Evidences & their Evidenciary Value in a Criminal Trial: Lawyers Advice

Crime is prevalent in every part of the world in some way or the other and has transgressed into something new and different with the passage of time. In order to establish who has committed the crime, certain things need to be taken into account. One of these things is evidence, which can be considered to be an instrument to prove or disprove any fact, the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation. As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, evidence is defined as and may constitute-
a) Any and all statements that the court deems permissible or necessary to be made before it by witnesses, with respect to matters of fact that are under inquiry and these statements are referred to as oral evidence.
b) Any and all documents that are produced for the court’s inspection are referred to as documentary evidence.
Thus, the Evidence Act explicitly recognizes only oral and documentary evidence and is considered to be a very narrow definition.

Kinds of Evidences:
• Direct Evidence: This is the evidence, which is based on an individual’s person knowledge or observation of the fact. It can directly prove or disprove a fact. There is no thinking or deliberation required to prove its existence and it is a real, tangible and clear evidence of the fact.
• Circumstantial Evidence: It is a direct evidence of a fact from which the existence or non-existence of another fact may be reasonably inferred. This forms a chain of events and there exist indirect facts, which prove their relevance. This is also known as indirect evidence and in the absence of direct evidence, the case solely depends on indirect evidence. In State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [AIR 1992 SC 2045], the essentials of circumstantial evidence were laid down and include –
 The circumstance from which the guilt has been established should be proven.
 All the facts should be in accordance with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
 The circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency.
 That the circumstances must, to an ethical certainty, honestly exclude any other hypothesis than the one projected to be evidenced.
 The guilt of the accused should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt through the evidence.
• Documentary Evidence: The term ‘document’ is defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and this evidence can be described or expressed in any written or tangible form. It includes letters, numbers, figures etc. produced in the form of a document to prove a disputed fact. The essentials of this evidence are-
 How the contents of the document will be proved
 How the document can be proved to be genuine
 To what extent and in what cases the oral evidence is to be excluded by documentary evidence
• Oral Evidence: It is the evidence that is confined to the words that have been spoken by an individual. If it is creditworthy, it can be proved without any documentary evidence as well. However, if there are contradicting statements, then the oral evidence may be considered to be doubtful.
• Primary Evidence: This is governed under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act and is considered to be the highest form of evidence. This is an original document that needs to be submitted before the court for inspection.
• Secondary Evidence: Secondary evidence is given under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and needs to be presented only after primary evidence. These are not the original documents and in the absence of primary evidence, can be admissible provided a notice is given. It is given in exceptional circumstances.
• Forensic Evidence: This evidence is analyzed by experts in the forensics field. It helps in analyzing that data which is not available to the naked eye. Forensic evidence includes DNA, fingerprints, shoeprints, drugs, bullets, hair, saliva, etc.
• Hearsay Evidence: This evidence is not something that the witness has directly experienced or heard. It is evidence that has just been reported by the witness and is mostly considered to be inadmissible. This evidence is generally not accepted in the court of law as it has no reasonable credibility and nexus and it becomes unreasonable to act on this evidence. The witness wasn’t directly a party to this evidence but has received it from a third person, making the evidence lose its credibility. There are certain exceptions when the evidence is admissible and these exceptions include a dying declaration and a statement that would only incriminate the witness so it can be reasonably assumed that the statement is a true statement or it would not have been stated by the witness.
• Judicial Evidence: This refers to the evidence, which has been received by the court that proves or disproves a particular fact. These include confessions of accused in the court of law, statement of witnesses in a court of law, documentary evidence and facts presented for examination by the court.
• Non Judicial Evidence: This refers to the confession made by the accused which is not within the courts of law and is made in the presence of any person. If such a confession is proved in the Court of law, it could be considered to be judicial evidence.

