Types of Evidences

Before we get to the topic of “Types of evidence” , let’s discuss about what evidence may be given and what not. According to Section 5 in The Evidence Act, 1872, “ Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.—Evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.”

Explanation:

As per the Evidence Act, 1872 ‘evidence’ means and includes:

(1) Whatever statements witnesses make before the court about matters of fact under inquiry are called oral evidence;

(2) Whichever documents and e-records produced to submit before the court are called documentary evidence.

Thus, the word evidence means statements/documents produced to present before the Court, based on which Court decides an action. The Act applies to both civil and criminal cases. So, the specific context in which evidence and its meaning are considered will depend on the facts, circumstances and the case which is being referred to.

Illustrations

If X tries to rob Y. He enters Y’s house and loot his accessories. If Y is captured in CCTV cameras of the building while coming out of X’s house. Here, CCTV footage is considered as an ‘evidence’ whereas Robbery is Y’s intention to commit crime.

Role of Evidences

The evidences aims at helping the Courts to assure the truth and to avoid the confusion of judges resulting from the admission of evidences in excess.

“The law of evidence is the lex fori which govern the Courts; whether a writer is competent or not; whether a certain fact requires to be proved by writing or not; whether a certain evidence proves a fact or not; that is to be determined by the law of the country where the question arises, where the remedy is sought to be enforced and where the Court sits to enforce it.”

The basis on which rules of evidence are framed are:

No matter how interesting the fact shared by someone who is not in connection with the matter in controversy, the court should not entertain it; and

All facts having rational probative value i.e., which helps the Court to conclude the existence or non-existence of the matter in controversy, are admissible in evidence, unless excluded by some rule of paramount importance.

Further, it is one of the basic principles of law that evidence to be admitted in a court must be relevant, material, and competent. Once any evidence is admitted as ‘relevant’, then judge needs to determine the evidentiary value of that shred of evidences.

Types of Evidences

Direct Evidences:

Direct evidence is evidence that witness knows personally because they have seen, heard, touched or experienced it. It is directly about the real point in matter. It is witnesses’ testimony about the fact to be proved, e.g., the evidence of a person who says that he witnessed the occurrence of the act. It also includes the production of an original document. Direct evidence has a very high evidentiary value.

Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, an oral confession of a defendant, or the victim’s firsthand account of a criminal assault. Direct evidence paves the foundation for many cases. The eyewitness testimony or a victim’s testimony about certain crime has a primary quality to be a shred of direct evidence. The weightage of direct evidence in any case decides whether the case is strong on Advocate’s side or not.

Circumstantial Evidences

Circumstantial evidence allows a conclusion to be drawn from a set of circumstances or information. To do this the court and the jury must accept the evidence before them and conclude it, for example:

A the defendant is accused of shoplifting from a saree shop and B a witness saw the defendant running from the saree shop holding a bag of saree. Here, witness’ observation is considered as direct evidence where the conclusion drawn based on witness’ observation that the defendant shoplifted is considered as a circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is not always weaker than direct evidence if number of circumstances comes together to lead the court or a jury on a guilty verdict. In the combination of several circumstances, each of them may not be able to prove a guilty verdict separately, but combining the circumstances altogether may prove a guilty verdict. It means, cases can also be solved based on circumstantial evidences.

Thus, if there is no eye-witness to a case of poisoning, the fact that A had the motive to poison B or A has been seen with a glass of drink which has poison, from B’s room where B was found dead immediately after B’s cries were heard would be circumstantial evidence as against A. If the evidence relates to a relevant fact, it is indirect or circumstantial.

Proof of circumstantial evidence:

There are four points essential for proving guilt by circumstantial evidence:

(a)that the circumstances establishing guilt must be proved;

(b)that all the facts must have consistency to the guilt hypothesis;

(c)that conclusion must be drawn from all the circumstances;

(d)that the circumstances should not include any other hypothesis than the one to be proved.

Value of Circumstantial Evidence:

Ordinarily, circumstantial evidence cannot be considered as satisfactory as direct evidence. The chain of circumstances may lead to particular inferences and the relation to facts may be more apparent than real. Hence, such evidence must be used with caution. Where the circumstantial evidence only showed that the accused and deceased met the previous night, is not sufficient.

Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence

Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides “contents of the documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence”. Section 62 provides “primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court”.

Primary evidence is an original document and a statement about its contents. Primary evidence is usually required to prove the contents of a document.

Secondary evidence means that which can be given in absence of the primary evidence. Where a copy of the document is tendered in evidence and hence are called secondary evidence of the document. Where the original has been destroyed or lost, and when a party has made diligent search for it and exhausted all sources and means available for its production then the secondary evidence is admissible.

Secondary evidence is a copy of a document and verbal evidence about its contents.

Documentary Evidence

Document as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act means “any matter expressed or described upon any substance utilizing letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means intended to be used, or which may be used, to record that matter”.

Documentary evidence deals with evidence produced in the form of a document to prove a controversial matter. The subject-matter of documentary evidence can be divided into three parts:

In which way the contents of a document are proven?

In which way the document is proven to be authentic?

(iii) In how many and which cases the oral evidence is not included by documentary evidence?

This is a written document or written statement which is intended to be produced or tendered before the court. A police officer will seize any documentary material as exhibit which has been used for committing the crime to be presented in court. For example bankers books, records and cheques, currency notes, passport, 7/12, vehicle registration certificate, license, ATM card, credit/debit card which have been used to prove cases of fraud.

Oral Evidence

All statements made by witnesses before the court about the matters of fact under inquiry are called oral evidence. Further, oral evidence is the evidence confined to words either spoken by mouth or gestures, i.e, in case if witnesses are deaf and dumb.

“Oral evidence” includes the examination-in-chief of the witnesses, on behalf of the party which called him, as well as the cross-examination of witnesses by the opposite party. If oral evidence is reliable, then it is sufficient to prove a fact or title without documentary evidence. Section 60 of the Act states that oral evidence must be direct, i.e. a witness can tell the Court of only a fact of which he has seen, heard, touched, experienced by himself and not by the third person or medium. For instance, the person recording statement himself has heard screams of his neighbour and later, he witnessed from his balcony that the wife was killing her husband with a knife.

The verbal statements are made before the magistrate or the judge by a witness. This may either an eye witness testimony or experience by any other of the five senses during while the crime was being committed. It is also viva voce or oral evidence given by a witness in person from the witness box.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence means the statement of a witness based on what he heard from others and not on his knowledge. It is indirect, second-hand or derivative evidence. It is a statement made before Court by a witness who has not seen the happening of the but heard about it from someone else. Thus, it means that which a witness does not say of his knowledge but says that another has said or signified to him.

Medical Evidence

Medical knowledge is considered as a specialized kind of knowledge that a layman cannot have without proper education and training. So, Medical experts are seen as an essential part of the criminal justice system. The expert testimony given by a medical expert has proven helpful to the  Court in passing the judgment in various cases, till now. Particularly, in case of death of a person, medical evidence is of great importance to find out time since death, causes of death, nature of injuries, the weapon with which the injuries were inflicted, handedness of the assailant, etc. Such evidence can be obtained through postmortem report examination and Autopsy. The results of PM examination and Medical expert’s testimony makes it easy to decide the guilt of the accused.

Expert Evidence

The law of evidence is designed to ensure that, the Court considers only that evidence which enables it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the testimony of the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the Court’s knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved is highly specialised and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed.

Rules of Expert Evidence:

1. Expert must be within a recognized field of expertise.

2. The evidence must be based on reliable principles.

3. Expert must be qualified in that discipline