1.

Circumstances in Which Judgments of Court Become Relevant (Sections 40 to 44 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
Introduction
Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deal with the relevancy of judgments,
orders, or decrees and their evidentiary value. These provisions are based on the Doctrine of
Res Judicata and the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy as contemplated under Article 20(2) of
the Indian Constitution, which prohibits convicting or punishing the same person for the
same offense twice. Additionally, these provisions address judgments in rem and in
personam, defining their applicability in various legal contexts. The chapter aims to avoid
multiplicity of suits, ensure judicial economy, and uphold justice by making certain
judgments binding in subsequent cases.

Objective
The primary objective of Sections 40 to 44 is:
1. To prevent re-litigation of the same matter and avoid unnecessary judicial delays.
2. To ensure finality to judgments and legal proceedings in the interest of justice.
3. To distinguish between judgments binding against all (judgments in rem) and those
binding only between specific parties (judgments in personam).
The provisions are aligned with Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which
incorporates the Doctrine of Res Judicata, signifying that a matter conclusively resolved by a
competent court cannot be reopened.

Classification of Judgments
Judgments are classified into two categories based on their scope and applicability:
1. Judgments in Rem:
o These judgments affect the legal status of a subject matter, person, or thing
and bind not only the parties to the case but also the entire world.
o Examples: Decrees of divorce, grant of probate, adjudication of insolvency,
etc.
o Relevant under Section 41.
2. Judgments in Personam:
o These judgments determine the rights and liabilities of specific parties to a
dispute and do not affect third parties.
o Examples: Ordinary civil or criminal judgments between two parties.
 o Relevant under Sections 40, 42, 43, and 44.

Provisions Under Sections 40 to 44

A. Previous Judgments Relevant to Bar a Second Suit or Trial (Section 40)
Section 40 bars a second suit or trial by allowing evidence of a previous judgment, order, or
decree that precludes the court from taking cognizance of the matter.
 Applicability:
o Res Judicata under Section 11 of CPC.
o Double Jeopardy under Section 300 of CrPC and Article 20(2) of the
Constitution.
Case Law: State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (1961)
The Supreme Court held that to invoke the principle of double jeopardy, the subsequent trial
must involve the same offense and the same set of facts.

B. Relevancy of Judgments in Rem (Section 41)

Section 41 provides that final judgments, orders, or decrees by a competent court exercising
probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency jurisdiction are judgments in rem. These
judgments bind the entire world and serve as conclusive proof of the legal status of a person
or property.
Essentials of Section 41:
1. The judgment must be final.
2. The court must be competent.
3. The judgment must confer or take away legal character or declare rights absolutely.
Illustration: A divorce decree granted by a competent court conclusively dissolves the
marital status of the parties and is binding on everyone.
Case Law: Narayan Doss v. S. Krishna Doss (1939)
The court emphasized that judgments in rem conclusively determine the status of the
subject matter, such as probate and divorce decrees.

C. Relevancy of Judgments Relating to Matters of Public Nature (Section 42)

Section 42 states that judgments, orders, or decrees, other than those under Section 41, are
relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature and are pertinent to the inquiry.
However, such judgments are not conclusive proof.
Illustration: A judgment recognizing a public right of way over a piece of land is relevant in
subsequent disputes involving the same issue.
Case Law: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989)
The Supreme Court held that judgments determining public rights have evidentiary value
but are not binding unless they meet the conditions under Section 41.

D. Judgments Irrelevant Unless Otherwise Provided (Section 43)

Section 43 provides that judgments, orders, or decrees not covered under Sections 40, 41, or
42 are irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment is itself a fact in issue or is relevant
under other provisions of the Act.
Illustration: If A sues B for a cow that B allegedly stole, a previous judgment convicting B of
theft is irrelevant in a civil suit for ownership unless it directly pertains to the issue of
ownership.
Case Law: Kashibai v. Narayan (1943)
The court ruled that previous judgments are irrelevant unless their existence is directly at
issue or they are admissible under specific provisions.

E. Fraud, Collusion, or Lack of Jurisdiction in Judgments (Section 44)

Section 44 allows a party to challenge the validity of a judgment relevant under Sections 40,
41, or 42 on the grounds of:
1. Lack of jurisdiction.
2. Fraud.
3. Collusion.
Illustration: If a decree of insolvency is obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation, it
can be annulled under Section 44.
Case Law: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994)
The Supreme Court held that a judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be
challenged at any stage.

Conclusion
Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act establish a comprehensive framework for
determining the relevancy and evidentiary value of judgments in legal proceedings. These
provisions aim to uphold the principles of Res Judicata and Double Jeopardy, prevent abuse
of judicial processes, and ensure finality in litigation. By distinguishing judgments in rem and
in personam, the Act provides clarity on the applicability of various judgments. While
judgments in rem bind the entire world, those in personam bind only specific parties.
Furthermore, provisions under Section 44 safeguard against misuse by enabling challenges
based on fraud, collusion, or lack of jurisdiction, thereby ensuring justice and fairness in legal
proceedings.

3. Confession and Its Relevancy

Reference: Sections 24-30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Introduction
Confession is a specific category of admission. It is accepted as evidence under the
presumption that no individual would voluntarily make a statement against their own
interest unless it is true.

Definition
The term "confession" is not explicitly defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, its
concept is implied within the framework of admissions.
 Section 17 of the Act defines "admission" as "a statement, oral or documentary,
which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact."
 A confession can be understood as a statement made by a person charged with a
crime, suggesting an inference that they committed the crime.
Judicial Interpretation
In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47), the Privy Council held that "a
confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts
which constitute the offence."

Conditions for Relevancy of a Confession

To ensure the admissibility of a confession, it must satisfy the following conditions:
1. Free and Voluntary
o Section 24 states that a confession induced by threat, promise, or
inducement is irrelevant.
o Case law: Shivappa v. State of Karnataka (1995 SCC (Cr) 221) emphasized that
voluntariness is the essence of a confession's admissibility.
2. Not Made to a Police Officer
 o Section 25 renders confessions made to police officers inadmissible to protect
against abuse of power.
o Case law: In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119), the Supreme
Court held that even if the confession is made voluntarily to a police officer, it
is inadmissible.
3. Made in the Immediate Presence of a Magistrate While in Police Custody
o Section 26 makes confessions made in police custody admissible only if
recorded in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
o Case law: In State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (AIR 1960 SC 1125), the court
clarified that "immediate presence" implies physical proximity.
4. After Removal of Inducement
o Section 28 allows confessions to be relevant if made after the impression of
inducement, threat, or promise is fully removed.
5. Confession Implicating Co-Accused
o Section 30 permits the use of a confession by one accused against co-
accused, provided they are jointly tried for the same offence.
o Case law: Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 159) held that a
confession of a co-accused can only be used as corroborative evidence.

Forms of Confession
Judicial Confession
 Made before a Magistrate or court in the due course of legal proceedings.
 Evidentiary Value: Judicial confessions can form the sole basis for conviction.
 Case law: In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (AIR 2003 SC 2053), video-
recorded confessions before a Magistrate were held admissible.
Extra-Judicial Confession
 Made outside the court or before any person other than a Magistrate.
 Evidentiary Value: These are considered weak evidence and require corroboration.
 Case law: Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2012 SC 2435) stated that extra-
judicial confessions must inspire confidence and be corroborated.
Retracted Confession
 A confession initially made voluntarily but later withdrawn.
  Evidentiary Value: Retracted confessions can form the basis of conviction if
supported by corroborative evidence.
 Case law: Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094) emphasized that
retracted confessions must be treated with caution.

Irrelevant Confessions
Section 24: Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat, or Promise
 Confession is inadmissible if influenced by:
1. Inducement, threat, or promise.
2. From a person in authority.
3. Relating to the charge in question.
4. Offering temporal benefits.
Section 25: Confession to Police Officer
 Prevents abuse by law enforcement officials.
 Case law: Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani (AIR 1978 SC 1025) discussed the relevance
of the right against self-incrimination.
Section 26: Confession in Police Custody
 Admissible only if recorded in the presence of a Magistrate.

