 History and Development

 LCR 69
 Manupatra – Universal Book - Suppression of Facts and
FEW TYPES OF EVIDENCE
appreciation of False hood – discovery of truth -
 History from text books
• Real Evidence  Object and Scope of Study of Evidence
• Personal Evidence  Original Lecture I

• Direct Evidence STUDY  Few instances

 Evidence and Proof

• Circumstantial Evidence TILL DATE  Difference & study with examples
• Testimonial Evidence  layman's language - evidence refers to the proofs produced in
the court of law in favour or against the disputed facts

 Appreciation of Evidence
 Evidence signifies that that demonstrates, makes clear or
ascertain the reality of the facts or points in issue either on one
facet or the opposite – Sir Blackstone

 Real evidence means the evidence of which any

object belonging to class of things is the source,
 The sole object and end of evidence is to ascertain the truth
of several disputed facts and points in issue and no evidence persons also being included. Evidence supplied by
ought to be admitted which is not relevant to the issues; observations of involuntary changes of
Hales v. Kerr, (1908) 2 KB 601; Butterley Co. v. New countenance and department comes under the
Hucknall Colliery Co., (1909) 1 Ch 37. head of real evidence.
 (ii) The point in issue is to be proved by the party who  Any material evidence is real evidence.
asserts the affirmative according to maxim “affirmanti non
neganti incumbit probatio.”  Most Satisfactory

LEADING RULES  (iii) The evidence must be sufficient to prove the substance REAL  Real evidence of a fact is brought to the
knowledge of the court by inspection of a physical
of the issue
OF EVIDENCE EVIDENCE object and not just by information derived from a
 (iv) The best evidence must be given of which the nature of witness or a document.
the thing is capable.
 Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994) 3 SCC 381
 (v) Hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible with some  Examples
slight exceptions.
 Conduct of Witness
 (vi) No person is bound to incriminate himself.  Contempt of Court
 Party’s behaviour, finger prints found,
 Local inspection by court, Muder weapon, blood sample
  Also called as Testimonial Evidence; or Primary Oral
Evidence.

 Statement made under Oath.

Marada Venkateswara Rao Vs. Oleti Vana Laxmi  When the evidence is brought to the knowledge of the
court by human agents.
AIR 2008 AP 195
 Said in Court by a competent witness
The property in dispute was self-acquired property of
mother. The suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff  By way of disclosure OR voluntary sign
(Daughter). The son was defendant. He stated that the PERSONAL  oral testimony of the witness – direct or prima facie
CASE plaintiff and her brother were destitute and not born to his
mother. As such they had no right of inheritance. The Court EVIDENCE  A deposes that he saw B pursue C with threats. C is
found killed and B's bloody knife is found nearby. A's
said that the maternity of the parties was thus disputed. The
testimony is personal evidence; the knife is real
Court directed both the parties to undergo DNA test.
evidence. 'Real' technically signifies merely thing.
DNA – Real Evidence
 Eye Witness – vital – fear & stress – art – confusion state
of mind etc. – therefore no leading Qn.
 Less Memory – chance of errors, perception (such as
too dark, encounter too brief, weapon diverted attn.)

Points to consider in reliability of personal evidence -

 Directly about the real point in issue.
 When a specific fact is established directly without
Type of crime / offence and how witness observed providing a reason to connect to the fact, it is known as
(Colour, Sex, hairs, eyes etc preference over age height Direct Evidence.
weight)
 Testimony of the witnesses as to principal fact to be
Victim can have long and strong memory than the proved, e.g., the evidence of a person who says that
observers DIRECT he saw the commissions of the act which constitutes
Some witness remember better – Child, older adult,
head injury
EVIDENCE the alleged crime.

 It also includes the production of an original document.

