question was whether the appellant who
was a pakistani national and was caught alive in was a pakistani national and was caught alive in
Bombay Terror attack and was charged with Bombay Terror attack and was charged with
serious crimes including collecting arms with the serious crimes including collecting arms with the
intention of waging war against Government of intention of waging war against Government of
India,commission of terrorists act,criminal India,commission of terrorists act,criminal
conspiracy to commit murder,robbery/dacoity conspiracy to commit murder,robbery/dacoity
with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
and causing explosions punishable under the and causing explosions punishable under the
Explosives Substances Act,1908 had made the Explosives Substances Act,1908 had made the
confession voluntarily.confession voluntarily.

136. Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565
 He replied that thought of making confession He replied that thought of making confession
came to him when he was arrested by police. He came to him when he was arrested by police. He
then added that he had absolutely no regret of then added that he had absolutely no regret of
whatever he had done. whatever he had done.
 He said that he wanted to set an example to He said that he wanted to set an example to
others to follow-others to follow-
 He was a hero in his own eyes He was a hero in his own eyes and the and the
confession statement made by him was confession statement made by him was
voluntary and truthful.voluntary and truthful.

138. ConfessionConfession
 Ammini and Others v. State of KeralaAmmini and Others v. State of Kerala,AIR ,AIR
1998 SC 260 1998 SC 260
 The accused sustained injury. He was examined The accused sustained injury. He was examined
by the doctor before whom he stated that the by the doctor before whom he stated that the
cause of injuries. It was held to be not cause of injuries. It was held to be not
confession. The statement was not hit by confession. The statement was not hit by
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

140. ConfessionConfession
 Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1999 SC Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1999 SC
30623062
 Extra Judicial ConfessionExtra Judicial Confession
 clearclear
 Alleged confession made by large number of Alleged confession made by large number of
persons before panchayat was more in general persons before panchayat was more in general
and vague form therefore no reliance could be and vague form therefore no reliance could be
placed on such confession.placed on such confession.

142. ConfessionConfession
 C.K.Ravindran v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC C.K.Ravindran v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC
369369
 Consumed liqour Consumed liqour
 Revealing factsRevealing facts
 It was outcome of consumption of liquor by It was outcome of consumption of liquor by
both the witness as well as accused.both the witness as well as accused.

145. Retracted ConfessionRetracted Confession
 A retracted confession is a statement made by A retracted confession is a statement made by
an accused person before the trial begins , by an accused person before the trial begins , by
which he admits to have committed the which he admits to have committed the
offence , but which he repudiates at the trial.offence , but which he repudiates at the trial.
 Police officer-InvestigationPolice officer-Investigation
 undue influence of policeundue influence of police

146. ConfessionConfession
Sec.2Sec.24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or
promise when irrelevant in criminal proceedings
A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in
a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession
appears to the Court to have been caused by any
inducement, threat for promise, having reference to the
charge against the accused person, proceeding from a
person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the
Court, to give the accused person grounds, which
would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by
making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil
of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings
against him.

148. IllustrationsIllustrations
 A is charged with murder of B. He makes a A is charged with murder of B. He makes a
statement that he committed the crime. This will statement that he committed the crime. This will
amount to confession. Again he may state, “I amount to confession. Again he may state, “I
and B both were taking bath in a tank.” B and B both were taking bath in a tank.” B
abused me severely. I was angry so I got hold of abused me severely. I was angry so I got hold of
his neck and drowned him in the tank. Here the his neck and drowned him in the tank. Here the
accused substantially admits the facts which accused substantially admits the facts which
constitute the offence so his statement amounts constitute the offence so his statement amounts
to confession.to confession.

149. Case Law Case Law
 Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam,Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam,AIR AIR
2007 SC 848 at p.853.2007 SC 848 at p.853.
 A confessional statement not retracted even at a A confessional statement not retracted even at a
later stage of the trial and even accepted by the later stage of the trial and even accepted by the
accused in his examination under Section 313 of accused in his examination under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. can be fully relied upon.Cr.P.C. can be fully relied upon.
 Sec.313.Power to examine the accused.Sec.313.Power to examine the accused.