Relevant Confessions
Section 27: Confession Leading to Discovery of Facts
 Admissible if it leads to the discovery of relevant facts.
 Essentials:
1. Information must relate distinctly to the discovered fact.
2. The accused must be in custody.
o Case law: Pulukuri Kottayya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) clarified that only the
part of the statement leading to the discovery is admissible.
Section 28: Removal of Inducement
 Confession becomes relevant once the inducement's influence is proven to have
ceased.
Section 29: Confession under Promise of Secrecy
  Admissible even if obtained through secrecy, deception, or lack of warning.
Section 30: Confession of Co-Accused
 Admissible only for corroboration.

Conclusion
Confessions hold significant evidentiary value but are subject to stringent conditions to
ensure fairness and prevent misuse. Judicial scrutiny, as reflected in various precedents,
emphasizes the protection of individual rights while balancing the need for justice. The
safeguards under Sections 24-30 ensure that only voluntary and reliable confessions
contribute to the administration of justice.

4. Confession by Co-Accused and Its Evidentiary Value

The evidentiary value of a confession made by a co-accused is an important aspect of
criminal jurisprudence. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the relevance and
consideration of such confessions are governed primarily by Section 30, which outlines the
circumstances under which the confession of one accused may affect another accused.

Section 30: Consideration of Proved Confession Affecting Person Making It and Others
Provisions of Section 30
Section 30 states:
"When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession
made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved,
the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well
as against the person who makes such confession."
The following conditions must be satisfied for the confession of a co-accused to be taken
into consideration:
1. Joint Trial: The accused persons must be tried jointly in the same case.
2. Same Offence: The accused must be charged with the same offence or offences
arising out of the same transaction.
3. Legally Proved Confession: The confession of the co-accused must be proved in
accordance with the law.
4. Affecting Himself and Others: The confession must implicate the co-accused and the
confessing accused substantially to the same extent.
Evidentiary Value of Confession by a Co-Accused
Supportive Evidence, Not Substantive Proof
The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the confession of a co-accused is not
substantive evidence. It can only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence to support
other evidence available on record.
 Case Law: Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)
In this landmark case, the court held that the confession of a co-accused is a weak
type of evidence. It is not substantive evidence but can be used to lend assurance to
other evidence against the accused.

Purpose and Scope

The confession of a co-accused under Section 30 is not treated as proof of guilt but as an
additional piece of evidence that the court may consider.
 It serves as a supporting link to establish the guilt of the co-accused when
corroborated by independent and credible evidence.
 The rationale is that such confessions, while not entirely reliable, may have some
probative value when supported by circumstantial evidence.

Limitations on the Use of Co-Accused's Confession

1. Cannot Be Sole Basis of Conviction:
o A conviction cannot rest solely on the confession of a co-accused.
o Case Law: Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964)
The Supreme Court ruled that a confession of a co-accused cannot form the
sole basis of conviction and must be corroborated by substantive evidence.
2. Nature of Confession:
o The confession must be voluntary and truthful. A forced or induced
confession has no evidentiary value.
3. Joint Trial Requirement:
o The confession is only relevant if the accused are being tried jointly. If the
trials are separate, the confession of one accused cannot be used against
another.
4. Incriminating Both Accused Equally:
 o The confession must incriminate the confessing accused as well as the co-
accused. Statements that exculpate the confessing accused while
incriminating others are not admissible.

Role of the Judge in Evaluating a Co-Accused’s Confession

The court must carefully analyze the confession and evaluate:
1. Whether it is voluntary and truthful.
2. Whether it corroborates other evidence on record.
3. Whether it directly implicates both the confessing accused and the co-accused.
 Case Law: Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1956)
The Supreme Court emphasized that the confession of a co-accused should be
accepted with caution and only in conjunction with other evidence.

Illustration
Suppose two persons, A and B, are jointly tried for robbery. If A makes a confession
admitting his guilt and implicating B, this confession cannot be used as the sole evidence to
convict B. However, if independent evidence such as witness testimony or recovery of stolen
property corroborates A’s confession, the court may consider it to support B’s guilt.

Conclusion
The confession of a co-accused is a piece of circumstantial evidence that carries limited
probative value. It cannot be the sole basis for conviction and must always be corroborated
by independent and reliable evidence. Courts exercise great caution while evaluating such
confessions to ensure that justice is not compromised.

Confession Made to a Police Officer

Confessions made to police officers hold a specific and restricted position in Indian law,
primarily governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The law emphasizes safeguarding the rights of the accused and preventing potential
misuse of authority by police officers.

Provisions Related to Confessions to Police Officers

Section 25: Confession to Police Officer Not to Be Proved
  Text: "No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person
accused of any offence."
 Implication:
A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law,
regardless of whether it was made voluntarily or under duress.
This provision aims to prevent coercion, intimidation, or torture by police officers to
obtain confessions.

Section 26: Confession in Police Custody

 Text: "No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police
officer shall be proved as against such person unless it is made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate."
 Implication:
Even if a confession is made while in police custody, it is inadmissible unless made
before a magistrate.
This provision ensures the confession is free from coercion and pressure.

Section 27: Discovery of Fact

 Text: "Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
 Implication:
This section creates an exception, allowing the admissibility of information provided
by the accused that leads to the discovery of a material fact.
o Only the portion of the statement directly related to the discovery is
admissible.
o For example, if an accused informs the police about the location of a weapon,
and the weapon is subsequently recovered, that part of the statement is
admissible as evidence.

Rationale Behind Inadmissibility of Confessions to Police

1. Preventing Abuse of Power: To avoid situations where police might resort to
coercion, intimidation, or physical harm to extract confessions.
2. Ensuring Voluntariness: A confession is valid only if made freely, without any
influence, inducement, or threat.
 3. Promoting Fair Trials: To uphold the principle that no one should be forced to
incriminate themselves (aligned with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution).

Judicial Interpretation
1. Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966):
The Supreme Court held that a confession made to a police officer, even if recorded
in the form of an FIR, is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25. However, facts
discovered as a result of such a confession may be admissible under Section 27.
2. State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960):
The court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the accused's rights against
potential abuse by police officers and reiterated the limited scope of Section 27.

Exceptions: Confession Before a Magistrate (Section 164 of CrPC)

While a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible, a confession recorded before a
magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is admissible,
provided it fulfills the following conditions:
1. The magistrate ensures the confession is voluntary.
2. The accused is informed that they are not bound to confess and that the confession
may be used against them.
3. Adequate time is given for reflection to avoid impulsive or coerced confessions.

Conclusion
A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in court as evidence under Section 25 of
the Indian Evidence Act. This provision, along with Sections 26 and 27, reflects the legislative
intent to ensure fairness, protect the accused's rights, and prevent misuse of police
authority. Only confessions leading to the discovery of material facts under Section 27 or
made voluntarily before a magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC are admissible in legal
proceedings.

4. Difference between admission and confession

The terms "admission" and "confession" are often used in legal contexts, but they carry
different meanings and legal implications. Below is a detailed comparison:

Admission
 Definition:
An admission is a statement made by a person acknowledging certain facts relevant
to a case, which may or may not directly admit guilt.
o An admission does not necessarily imply guilt.
o It may be made voluntarily by the person and can be used as evidence
against them or in favor of them.
 Legal Provisions:
o Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admission is defined as any
statement made by a party to a suit, or by their agent, concerning a matter
that is directly relevant to the case.
 Key Features:
1. Can be made during or outside a legal proceeding.
2. It may be oral or written.
3. Only part of the statement can be used as evidence depending on its
relevance to the matter at hand.
4. The burden of proving an admission lies on the opposing party.
 Example:
A person admits in court that they were at a certain place during a crime, without
admitting to committing the crime.

Confession
 Definition:
A confession is a statement made by a person acknowledging their guilt in relation
to a crime. It indicates acceptance of responsibility for an offense and may have
serious legal implications.
o A confession is usually adverse to the person making it and is considered
strong evidence against them.
 Legal Provisions:
o Section 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The rules surrounding
confessions, including their admissibility and limitations.
  Key Features:
1. It is voluntary and deliberate, made by the person admitting guilt in a
criminal matter.
2. Confessions must be recorded or made in front of a magistrate to be
admissible.
3. Coerced confessions are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the
Evidence Act.
4. Confessions can lead to conviction if found to be reliable and voluntary.
 Example:
A suspect confesses to the police about committing theft during an investigation.