Questioning Techniques – About What happened
VERSUS Description of Offenders  Direct evidence is generally of a superior cogency.
Open Ended Questions
What was he wearing VERSUS what was the colour of
trouser
  Justice Fletcher Moulton once had, in respect of circumstantial
evidence, observed “proof does not mean rigid mathematical
 That will prove the point in fact without interpretation of formula since, that is impossible.
circumstances..
 Lord Justice Coleridge observed, the circumstantial evidence is
 That can show the court that something occurred without like a grassamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself
the need for the judge to make inferences or assumptions and may vanish with the merest of touches”. He had further
observed that such evidence may be strong in parts but it may also
to reach a conclusion.
leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may
 An eyewitness who saw the accused shoot a victim would escape.”

DIRECT
be able to provide direct evidence. INDIRECT OR  When the facts in issue is proved by providing other facts, that is,
 Similarly, a security camera showing the accused indirect facts and then proving their relevance, it is known as
CIRCUMSTANCIAL Indirect Evidence.
EVIDENCE committing a crime or a statement of confession from the
accused admitting to the crime could also be considered EVIDENCE  Example- A testifies that on that morning she walked to the
direct evidence. subway and as she walked, she saw rain falling, she felt it
striking her face, and she heard it splashing on the sidewalk.
 Direct evidence IS NOT direct examination That testimony of the witness's perceptions would be direct
evidence that it rained on that morning
 Even if, someone provides direct testimony of his/her own
knowledge & experiences, that evidence is often not direct  Rules of Circumstantial Evidence …Next Page
evidence of the offence itself.

 All the link in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond

reasonable doubt and they exclude the evidence of guilt of any
other person than the accused.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (1992) 3 SCC 300
 The facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference
from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved Supreme Court Guidelines for admissibility of the Circumstantial
Evidence in Bodh Raj Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir :
beyond any reasonable doubt. It if conviction rests
solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create a 1. The Circumstance from where conclusion of guild is to be
drawn ought to be established. The circumstances involved
INDIRECT OR network from which there is no escape for the accused. INDIRECT OR “must” or “should” and not “may be” established.
The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence
CIRCUMSTANCIAL must be such as not to admit of any inference except
CIRCUMSTANCIAL 2. The facts, therefore, established ought to be as per the
hypothesis of the guild of the accused.
EVIDENCE that of guilt of the accused. EVIDENCE 3. Circumstances ought to be conclusive in nature and
tendency.
Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
4. There should be complete sequence of proof so as to not leave
(1963) 3 SCR 239. any affordable ground for the conclusion in line with the
innocence of the defendant and should show that the offence
must have been committed by the defendant.
  The inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused and is incapable of explanation  Proof of circumstantial evidence (State of UP v. Ravindra
upon any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt; Prakash Mittal 1992 SC)
Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC
762.  Four things are essential to prove guilt by
 Further it relates to various circumstances which are circumstantial evidence:
associated with the real point in issue in such a way to  that the circumstances from which guilt is established
INDIRECT OR help the court in coming to a conclusion about the
existence or non-existence of facts in issue. Thus,
INDIRECT OR must be fully proved;

CIRCUMSTANCIAL circumstantial evidence does not prove the point in CIRCUMSTANCIAL  that all the facts must be consistent with the
question directly, but establishes it only by inference. hypothesis of guilt of accused;
EVIDENCE Thus, if there is no eye-witness to a murder, the fact EVIDENCE  that the circumstances must be of conclusive nature
that A had the motive to murder B or A has been seen and tendency;
running away with a blood-stained knife from B’s room
where B was found dead immediately after B’s cries  that the circumstances should, to a moral certainty,
were heard would be circumstantial evidence as actually exclude every hypothesis except the one
against A. If the evidence relates to a relevant fact, it is proposed to be proved;
indirect or circumstantial.

 Ordinarily, circumstantial evidence cannot be regarded

as satisfactory as direct evidence. The chain of
circumstances may lead to particular inferences and the
relation to true facts may be more apparent than real.
Hence, such evidence must be used with caution. Where
INDIRECT OR the circumstantial evidence only showed that the
CIRCUMSTANCIAL accused and deceased were seen together the previous
night, it was held to be not sufficient;
EVIDENCE
Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab
(1982) 3 SCC 462