150. Judicial ConfessionJudicial Confession
 Judicial Confessions are those which are made Judicial Confessions are those which are made
before a magistrate or in court in the due course before a magistrate or in court in the due course
of legal proceedings.of legal proceedings.
 Sec.164 of Criminal Procedure CodeSec.164 of Criminal Procedure Code
 At the committal proceedings before the At the committal proceedings before the
magistrate magistrate or at the or at the trial before Sessions Judge, trial before Sessions Judge,
A may confess his guilt. All these are judicial A may confess his guilt. All these are judicial
confessions.confessions.

151. Extra-Judicial ConfessionExtra-Judicial Confession
 Extra judicial confession are those which are Extra judicial confession are those which are
made by the accused elsewhere than before a made by the accused elsewhere than before a
magistrate or in court. An extra judicial magistrate or in court. An extra judicial
confession can be made to any person or to the confession can be made to any person or to the
body of persons.body of persons.
 Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2012 SC AIR 2012 SC
2435 at p.24412435 at p.2441
 It is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be It is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be
examined by the court with greater case and examined by the court with greater case and
caution.caution.

152. Extra Judicial Confession Extra Judicial Confession
 Extra Judicial Confessions are proved by calling Extra Judicial Confessions are proved by calling
the person as witness before whom the extra the person as witness before whom the extra
judicial confession is made.judicial confession is made.
 It is unsafe to base conviction on extra judicial It is unsafe to base conviction on extra judicial
confession.confession.

153. Proof of Judicial ConfessionProof of Judicial Confession
 Kashmira Singh v. State of M.PKashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC ., AIR 1952 SC
159159
 Under Section 80 of the Evidence Act a Under Section 80 of the Evidence Act a
confession recorded by magistrate according to confession recorded by magistrate according to
law shall be presumed to be genuinelaw shall be presumed to be genuine. It is . It is
enough if the recorded judicial confession is enough if the recorded judicial confession is
filled before the court. It is not necessary to filled before the court. It is not necessary to
examine the magistrate who recorded it to prove examine the magistrate who recorded it to prove
the confession. But the identity of the accused the confession. But the identity of the accused
has to be proved.has to be proved.

154. CONFESSION TO POLICECONFESSION TO POLICE
Sec.25. Confession to police officer not to be
proved
No confession made to a police officer shall be
proved as against a person accused of any
offence.
 Untrustworthy
 To avoid the danger of admitting a false
confession.

157. Confession Confession
 Husaniya v. EmperorHusaniya v. Emperor,AIR 1936 Lah 380,AIR 1936 Lah 380
 Section.25 of the Indian Evidence Act makes Section.25 of the Indian Evidence Act makes
no distinction between a confession made no distinction between a confession made
before investigation before investigation and a confession made and a confession made after after
investigation.investigation. It is confession to a police officer It is confession to a police officer
made at any time which is not admissible.made at any time which is not admissible.

158. ConfessionConfession
 Police officer must not only have power to Police officer must not only have power to
make investigation of crime but to file a report make investigation of crime but to file a report
against criminal and to have the power to against criminal and to have the power to
prosecute the criminal.prosecute the criminal.
 Unless and until a person has power to make Unless and until a person has power to make
investigation and frame charge against accused investigation and frame charge against accused
under section 173 of Cr.P.C., he cannot be under section 173 of Cr.P.C., he cannot be
called a police officer within the meaning of called a police officer within the meaning of
Section 25 of Evidence Act.Section 25 of Evidence Act.

159. ConfessionConfession
Sec. Sec. 26. Confession by accused while in
custody of police not to be proved against
him
No confession made by any person whilst he is
in the custody of a police officer, unless it be
made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate,
 
shall be proved as against such
person.

160. ConfessionConfession

161. R. v. Lester ILR(1895)R. v. Lester ILR(1895)
 The accused was being taken in a tonga by a The accused was being taken in a tonga by a
police constable. In the absence of constable, police constable. In the absence of constable,
the accused confessed to the tanga driver that he the accused confessed to the tanga driver that he
had committed the crime. The confession was had committed the crime. The confession was
held to be in police custody as the accused was held to be in police custody as the accused was
in the custody of constable and it made no in the custody of constable and it made no
difference of his temporary absence.difference of his temporary absence.