Key Differences Between Admission and Confession:

Aspect Admission Confession

A statement acknowledging
Meaning A statement admitting guilt in a crime.
certain facts.

Neutral; may be beneficial or Adverse; usually harms the person making

Nature
harmful. it.

Legal Can be used in favor or against

Can be used only against the person.
Implications the person.

Can be made to any person Must be made before a magistrate or in

Made To
(opponent, third parties). police custody.

Admissible both inside and Admissible only under certain conditions,

Admissibility
outside legal proceedings. e.g., voluntary and to a magistrate.

Burden of The burden of proof lies on the The burden of proof lies on the
Proof opposing party. prosecution.

Less serious; may not lead to a Serious; often leads to a conviction if

Scope
conviction. proved.

Conclusion:
 Admissions acknowledge facts, can be favorable or adverse, and may help or harm a
party.
 Confessions are statements of guilt in relation to a crime and are adverse to the
person making them. They are generally strong evidence if proved to be voluntary
and true.
 5. Provisions Relating to Expert Evidence
Introduction:
The provisions relating to expert evidence are outlined in Sections 45 to 51 under Chapter II
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These sections acknowledge that there are certain
situations where the ordinary witness's evidence may not suffice to resolve technical or
complicated issues, which require specialized knowledge. The general rule is that evidence
should be given by witnesses, but these provisions create an exception to allow for the
opinion of third persons, commonly referred to as “expert opinion.”
The exception is based on the principle that the court, without the assistance of persons
possessing special knowledge and skill, cannot form an opinion on matters that are
professionally sophisticated and technically complicated. Thus, experts are called upon to
assist the court by providing informed opinions in specific areas where ordinary witnesses
may not have adequate knowledge.
Conditions for Admitting Expert Opinion:
For an expert opinion to be admissible, the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. The dispute in the case cannot be resolved without expert opinion.
2. The person expressing the opinion must truly be an expert in the field.
Who is an Expert?
An ‘expert’ refers to a person who has special knowledge, skill, or experience in any of the
following fields:
 Foreign law
 Science
 Art
 Handwriting
 Fingerprints
Such knowledge can be acquired through:
 Practical experience
 Observation
 Proper studies
Examples of experts include: medical officers, chemical analysts, ballistic experts, fingerprint
experts, etc. According to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the definition of an expert is
confined to these five subjects or fields.
Duty of the Expert:
It is important to understand that:
 An expert is not a witness of fact.
 His evidence is advisory in nature.
 An expert provides the court with necessary scientific criteria to aid in forming an
independent judgment.
 The court must rely on expert opinions to cross-examine the evidence presented and
not simply take it at face value.
Admissibility of Expert Opinion:
Expert evidence cannot replace substantive evidence but can serve as corroborative
evidence. The following are the key aspects related to the admissibility of expert opinions:
 It cannot be the sole basis for conclusive proof.
 It must be supported by either clear direct evidence or circumstantial evidence.
 The report of an expert must include reasons for forming the opinion.
 The expert opinion becomes admissible only when the expert is cross-examined in
court.
 Ocular (eye) evidence has primacy over expert evidence as the former is generally
more reliable.
Cases Where Expert Evidence May Be Disregarded:
When two equally competent experts offer conflicting opinions, the court will prefer the
opinion that best supports the direct evidence presented in the case. For instance, in Piara
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2274, the Supreme Court held that courts should
consider the direct evidence over conflicting expert evidence.
Procedure for Admitting Expert Evidence:
The investigating officer must comply with the following procedure when forwarding
exhibits to experts:
1. Exhibits should be sent through the concerned court.
2. A certificate from the competent authority about the competency of the expert must
accompany the exhibits.
3. The exhibits should always be sent via a police messenger.
4. The investigating officer must formulate specific questions that establish the link
between the crime, victim, and criminals.
Sections of the Indian Evidence Act Related to Expert Evidence:
  Section 45: Relevancy of opinion of experts
Expert opinions are relevant in cases where the court needs to form an opinion on
foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or fingerprints. The opinion of persons skilled
in these fields becomes relevant to help determine whether documents, actions, or
objects are connected in some way.
 Section 46: Facts bearing upon the opinion of experts
Any fact that supports or contradicts an expert's opinion becomes relevant in cases
where expert opinions are used to provide assistance in decision-making.
 Section 47: Relevancy of opinion as to handwriting
The opinion of a non-handwriting expert, someone familiar with the handwriting in
question, is admissible if they have seen the person write, examined documents sent
to them, or regularly receive documents from that person.
 Section 47A: Relevancy of opinion as to electronic signature
The opinion of a certifying authority regarding the authenticity of an electronic
signature is relevant in electronic cases.
 Section 48: Relevancy of opinion as to existence of right or custom
The opinion of persons knowledgeable about customs or rights in a general context
becomes relevant in determining whether such rights exist.
 Section 49: Relevancy of opinion as to usages, tenets, etc.
The opinions of those who have special knowledge regarding customs, tenets,
constitutions, and the meaning of terms used in a specific locality or by a particular
class of people are relevant.
 Section 50: Relevancy of opinion as to relationship
Opinions on relationships given by individuals familiar with the persons in dispute,
whether they are family members or outsiders, are relevant.
 Section 51: Relevancy of grounds of opinion
The grounds on which an expert’s opinion is based are equally relevant when the
opinion of a living person is used as evidence.
Expert Opinion in Electronic Evidence:
 Section 45A: Deals with opinions of electronic evidence examiners. In cases where
the court needs to form an opinion on any information transmitted or stored in
electronic form, the opinion of electronic evidence examiners is relevant.
Case Laws Relating to Expert Evidence:
1. Piara Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2274: Clarifies that in cases of conflicting
expert opinions, courts must consider the direct evidence over expert opinions.
2. Gobardhan v. State AIR 1959 All 53: Emphasizes that expert opinions must be
supported by proper data and examination results.
 3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600: Discusses the advisory
nature of expert evidence and its limitations in aiding judicial decisions.
4. Rattan Lal v. State of J&K AIR 1983 SC 684: Clarifies that expert evidence can only
corroborate direct evidence and should not replace it as conclusive proof.
Conclusion:
The provisions under Sections 45 to 51 of the Indian Evidence Act serve to ensure that
courts can access reliable technical and specialized knowledge when dealing with complex
matters. Expert evidence plays an essential role in the justice delivery system by offering
informed and unbiased opinions. However, it must be carefully scrutinized and corroborated
with other forms of evidence. The Indian courts have established a set of guidelines and
standards for the admissibility and evaluation of expert opinions, which help to strike a
balance between the expert's specialized knowledge and the need for sound judicial
reasoning. The principles derived from the case laws reinforce the role of expert evidence as
advisory, ensuring that the courts make informed decisions based on thorough investigation
and analysis.

