evidence under the Indian Evidence Act,1872.

Contents

 Introduction
 Importance of Oral Evidence
 Section 59 – Proof of facts by Oral Evidence
 Section 60 – Oral Evidence must be Direct
 Meaning of Hearsay Evidence
 Rationale behind the exclusion of Hearsay Evidence
 Statement to witnesses by persons not called
 Child Complainant’s Evidence by video-recording and television link
 Witnessing offence on visual display of video-recording
 Section 33 as an Exception to Section 60
 Difference Between Oral and Documentary Evidence
 Case Laws on Oral Evidence
 State v. Rajal Anand
 Amar Singh v. Chhaju Singh And Anr.
 Bhima Tima Dhotre v. The Pioneer Chemical Co.
 Conclusion
 References
Introduction
All of us know what importance evidence holds under any court
proceedings. Evidence is a certain reliable and relevant set of facts which
proves or abstains from proving any matter; there is a prescribed manner on
which the cycle of evidence works which has been divided into two main
heads- Oral and Documentary evidence by the Evidence Act 1872. In this
article we will be dealing with oral evidence, how is it made and everything
which will make us understand Oral Evidence.

Oral Evidence is dealt with under Section 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act,
1872. Oral evidence is defined under section 3 (under evidence head) which
explains that “All statements which the court permits or requires to be made
before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such
statements are called as oral evidence.” The word ‘Oral’ itself describes its
meaning as something spoken or expressed by mouth; so anything which is
accepted in the court in relation to the inquiry and expressed by any
witnesses who are called in the trial is termed as oral evidence. Oral
Evidence also includes the statements made by people in signs and writing
forms (inclusive of people who cannot speak).

Importance of Oral Evidence

Every evidence plays an important role in the trials, oral evidence has been
growing in regards to usage; as earlier it was not considered to be as precise
and blunt as documentary but its need and importance has been constantly
subjected to rapid growth. Oral evidence is also equally important as it
stimulates a person and extracts what a person has seen or what he wants to
say in regards to the trial. Oral evidence is comparatively easier to refer. The
importance has been explained by the Bombay High Court in one of the
cases that if the oral evidence is proved beyond reasonable doubt it can also
be enough for passing conviction.

Section 59 – Proof of facts by Oral Evidence

All the facts and circumstances may be proved by oral evidence by
expressing or speaking except the contents of documents and electronic
records. The contents of documents and electronic records cannot be proved
by oral evidence. It is held that if any person has to be called for proving
their documents then that document becomes oral and documentary evidence
loses its significance.

It was held in Bhima Tima Dhotre v. The pioneer chemical co. that
“Documentary evidence becomes meaningless if the writer has to be called
in every case to give oral evidence of its contents. If that were the position, it
would mean that, in the ultimate analysis, all evidence must be oral and that
oral evidence would virtually be the only kind of evidence recognised by
law. This provision would clearly indicate that to prove the contents of a
document by means of oral evidence would be a violation of that section.”

Section 60 – Oral Evidence must be Direct

This is the cardinal principle of any evidence to be admissible in the court. If
any oral evidence needs to be admissible, all the conditions under Section 60
of the Indian Evidence Act must be fulfilled. If anyone of the following
conditions is not fulfilled, then the evidence will fail to be pictured as an
Oral Evidence. Oral evidence and section 60 is a proportional equation. For
acting out one, the other needs to be fulfilled.
The base principle on which section 60 is placed is that the evidence which
is taken into regards must be direct. The word direct does not include any
category of hearsay as its main element is vested in the word “must”. Every
statement under oral evidence must be direct. Now let’s focus on some
conditions which need to be fulfilled to make oral evidence admissible;

 Direct oral evidence

Oral Evidence must be direct in all cases. Indirect ways or hearsay is not
considered a part of direct oral evidence. The word “Direct” in all matters
must mean that it is administered by any person on their own i.e through
their personal knowledge and is not passed by any other person (hearsay)
which on the other hand will be inadmissible. This involves certain cases in
which the word “direct” is involved :-

1. It refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a

witness who says he saw it –
It refers to evidence which has been given by the person who has actually
seen or observed the matter by their own eyes, This will be actuated as direct
evidence.For example: if A saw that B is hitting C. A will be an eyewitness
to the crime scene and his testimony will be that of direct evidence.

1.
It refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a
witness who says he heard it –
It refers to evidence which has been given by the person who was present
and has actually heard the matter by themselves, this will come under direct
evidence.For example: if A overheard B’s conversation that stated; that he is
going to kill C tomorrow under the bridge, A’s testimony will be that of
direct evidence.

1. It refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other senses or

any other manner, it must be the evidence of person who says he
perceived it by that sense or manner –
Meaning such evidence that has been given by the person who has perceived
it in any other manner or by any other senses but it has been perceived by
that person itself. For example: through sense of smell or taste.
 1. If it refers to an opinion or to grounds on which that opinion is
held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion
on those grounds –
It means when a person holds any opinion on any matter or incident, only
his testimony on the ground of which his opinion is formed will be
admissible in the court.For example A thinks that B is not a good guy, so his
testimony of that opinion will be termed under direct evidence.