5. Dying Declaration: Meaning, Evidentiary Value, and Essential Conditions for

Admissibility
Introduction:
A dying declaration refers to the statement made by a person who is aware they are about
to die, usually due to injuries inflicted upon them. It is a verbal or written account given by
the mortally wounded individual explaining the circumstances surrounding their death.
Given the extreme situation, courts presume such declarations to be truthful since the
person making them has no incentive to lie.
Evidentiary Value:
Dying declarations hold significant evidentiary value because they are believed to be truthful
due to the absence of any ulterior motives, and the solemn circumstances under which they
are made. This principle is recognized under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
which makes such declarations admissible in court. The provision reads:
Section 32(1) - "Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot
be found, etc., is relevant... Statement, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person
who is dead, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: (1) When it relates to the
cause of death—when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death or as
to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death."
The evidentiary value of a dying declaration lies in its ability to be the sole basis for
conviction, particularly when the truthfulness of the declaration is beyond doubt. Courts
have held that a well-supported dying declaration can secure a conviction, provided it
adheres to certain essential conditions.
Principles Underpinning Dying Declarations:
1. Necessity: The statement becomes necessary when the deceased is often the sole
eye-witness to the crime. Excluding this statement would hinder justice.
2. Sanction equal to an Oath: In Pakala Narayana Swami v. The Emperor, the Supreme
Court noted that a person on their deathbed does not typically lie, which gives such
statements substantial legal backing.
3. Truth Sits on the Lips of a Person about to Die: A dying declaration is admissible
because it is made under circumstances that naturally compel truthfulness—when all
worldly hopes are extinguished, and the mind is not clouded by falsehood.
Essential Conditions for Admissibility of Dying Declaration:
For a dying declaration to be admissible in court, it must satisfy several conditions:
1. To Whom the Statement is Made: Dying declarations can be made to a doctor, a
magistrate, a police officer, a friend, or relatives. However, those recorded by a
magistrate or doctor are considered more reliable than those made to police officers
or close relatives, which may require extra scrutiny.
2. Person Making the Statement Must Have Died: The death of the person making the
declaration must be established beyond doubt, though it need not occur
immediately after the declaration is made.
3. Statement Must Relate to the Cause of His Own Death: The declaration must
directly address the circumstances leading to the death of the declarant. Statements
referring to others' deaths do not qualify as a dying declaration.
4. Cause of Death in Question: The declaration should relate to the death of the person
making the statement. In Dannu Singh v. Emperor, a dying declaration was ruled
inadmissible because it did not directly relate to the declarant’s death.
5. Injuries Must Be the Cause of Death: It must be proved that the death of the
declarant was caused due to the injuries sustained in the incident in question. Courts
have held that if the death is due to other causes, such declarations are inadmissible.
6. Statement Must Relate to the Circumstances of the Transaction Resulting in Death:
The declaration should detail the events leading up to the injury or death. In Ram
Kumar v. The State, the court accepted that circumstances leading to the incident
are integral.
7. Consistency and Completeness: A dying declaration must be complete and
consistent. If minor inconsistencies arise, they do not usually render the declaration
inadmissible, but contradictions can weaken its evidentiary value.
8. Declarant Must be Competent Witness: The person making the declaration must be
in a state of mind capable of understanding and recounting the events. In Lallu v.
State of Haryana, the court emphasized the need for competency of the declarant.
 9. Other Points: Any discrepancies in the statement made by the person noting down
the declaration, or the production of clear statements, affect its admissibility.
Additionally, if the FIR lodged by the injured person subsequently dies, it can be
considered as a dying declaration.
Form of Dying Declaration:
Dying declarations can be presented in various forms:
 Written: Preferably written in the vernacular language understood by the person
making it.
 Verbal: Spoken and recorded either by a magistrate or a police officer.
 Gestures and Signs: If the person cannot speak, gestures and signs (like nodding or
shaking head) are also valid.
In Queen v. Abdullah, it was held that gestures made by a person who cannot speak are
admissible as dying declarations.
Corroboration and Relevance:
Where a dying declaration is consistent, coherent, and reliable, it can be used solely for
conviction without the need for corroboration. In Lallubhai Devchand Shah v. State of
Gujarat, the court convicted the accused solely based on the dying declaration of a married
woman, who had been burnt to death.
Two Dying Declarations:
In cases where there are two conflicting dying declarations, the one which aligns better with
other evidence and which is recorded earlier is given more weight. In Mohanlal Gangaram
Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, the court noted that if two declarations exist, preference
should be given to the one recorded first.
Circumstances when Dying Declarations Hold No Value:
1. Family Influence: Declarations arranged by relatives are not reliable.
2. Unconsciousness: If the declarant was unconscious at the time of making the
declaration, it cannot be deemed reliable.
3. Discrepancy: Clear discrepancies between the declaration and witness testimonies
weaken its evidentiary value.
4. Contradiction: If a declaration contradicts itself or the facts stated, its credibility
diminishes.
Conclusion:
A dying declaration, if genuine, serves as a powerful piece of evidence under Section 32(1)
of the Indian Evidence Act. It is admissible because it captures the last words of a person
who, realizing they are dying, has no incentive to falsify the circumstances surrounding their
death. For it to be valid, the declaration must satisfy stringent conditions—relating directly
to the cause of death, being made by someone in a fit state, and the truthfulness of the
declaration being beyond doubt. Courts have long held that if a dying declaration meets
these criteria, it can be the sole basis for conviction, thereby ensuring justice is served.

6. Section 6 – Relevancy of Facts Forming Part of Same Transaction

Introduction:
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevance of facts that, though not
in issue, are so closely connected to the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction.
These facts, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and
places, are relevant and admissible in court.

Essentials:
For a fact to be deemed relevant under Section 6, the following essentials must be present:
 The fact must be so closely connected with the fact in issue that it forms part of the
same transaction.
 Such facts can be relevant even if they happened at different times and places.
 The facts should be closely related through proximity of time, place, continuity of
actions, or purpose.

Explanation:
Every fact forming part of the same transaction as the fact in issue is considered relevant,
even if not directly in issue itself. This principle helps to ensure a fair and comprehensive
examination of evidence, as it allows the inclusion of facts surrounding the main issue, thus
providing a clearer picture of the event.

Illustrations:
1. Physical Acts and Words
 Example: In a murder trial, any verbal exchanges or physical actions by the accused
(A), victim (B), or bystanders during or immediately before/after the incident form
part of the same transaction and are relevant.
2. Different Places and Times
  Example: In a war-related offense, events of property destruction and troop attacks
occurring in different places but connected by a common goal are relevant as part of
the same transaction.
3. Continuity of Actions
 Example: In a libel case, letters exchanged between parties, even if they don’t
explicitly contain the defamatory statement, are part of the same transaction and
relevant to the case.
4. Purpose
 Example: In a delivery dispute, successive deliveries made to various intermediaries
form part of the same transaction and are relevant.

Principle – Res Gestae

The principle of res gestae ("things done") is embedded in Section 6. It allows hearsay
evidence if it qualifies as part of the same transaction. This exception helps admit evidence
that might otherwise be inadmissible under normal hearsay rules.

Case Laws:
Proximity of Time:
 Example: In Rattan Singh v. State of H.P, the Supreme Court held that the statement
made by a victim immediately after the assault, identifying the assailant, was part of
the same transaction and thus relevant.
Proximity of Time and Place:
 Example: In State v. Salim Ali, the court admitted the victim’s dying declaration made
before her death as part of the same transaction, demonstrating close proximity of
time and place.
Proximity of Time and Continuity of Action:
 Example: In State of Punjab v. Labh Singh, the prosecution witnesses reached the
crime scene and saw the accused immediately after the crime, forming part of the
same transaction and thus admissible.

Relevant Cases:
Rape:
In cases of rape, any cries, complaints, or conduct immediately during or after the incident
are admissible as part of the same transaction, serving as evidence of the complainant’s
credibility.
Unlawful Assembly:
Statements made by members of an unlawful assembly, like their determination to force
through a police cordon, are part of the same transaction and admissible.
Adoption:
The execution of a deed of adoption is a critical part of the adoption transaction and thus
relevant under Section 6.

Not Part of Same Transaction:

1. Prior to Event:
 Statements made months or days prior to an event are not admissible under Section
6 because they do not form part of the transaction.
2. After Event:
 Statements made by an injured person to someone arriving much later at the scene
do not qualify as part of the same transaction.
3. Uncertain Time:
 Evidence of communication occurring without a clear close relation to the crime does
not form part of the same transaction.
4. No Connection:
 Statements unrelated to the transaction, like hearsay about past events, are not
admissible under Section 6.

Conclusion:
Section 6 plays a crucial role in allowing evidence that, while not directly in issue, forms part
of the same transaction. It helps ensure that all relevant facts surrounding the main issue are
considered. The principles laid out in this section, along with the doctrine of res gestae,
expand the scope of admissibility in judicial proceedings, making sure that justice is served
by presenting the full context of events. Courts exercise discretion to determine if facts are
sufficiently connected to be part of the same transaction.

7. Confessions and Admissions: Differences and Relations

Introduction:
In legal terminology, both confessions and admissions play a significant role in the
determination of guilt or liability. While they both involve the acknowledgment of certain
facts, they have distinct meanings, implications, and legal standards under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Understanding their differences helps clarify their admissibility,
relevance, and evidentiary value in legal proceedings.

Definition:
Confession:
A confession is a direct acknowledgment by an accused person of their involvement in the
commission of an offense. It is an unequivocal admission of guilt and implies the person’s
intention to take responsibility for the crime. A confession must be made voluntarily and
without any undue pressure, coercion, or inducement. Under Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible unless made in
the immediate presence of a magistrate.
Admission:
An admission, on the other hand, is a statement made by a party to a case (either by the
plaintiff, defendant, or witness) that acknowledges certain facts or circumstances relevant to
the issue in question. Admissions can be partial or qualified acknowledgments and may or
may not involve the direct acknowledgment of guilt. Under Section 17 of the Evidence Act,
admissions are relevant and may be made in any form—oral, documentary, or written—and
can be against the interest of the person making them.

Key Differences:
1. Nature:
o Confession: An admission of guilt and intent to take responsibility for a crime.
o Admission: A statement acknowledging certain facts or circumstances
without necessarily admitting guilt.
2. Admissibility:
o Confession: Must be voluntary, and any undue influence makes it
inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
o Admission: Admissible as evidence unless prohibited by specific provisions,
like the provision on privileged communication (Section 123).
3. Scope:
o Confession: Is specific to the crime being committed and involves a full
acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
 o Admission: Can involve a broader range of facts, including matters of fact,
law, or circumstances.

Relationship Between Confessions and Admissions:

While all confessions are admissions (as they involve acknowledgment of facts), not all
admissions qualify as confessions because they do not always involve the acknowledgment
of guilt. Confessions are a sub-set of admissions, more focused on criminal responsibility and
liability.
Illustrations:
 A person who admits that they were present at the scene of a crime has made an
admission.
 A confession would involve an explicit acknowledgment of having participated in the
crime and the intention behind it.

Legal Distinction:
Section 24-30 of the Indian Evidence Act deals specifically with confessions, regulating their
admissibility and providing protections against coercion or inducement. These sections
emphasize the voluntariness of the confession and the safeguards for the accused to ensure
it is made without any influence.
On the other hand, Section 17-23 deals with admissions, which may come from any party to
a case and have a broader scope in terms of applicability to various legal disputes—civil,
criminal, or otherwise.

Case Laws:
 King v. Ball (1886): This case highlights the distinction, stating that admissions are
any statements made by a party that acknowledge a fact, whereas confessions are
admissions that admit guilt or responsibility for a crime.
 Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2014): The court made it clear that a confession must be
voluntary and free from any kind of coercion or inducement. Any evidence of
involuntariness would make it inadmissible.

Conclusion:
In essence, while all confessions are a form of admissions, the reverse is not true.
Admissions can acknowledge facts, circumstances, or evidence relevant to a legal case, but
they do not necessarily involve a direct acknowledgment of guilt, as confessions do. Both are
important for establishing facts in legal proceedings, but they serve different purposes and
have distinct legal implications.

8. Relevancy of Dying Declarations in Dowry Death Cases

Introduction:
Dying declarations hold significant importance in criminal law as they serve as crucial
evidence in cases where the victim, knowing their imminent death, voluntarily provides
statements regarding the circumstances leading to their death. In dowry death cases, dying
declarations can play a vital role in establishing the involvement of accused persons, typically
the spouse or in-laws, in the harassment or death of the victim due to dowry demands.

Legal Provisions Regarding Dying Declarations:

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically under Section 32, outlines the admissibility of
dying declarations. It states that any statement made by a person as to the cause of their
death, or as to any circumstances of the transaction resulting in their death, which the
person was in a position to know, is relevant and admissible as evidence. Dying declarations
in dowry death cases are usually made when the victim, fearing death due to harassment or
torture for dowry, makes a statement either to family members, police, or doctors.

Relevancy and Admissibility of Dying Declarations in Dowry Death Cases:

1. Reliability of Dying Declarations:
o In dowry death cases, the victim’s statement regarding the cause of death is
crucial because it often reveals the circumstances of harassment, abuse, and
the cause leading to the death. The truthfulness and reliability of the dying
declaration are examined by courts based on factors like:
 The mental and physical state of the victim at the time of making the
declaration.
 Whether the statement is made voluntarily and without any pressure.
 The consistency and coherence of the statement.
 The opportunity the person had to observe and experience the events
leading to the death.
2. Cases Involving Dying Declarations in Dowry Deaths:
o Courts have often relied on dying declarations to convict accused persons in
dowry death cases when the statements clearly establish the intent and
actions behind the harassment and cruelty that led to the victim's death.
 o For example, in Suganthi v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997), the Supreme Court
held that a dying declaration recorded by a magistrate can be relied upon
unless there is reason to doubt its truthfulness.
3. Corroboration:
o While a dying declaration can be sufficient for convicting an accused, courts
typically look for corroborative evidence, especially in dowry death cases
where family members or witnesses may testify to the victim’s complaints
regarding harassment.
o In the absence of independent witnesses, a dying declaration should be
scrutinized carefully, and courts often require supplementary evidence to
corroborate the statement.
4. Circumstances of Death:
o In dowry death cases, the circumstances leading to the death are often tied to
the victim's suffering due to dowry demands. The victim’s statement recorded
before death serves as crucial evidence to establish these circumstances and
help determine the cause of death.
o The nature of injuries and the presence of physical abuse that aligns with the
cause of death further reinforce the relevance of the dying declaration.

Case Law Examples:

 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002):
This case reinforced the principle that a dying declaration can form the basis of
conviction, especially when the statement is recorded by a magistrate under proper
procedures and corroborated by medical evidence.
 Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana (2006):
Here, the court highlighted the importance of the dying declaration in dowry death
cases, noting that the declaration of the deceased can be sufficient evidence for
conviction if it is found reliable.
 Ramesh Chander v. State of Haryana (2004):
The Supreme Court held that in dowry death cases, the dying declaration assumes
great significance as the victim often provides firsthand information about the
harassment and torture for dowry before their death.

Conclusion:
In dowry death cases, dying declarations are highly relevant as they serve as primary
evidence of the circumstances leading to the death. The truthfulness, voluntariness, and
reliability of these declarations are critical for courts to rely on them for convicting the
accused. The Indian judicial system places considerable weight on dying declarations, but it
also ensures that these statements are corroborated wherever possible to prevent
miscarriage of justice. Courts require clear evidence to link the cause of death to dowry-
related harassment, and dying declarations serve as a pivotal piece of evidence in
establishing such links.