Meaning of Hearsay Evidence

All of us are aware of what hearsay is; hearsay is any information which is
received by any person from any other source. Hearsay means when a
person does not have a personal knowledge about a particular matter or
incident and he has been informed about that particular matter by any other
person.

As oral evidence includes first-hand knowledge thus, Hearsay evidence is

excluded under the ambit of oral evidence because hearsay is not directly
obtained evidence.

Rationale behind the exclusion of Hearsay Evidence

From the above head now we know that Hearsay Evidence is second-hand
knowledge. But why is it excluded from oral evidence?

For oral evidence to be admissible it only accepts the rule of first-hand

knowledge. It only includes what is directly seen, heard and perceived by a
person. There is no room for second-hand knowledge. A conviction passed
on hearsay may be truly unjustified as there is no reliability as to whether the
person who has passed on the following information is credible enough or
not. For example: if A has received information through B that he saw C
hitting D. This will be hearsay because A himself has not administered the
incident. For this reason, Hearsay has been excluded from Oral Evidence.

Statement to witnesses by persons not called

There may be some cases in which witnesses may not be called but their
testimony is accepted and not treated as hearsay. In certain cases, such
statements may be admissible. Opinions of experts which are embedded in
things which are maintained for sale like books of authors can be accepted as
oral evidence when the author of the book is dead, cannot be found, cannot
come to the court for some reason or the court thinks that calling such
person may be a delay of proceeding, so any such statements shall be
admissible.

Child Complainant’s Evidence by video-recording and television

link

Oral Evidence also includes the child’s complainant evidence by video

recording and television link, so if there is any evidence which is presented
through video recording they are admissible under oral evidence as long as
they are not tampered with.

Witnessing offence on visual display of video-recording

If there is a video which displays an offence being committed it may be

admissible if it ensures that it is not tampered by any means. This may also
be included under oral evidence.

Section 33 as an Exception to Section 60

Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 basically gives us a structure of
exception to section 60, it has certain exceptions against rule of hearsay
which we will see below:

1. Res-gestae( derived from a Latin word meaning something

deliberately undertaken or done)– For example, if A sees B passing
by him on a bike and after that he sees that B has been injured but
A has not administered the accident on his own, when A goes to B;
B says that C has hit him by truck, such statement though hearsay
may be admissible.
2. Admission or confession- For example, A coming out of the court
tells B his guilt of committing murder of C, though hearsay but
statement shall be accepted as evidence.
3. By any reason the person cannot come to the court if he is dead,
cannot be found, is incapable of coming to court; every such
 information which has been passed to the other person and that
person giving the testimony in the court shall be held admissible.
Difference Between Oral and Documentary Evidence
BASIS ORAL EVIDENCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Oral evidence is the Documentary evidence, on the other

evidence given by hand, is the evidence which is
witnesses who are called submitted in the court in written
1. Meaning
in the court in regards to form including documents, papers
the trial orally. etc.

Oral evidence is
Documentary evidence is dealt from
mentioned under section
2. Legally defined section 61 to 66 of the Indian
59 and 60 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
Evidence Act.

Documentary evidence has direct

Oral evidence should be
3. Types documents and secondary
given direct form.
documents.

Oral evidence can be

4. Forms of Documentary evidence must be
given through speaking,
submission given in writing.
signs or gestures

Case Laws on Oral Evidence

State v. Rajal Anand

It was held under this case that section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act only
includes the word “direct” and excludes hearsay. Any evidence given must
be direct and the hearsay evidence does not hold any area under oral
evidence as it is not direct. But the doctrine of Res-gestae has been observed
as an exception to the rule of hearsay which explained that any person who
has experienced any series of relevant facts, his testimony after the incident
even if he has not seen the crime being committed will be accepted.

Amar Singh v. Chhaju Singh And Anr.

A relationship between section 50 and 60 of Indian Evidence Act has been

established which says that for proving an evidence completely, two things
shall be fulfilled firstly, there shall be a presence of relevant facts and those
facts have been presented directly by the person who has either seen them,
heard them or etc.

Bhima Tima Dhotre v. The Pioneer Chemical Co.

In this case, it was held that any fact can be proved by oral evidence instead
of the content of documents or electronic records. It is seen that if the person
who has presented the documentary record is called to prove the records,
documentary evidence loses all its significance and it will become oral
evidence which will be meaningless.

Conclusion
On concluding the article, oral evidence, with its increasing approach can be
appropriate for passing judgement if proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Earlier it was seen to be weak evidence but its need has been growing in
modern times. In my opinion incidents and facts can be better understood
through oral ways as the person who has administered the incident itself can
explain it in a more clear way rather than documentary form of evidence.

References
www.indiankanoon.org

 www.legalcrystal.com

 www.youtube.com

 www.lawteacher.net

 www.lawyerservices.in
 www.the-laws.com

 www.Advocatekhoj.com