Secondary Evidence: Meaning, Admissibility, and Circumstances

Introduction:
Secondary evidence refers to evidence that has been derived from the original document or
source and is not the direct document itself. It includes copies, replicas, oral accounts, and
mechanical reproductions of an original document. When primary evidence is not available,
secondary evidence is used to substantiate the facts and to present proof in legal
proceedings.
What is Secondary Evidence?
Secondary evidence includes any of the following:
1. Certified copies of the original document.
2. Copies made from the original by mechanical processes ensuring accuracy.
3. Copies made from the original document and compared with the original.
4. Counterparts of documents against the parties who did not execute it.
5. Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by someone who has seen it.
Circumstances Under Which Secondary Evidence May Be Given:
1. When Primary Evidence is Not Available:
o Courts generally prioritize primary evidence (original documents). However, if
the original document is not available, secondary evidence can be permitted.
2. Existence and Execution of the Original Document:
o To admit secondary evidence, it must be proven that the original document
existed and was duly executed. Without this proof, secondary evidence
cannot replace the original.
3. Loss or Destruction of the Original Document:
o If the original document has been destroyed or lost, secondary evidence of its
contents may be admissible. The party intending to use secondary evidence
must provide evidence that the document has been lost without any
negligence or default on their part.
4. Document in the Possession of Opposite Party:
 o If the original document is in the possession of the opposite party and they
do not produce it after due notice, secondary evidence is admissible.
5. Certified Copies:
o Certified copies of public documents or documents whose originals cannot be
easily moved may be admitted as secondary evidence.
6. Oral Evidence:
o When neither the original document nor a certified copy is available, oral
evidence to prove its contents can be permissible, but the person providing
oral evidence must have seen or been aware of the document.
7. Mechanical Copies:
o Copies made from original documents using mechanical processes that
ensure accuracy are admissible as secondary evidence.
Case Law Examples:
1. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002):
o This case reinforced the admissibility of secondary evidence in instances
where the original document is unavailable and secondary evidence is
corroborated by other evidence like affidavits or oral testimony.
2. Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana (2006):
o The Supreme Court emphasized that secondary evidence, including certified
copies, can be relied upon in legal proceedings if the original document is not
available.
3. Ramesh Chander v. State of Haryana (2004):
o The court allowed secondary evidence based on the inability to produce the
original document, which had been lost.
4. Postmortem Report Example:
o In cases where original documents like postmortem reports are lost,
secondary evidence provided through affidavits and corroborative testimony
from medical professionals can be admitted.
When Secondary Evidence Cannot Be Allowed:
 If the original document itself is inadmissible due to failure to prove its validity,
secondary evidence of its contents cannot be admitted.
 Mere production of photocopies or mechanical copies without a proper reason is
insufficient.
Conclusion:
Secondary evidence plays a crucial role in legal proceedings when primary evidence cannot
be provided. However, its admissibility depends on the circumstances, such as the loss or
destruction of the original, the availability of certified copies, or the nature of the document.
Courts carefully examine these aspects to ensure that secondary evidence is only admitted
when justified and supported by valid proof. Legal practitioners must be cautious in
distinguishing between primary and secondary evidence and ensuring compliance with legal
standards to avoid inadmissibility.

Public Documents: Meaning, Types, Proving Methods, and Relevant Case Laws

1) Introduction:
Evidence plays a crucial role in judicial proceedings, and documents form a vital part of such
evidence. Evidence can be broadly categorized into oral evidence and documentary
evidence. Oral evidence refers to verbal testimony given by witnesses, while documentary
evidence includes any written, printed, or electronic material that serves to record
information or evidence. As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a document
refers to “any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters,
figures, or marks, or more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be
used, for the purpose of recording that matter.”

2) Definition of Public Documents:

A public document is defined under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These
documents are made by public authorities during the course of their official duties and serve
the public interest. According to Section 74, public documents include:
 Records of acts or proceedings of:
o Sovereign authorities
o Official bodies and tribunals
o Public officers, including legislative, judicial, and executive functions, both in
India and foreign countries.
The mere fact that a document is stored in a public office does not make it a public
document unless it was prepared by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official
duties.
Examples of Public Documents:
 Electoral rolls
 Census reports
  Town planning reports
 Village records
 Birth and death registers
 Public records maintained in government institutions
However, documents prepared by public servants for purely private purposes, like
Panchanamas, do not qualify as public documents.

3) Types of Documents:
Documents can be categorized into public and private documents.
 Public Documents: These include documents created during the exercise of official
duties or those prepared for the public’s use. Public documents serve a larger
societal purpose, often containing information of public significance.
 Private Documents: These are documents related to individual transactions and have
relevance only to specific individuals or parties. Examples include contracts, sale
deeds, and letters.

4) Evidentiary Value of Public Documents:

Public documents enjoy certain advantages in legal proceedings as they are presumed to be
authentic and credible. They serve as an exception to the hearsay rule due to the credibility
attached to their authorship. Public documents are prepared by authorities during the
performance of their duties, making their contents inherently trustworthy.

5) Proving Public Documents:

The methods for proving public documents are specified under Section 76 to Section 78 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
a) Section 77 - Proof by certified copies:
Public documents are proved by obtaining certified copies from the public officer in whose
custody they are kept. A certified copy of a public document is treated as equivalent to the
original, and it can be admitted as evidence without requiring further proof.
 Case Law: Ramappa v. Bajjappa (AIR 1963 SC) - The Supreme Court held that a
certified copy of a public document can be received in evidence without proof of the
original.
b) Section 78 - Proof of Official Documents:
Different types of public documents are proved using the following methods:
 1. Acts, orders, or notifications of the central or state government—proved through
certified records signed by department heads.
2. Proceedings of the legislature—proved by official publications issued by the
government.
3. Government proclamations—proved by gazette notifications.
4. Legislative acts or executive proceedings of foreign countries—proved through
official journals or documents published by those authorities.
5. Proceedings of municipal bodies in India—proved by certified copies or printed
publications authorized by such bodies.

6) Case Laws:
1. Manjula v. Mani (1998 Cr. L. J 1476, Mad): The Madras High Court held that a Hindu
Marriage Register is a public document. Certified copies of such registers are
admissible in evidence in criminal charges like bigamy.
2. Shyam Lal v. State (1998 Cr. I.J. 2879, All): The First Information Report (FIR) is a
public document, and the accused is entitled to obtain a certified copy from police
authorities or the court upon payment of the requisite fee.

7) Conclusion:
Public documents are documents created by public servants during the performance of their
official duties and include records of acts, proceedings, and other official matters conducted
by sovereign authorities, public officers, and tribunals. These documents carry a
presumption of authenticity unless their legal veracity is challenged. Proving public
documents is facilitated through certified copies or official publications, making them highly
credible in legal proceedings. Private documents, on the other hand, pertain to individual or
party-specific transactions and have limited applicability unless made public in
circumstances where public interest is involved.
This clear distinction and methodical approach in handling and proving public documents
ensure the integrity and transparency of evidence in legal contexts.

Rule of Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence

Meaning of Hearsay Evidence:
Hearsay evidence refers to testimony that is not based on a witness’s own knowledge but is
instead based on what others have said or reported. It includes:
 A statement made by someone not called as a witness.
 A statement recorded in books, documents, or records that are not admissible.
Hearsay evidence is considered unreliable because it lacks personal knowledge and cannot
be cross-examined.
Definition:
Hearsay evidence "denotes that kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from
the credit given to the witness himself, but which rests also in part on the veracity and
competence of some other person."
 According to Stephen, hearsay can mean "whatever a person is heard to say" or
"whatever a person declares on information given by someone else."
Hearsay evidence is excluded because it introduces second-hand knowledge, which can be
inaccurate and untrustworthy.
General Rule:
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it falls under specific exceptions.
 Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act states that oral evidence must be direct:
o If it refers to something seen, the evidence must come from someone who
says they saw it.
o If it refers to something heard, the evidence must come from someone who
says they heard it.
 Hearsay evidence is no evidence because it does not directly relate to the facts at
issue.

Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence:

1. Res Gestae (Section 6):
Statements made during the same transaction are admissible as they form part of
the event in question.
2. Admissions and Confessions (Section 17-Section 30):
Statements made outside court that amount to admissions or confessions are
admissible.
3. Dying Declarations (Section 32):
Statements made by a person who cannot testify, typically a deceased individual, are
admissible in cases of serious crimes.
 4. Evidence Given in Former Proceedings (Section 33):
Evidence given in previous court proceedings can be used if the witness is no longer
available.
5. Statements in Public Records (Section 35):
Entries in official books and public documents are admissible without the need to
produce the original drafter.
6. Entries in Books of Accounts (Section 34):
Statements in books of accounts relevant to business transactions are exceptions to
hearsay.
7. Statements in Maps, Charts, and Plans (Section 36):
Maps, charts, and plans prepared by someone not a witness are admissible.
8. Statements in Acts and Notifications (Section 37):
Statements in laws, notifications, and similar documents can be proved by the
production of such documents.
9. Judgments of Courts (Sections 40-43):
The judgments of courts are admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein.
10. Opinions of Experts (Section 45-Section 51):
Opinions expressed in treatises by experts are admissible if the author is unavailable.
11. Proof of Official Documents by Certified Copies (Sections 77, 78):
Certified copies of official documents are exceptions to the hearsay rule.
12. Miscellaneous Exceptions:
 Affidavit statements (especially those based on information).
 Statements made by sick persons who are about to die (Section 32).
Reasons for Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence:
 It is intrinsically weak.
 It encourages the substitution of stronger evidence with weaker evidence.
 The evidence is not given on oath or under personal responsibility.
 Hearsay evidence cannot be tested through cross-examination.
 Truth depreciates in the process of repetition, making it unreliable.
 It increases opportunities for fabrication.
 Prolongs legal investigations unnecessarily.
 Cannot satisfy the judge about the existence of a fact.
 The person giving hearsay evidence does not feel any responsibility.
Conclusion:
Hearsay evidence is excluded because it is unreliable, and it is the duty of the court to
ensure justice through firsthand, verifiable, and accountable evidence.

Relevancy of character evidence in civil and criminal cases

Introduction
The use of character evidence in both civil and criminal cases has been a longstanding
practice in legal proceedings. Over time, the law has evolved, narrowing the applicability of
character evidence to ensure fair trials. Character evidence refers to the community's
opinion (reputation) and an individual’s actual traits (disposition). This evidence helps
determine the credibility of individuals, such as the parties involved, witnesses, and
sometimes even third parties. While its use was historically prominent, modern legal
standards have placed restrictions on its admissibility to avoid potential biases and ensure
justice.

1. Definition of Character Evidence

 Reputation: Reputation is defined as the community’s general opinion about a
person.
 Disposition: Disposition refers to a person's actual traits, including both acquired and
inherited qualities that form an individual's individuality.
Character: In law, character includes both reputation and disposition—meaning it reflects an
individual’s overall standing in society and their inherent qualities.

2. Difference Between Conduct and Character

 Conduct: Refers to a single act or behavior on one occasion.
 Character: Refers to consistent behavior over time, made up of repeated acts.

3. Character Evidence in Civil Cases

 General Rule: In civil suits, character evidence—whether good or bad—is typically
not relevant unless it directly affects the amount of damages.
 Exception: Under Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code, character evidence can be
relevant in cases such as defamation, breach of promise to marry, and adultery,
where damages depend on the individual’s reputation.
Example: In custody disputes, the character of the parents may become relevant to
determine what is in the best interests of the child.

4. Character Evidence in Criminal Cases

 Relevance: In criminal cases, the character of the accused is relevant under Section
53 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where previous good character can be used to
establish innocence.
 General Rule: Previous bad character is irrelevant unless it is used in reply to
evidence of good character, under Section 54.
 Exceptions:
o First Exception: If the accused has evidence of good character, the
prosecution may present bad character to refute it.
o Second Exception: When bad character itself is a fact in issue—like habitual
offenders.
o Third Exception: When previous conviction becomes relevant under Section
75 IPC.
Example: In cases like bribery, good character may reduce the prosecution’s ability to
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Case Law Examples

 Raghu Nath Pandey v. Bobby Bedi: Involved the defamation of the character of a
historical figure in a movie.
 B. Vasanthi v. Bakthavatchalu: Custody case where both parties’ character became
relevant.
 Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad: Importance of character in criminal
proceedings.
 Public Prosecutor v. Bandana Ramayya: Rape case where the character of the
prosecutrix became relevant.

6. Character Evidence and Witnesses

 Character evidence can also be used to challenge the veracity of witnesses.
 Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act allows cross-examining witnesses to attack
their honesty by questioning their character.
Example: If a witness’s behavior indicates a tendency to lie, their testimony can be
challenged using character evidence.

Conclusion
Character evidence serves as a critical tool in determining both guilt and innocence in legal
proceedings. However, the modern legal system recognizes its potential to prejudice
fairness. Therefore, its application is governed by strict rules in both civil and criminal cases
to ensure justice. Courts carefully weigh character evidence to ensure it serves as relevant
and fair proof, not as bias against any party.
The Distinction Between Character Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases
Introduction
Character evidence refers to information about a person’s general reputation and
disposition, used to prove or disprove a person's behavior in legal proceedings. Its relevance
varies significantly between civil and criminal cases due to the different purposes and
implications of such evidence.

Character Evidence in Civil Cases

In civil cases, character evidence is generally irrelevant unless explicitly stated by the facts of
the case. Most civil matters revolve around contracts, property disputes, or financial
transactions, which do not inherently involve moral or reckless behavior. Character evidence,
therefore, is typically excluded unless it directly pertains to the issue at hand.
 Relevance Test: According to Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act, character
evidence is not relevant unless it has a clear connection to the facts of the case. For
example:
o In tortuous claims (assault, negligence), character evidence is often excluded
because it does not serve the primary purpose of resolving the dispute.
o Quasi-criminal cases (civil suits with criminal charges intertwined) similarly
do not allow character evidence, to prevent complicating civil trials.
Character evidence is never accepted in civil proceedings where the outcome is financial
damages rather than punishment. This restriction aims to keep civil cases focused and limit
undue prejudice.
Key Points in Civil Cases:
 Tort Claims: Even if the character of the defendant might affect liability (e.g., assault
or negligence), character evidence is excluded in tort cases.
  Policy Decision: Courts restrict character evidence to prevent protracted legal
proceedings and ensure fairness for litigants, who should not be subjected to lifelong
scrutiny in civil disputes.

Character Evidence in Criminal Cases

In criminal cases, character evidence is more nuanced due to the severe implications—such
as imprisonment—that result from criminal convictions. The law permits character evidence
in specific situations, especially when it relates directly to the crime committed.
 Relevance: In criminal proceedings, character evidence may be used to prove
innocence or guilt and can significantly influence the outcome of the case.
 Section 53: Good character is relevant in criminal cases to establish the innocence of
the accused. The prosecution may challenge the good character of the accused if it
has been presented.
 Section 54: Bad character, however, is irrelevant unless rebutting good character
evidence provided by the accused.
 Policy Difference: The implications of a criminal trial, including the possibility of
imprisonment, justify more leniency in admitting character evidence compared to
civil cases.
Key Points in Criminal Cases:
 Good Character: Proving good character can serve as a favorable evidence in
criminal trials, particularly when the prosecution’s case lacks sufficient evidence.
 Bad Character: In contrast, the prosecution cannot introduce bad character evidence
unless rebutting good character evidence presented by the accused.
 Exceptions: Evidence of bad character may be relevant if it relates directly to the fact
in issue (e.g., habitual offenders), or if it arises from previous convictions.

Case Law Examples:

 Raghu Nath Pandey v. Bobby Bedi: Character evidence was central in determining
reputation, where movie depiction of Mangal Pandey's life impacted his reputation.
 B. Vasanthi v. Bakthavatchalu: Courts considered the character of parents to
determine custody of children.
 Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad: In criminal cases, character evidence
helped explain an accused's conduct.

Conclusion:
The admissibility of character evidence in civil versus criminal cases is guided by the nature
of the case, with civil law tending to exclude it, and criminal law allowing it under specific
circumstances. In criminal cases, character evidence can play a pivotal role in influencing the
outcome, whereas in civil cases, it is tightly restricted to maintain fairness and simplicity.

Primary Evidence: Scope and Importance

Definition: Primary evidence refers to the original document that is produced directly
before the court for inspection. It is considered the best and most reliable form of evidence
because it is the direct proof of the matter in question.
Scope of Primary Evidence: Primary evidence encompasses various forms such as original
documents, duplicates, executed parts, counterparts, carbon copies, uniform process
documents, and CCTV footage. It plays a crucial role in legal proceedings by providing the
initial, unaltered documentation needed to establish the facts of the case.
Importance of Primary Evidence:
1. Reliability:
Primary evidence is deemed the most reliable as it serves as the first-hand record of
a transaction or event. Since it is directly produced for court inspection, it avoids the
risk of alteration or manipulation.
2. Best Evidence Rule:
The principle behind primary evidence is the Best Evidence Rule, which mandates
that original documents must be produced to ensure the authenticity of the
information.
3. Original Document:
An original document is always the first and permanent record of a transaction. It is
the best form of evidence because it serves as the direct proof of the content in
issue.
4. Execution in Several Parts:
If a document is executed in multiple parts (e.g., contracts signed by different
parties), each part is considered primary evidence of the document. This ensures
that every executing party can refer to their signed portion.
5. Execution in Counterparts:
In counterpart documents, each part is considered primary evidence against the
party signing it. For example, if two parties execute separate parts of a contract, each
document is primary evidence against the respective executing party.
6. Uniform Process:
Documents made by printing, lithography, or photography from a common process
are primary evidence of each other. This makes it easier to refer to identical
documents without needing to search for the original.
 7. Newspapers:
Newspapers published on the same date are originals and primary evidence of the
publication. This means that each copy of the same issue is a primary evidence of its
content.
8. Carbon Copies:
Carbon copies, made through a uniform process, are primary evidence of each other
but secondary evidence of the common original. They serve as primary evidence
among themselves but not of the original document.
9. Video Evidence:
CCTV footage and video recordings are admissible as primary evidence when legally
appropriate. The court can view the footage to ascertain if the individual in the video
is indeed the accused. Video evidence can serve as primary evidence in cases where
it shows events directly.
10. Live Television Link & Video Conference:
The court can allow live television or video conference evidence, but this is at the
court’s discretion and depends on various factors, such as the nature of the offense,
the role of the witness, and the importance of the claim. However, courts are
cautious about the disadvantages of such evidence compared to live testimony.
Conclusion:
Primary evidence holds significant importance in legal proceedings as it serves as the
original, unaltered documentation of a transaction or event. Its reliability and authenticity
make it the preferred type of evidence in courts, guiding judicial decisions by presenting a
clear and direct account of facts.

8. Provisions Relating to Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence

Introduction:
Oral evidence refers to statements made by witnesses, while documentary evidence consists
of written documents, which provide a permanent record of transactions. Documentary
evidence is considered superior to oral evidence due to its reliability, permanence, and the
multiple ways to verify its authenticity. The best evidence rule dictates that when
documentary evidence is available, oral evidence is generally excluded, except in specific
situations outlined by law.
Difference Between Oral Evidence and Documentary Evidence:
 Oral Evidence: This refers to the statements made by witnesses before the court. It is
transient and relies heavily on the memory of witnesses, making it less reliable
compared to written records.
 Documentary Evidence: This involves written documents like contracts, agreements,
deeds, etc., and is considered more reliable due to its permanence. It can be verified
 more effectively through various means like forensic analysis, examination of
handwriting, etc.
Documentary evidence is preferred over oral evidence in many legal contexts as it provides
tangible proof that can be stored and referenced over time.
Principle Underlying Exclusion of Oral Evidence:
The principle of exclusion is based on the "best evidence rule," which emphasizes that the
best evidence to prove a fact is the document itself, as documents are considered more
reliable than oral testimony. Oral evidence is excluded when documentary evidence can
adequately prove the same facts.
Reference of Legal Provisions:
The general rule excluding oral evidence in the presence of documentary evidence is laid
down in Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The exceptions to this rule are
contained in Sections 93 to 100. These sections explain when and how oral evidence may be
allowed to interpret, amend, or supplement documentary evidence.

Section 91 - Evidence of Terms of Contracts, Grants, and Other Dispositions of Property

Reduced to the Form of Document:
 This section stipulates that oral evidence is not admissible to prove the terms of a
written contract, grant, or disposition of property.
 The document itself serves as the best evidence.
 Case Law: In Javarasetty v. Ningammati (1992), it was held that oral evidence cannot
be admitted to prove the contents of a writing unless the document itself is absent.
Exceptions:
1. Appointment of Public Officer: If the law requires an appointment to be in writing,
oral evidence showing the appointment can be accepted if there is evidence that the
individual acted in the position.
2. Wills: A will admitted to probate can be proved by the probate itself, and the
document does not need to be physically presented.

Section 92 - Exclusion of Oral Evidence to Contradict or Vary the Terms of a Written

Contract:
 Once the terms of a written contract are proved, no oral evidence can contradict,
vary, or add to the terms.
 Case Law: In Taburi Sahal v. Jhunjhunwala, it was clarified that adoption deeds are
not contracts and can be proved by oral evidence.
Exceptions:
1. Fraud: Facts that invalidate a document due to fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation
can be proved by oral evidence.
2. Silence: If the document is silent on certain matters, oral evidence can be used to
prove such matters as long as it doesn't contradict the document.
3. Conditions Precedent: Oral agreements regarding conditions precedent to an
obligation can be admitted.
4. Rescission or Modification: Oral agreements to rescind or modify a written
document may be admitted unless the document is required by law to be in writing.
5. Usages and Customs: Proof of custom or usage attached to a contract can be
admitted, provided it does not contradict the document.

Section 93 - Exclusion of Evidence to Explain or Amend Ambiguous Documents:

 Oral evidence can be used to explain or clarify ambiguous documents, but it cannot
add to the document’s terms.
 Case Law: In Keshav Lal v Lal Bhai Tea Mills Ltd, oral evidence could establish price if
it was absent from the document.

Section 94 - Exclusion of Evidence Against Application of Document to Existing Facts:

 Oral evidence is admissible to explain existing facts as mentioned in the document.
 Case Law: In General Court Enterprises P. Ltd v. John Philipose, oral evidence of an
explanatory nature was permitted.

Section 95 to Section 99 - Further Exceptions:

 These sections outline various scenarios where oral evidence can be admissible to
clarify, supplement, or prove specific aspects of documents.

Case Laws Highlighting the Importance of Documentary Evidence:

1. Javarasetty v. Ningammati (1992): Clarified that oral evidence cannot replace the
written content unless the document itself is absent.
2. Taburi Sahal v. Jhunjhunwala: Explained that oral evidence is admissible to prove
non-contractual matters.
 3. Keshav Lal v Lal Bhai Tea Mills Ltd: Allowed oral evidence to clarify missing details in
documents.

Conclusion:
The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Sections 91 to 100, emphasize the
primacy of documentary evidence while restricting the admissibility of oral evidence. These
sections uphold the "best evidence rule," which ensures that documents serve as the most
reliable form of evidence. Oral evidence is only admitted under specific circumstances, such
as to clarify ambiguous documents, to prove fraud, or to supplement the document’s silent
terms, among others. Through various exceptions, the law aims to strike a balance between
written and oral evidence, ensuring that facts are proved with the utmost reliability.

Concept of Hostile Witness under Indian Evidence Act

In Indian law, a hostile witness is one who, after being called by a party to testify in court,
turns against that party and gives testimony that is damaging to their case. A hostile witness
is someone whose statement during cross-examination contradicts their previous testimony
or reveals behavior that is inconsistent with their earlier statements made during the
examination-in-chief. This concept allows parties in a case (prosecution or defense) to
challenge the credibility of witnesses.

Legal Provisions Related to Hostile Witness

 Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the concept of a
hostile witness and allows the party who calls the witness to contradict them during
cross-examination. A witness becomes hostile if they deviate from their previous
statement or fail to provide the facts as initially mentioned.

Conditions for a Witness to be Declared Hostile:

1. Initial Examination-in-Chief: The witness must have initially provided testimony that
supports one side.
2. Contradictory Cross-Examination: During cross-examination, the witness gives
testimony that contradicts or undermines their earlier statements.
3. Cross-Examination by the Party that Called Them: The party who called the witness
can declare them hostile and cross-examine them using their previous statement(s).

Procedure to Declare a Witness Hostile:

  The lawyer who called the witness requests the court to declare the witness as
hostile.
 Once declared hostile, the party can cross-examine the witness using leading
questions (questions that suggest the answer).
 The opposite party can also cross-examine the witness after they have been declared
hostile.

Examples of Hostile Witness:

 A witness who initially provides evidence beneficial to the prosecution but, during
cross-examination, refuses to identify the accused or changes their statement in
favor of the accused.

Case Law on Hostile Witness:

1. State of Punjab v. Mehar Singh: The court emphasized that leading questions can be
asked during cross-examination once a witness is declared hostile.
2. Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.: The Supreme Court explained the procedure to be
followed when a witness becomes hostile and how leading questions can be used
during cross-examination.

Conclusion:
A hostile witness plays a crucial role in criminal trials, as it allows for greater scrutiny and
cross-examination. The concept provides a mechanism for challenging the credibility of a
witness whose testimony may conflict with their initial statements. The Indian Evidence Act
provides a clear framework to handle such witnesses through Sections 154 and other
relevant provisions, ensuring that justice is administered fairly even when witnesses shift
their stance during trial.