• Circumstantial Evidence: It is a direct evidence of a fact from which the existence or non-existence of another fact may be reasonably inferred. This forms a chain of events and there exist indirect facts, which prove their relevance. This is also known as indirect evidence and in the absence of direct evidence, the case solely depends on indirect evidence. In State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [AIR 1992 SC 2045], the essentials of circumstantial evidence were laid down and include –
 The circumstance from which the guilt has been established should be proven.
 All the facts should be in accordance with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
 The circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency.
 That the circumstances must, to an ethical certainty, honestly exclude any other hypothesis than the one projected to be evidenced.
 The guilt of the accused should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt through the evidence.
• Documentary Evidence: The term ‘document’ is defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and this evidence can be described or expressed in any written or tangible form. It includes letters, numbers, figures etc. produced in the form of a document to prove a disputed fact. The essentials of this evidence are-
 How the contents of the document will be proved
 How the document can be proved to be genuine
 To what extent and in what cases the oral evidence is to be excluded by documentary evidence
• Oral Evidence: It is the evidence that is confined to the words that have been spoken by an individual. If it is creditworthy, it can be proved without any documentary evidence as well. However, if there are contradicting statements, then the oral evidence may be considered to be doubtful.
• Primary Evidence: This is governed under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act and is considered to be the highest form of evidence. This is an original document that needs to be submitted before the court for inspection.
• Secondary Evidence: Secondary evidence is given under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and needs to be presented only after primary evidence. These are not the original documents and in the absence of primary evidence, can be admissible provided a notice is given. It is given in exceptional circumstances.
• Forensic Evidence: This evidence is analyzed by experts in the forensics field. It helps in analyzing that data which is not available to the naked eye. Forensic evidence includes DNA, fingerprints, shoeprints, drugs, bullets, hair, saliva, etc.
• Hearsay Evidence: This evidence is not something that the witness has directly experienced or heard. It is evidence that has just been reported by the witness and is mostly considered to be inadmissible. This evidence is generally not accepted in the court of law as it has no reasonable credibility and nexus and it becomes unreasonable to act on this evidence. The witness wasn’t directly a party to this evidence but has received it from a third person, making the evidence lose its credibility. There are certain exceptions when the evidence is admissible and these exceptions include a dying declaration and a statement that would only incriminate the witness so it can be reasonably assumed that the statement is a true statement or it would not have been stated by the witness.
• Judicial Evidence: This refers to the evidence, which has been received by the court that proves or disproves a particular fact. These include confessions of accused in the court of law, statement of witnesses in a court of law, documentary evidence and facts presented for examination by the court.
• Non Judicial Evidence: This refers to the confession made by the accused which is not within the courts of law and is made in the presence of any person. If such a confession is proved in the Court of law, it could be considered to be judicial evidence.

Evidentiary Value of different types of Evidence:
Direct Evidence: Law of evidence embodies the principle that the best evidence must be given in all cases. Direct evidence is considered to be the prime and best evidence which is submitted before the court by the individual who has seen it. Proper reliance is placed on upon direct evidence by the courts for proper and easy disposal of cases. This kind of evidence proves a fact or proposition directly rather than relying on secondary evidence or deduction. Certain examples include eyewitness or testimony, an oral confession of the defendant, or first hand account of criminal assault on the victim. This is considered to be the foundational support in many cases. The general rule states that the more direct evidence amassed, the better the advocate‘s case.

Circumstantial Evidence: In most situations, direct evidence is very difficult to obtain so the court needs to rely on indirect evidence to come to a conclusion. One such indirect evidence is circumstantial evidence. Thus, a question that arises while ascertaining this type of evidence is whether it is safe to convict an individual against whom there is no direct evidence and the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In Kamal v. Nandlal (1929) AIR Cal 37, it was stated that if circumstantial evidence was of such a nature that a chain of events could be formed leading to the conclusion that the accused was the perpetrator, then this evidence could be considered to be reliable. At the same time, in K.M. Shelka v. State of Maharashtra, (1953) A.I.R. SC 2474, it was stated that in a situation where two inferences were possible from the circumstantial evidence and one was pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the other towards the plausibility that the crime was committed by someone else, then the circumstantial evidence would not warrant the conviction of the accused. The primary rule governing circumstantial evidence is that all the incriminating circumstances must be established clearly by some reliable evidence and the “circumstances that are being proved proved must form a chain of events and from this chain, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn should be towards the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.”

In Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2000) Appeal (Crl.) 921, the Court held that circumstantial evidence can be considered to be a sole basis for conviction provided the following conditions are satisfied-
i. The circumstances from which guilt is established must be proved entirely.
ii. All the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
iii. The circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency.
iv. The circumstances should, to a moral certainty actually exclude every hypothesis except the one proposed to be proved.

Thus, if a proper chain of events is formed that is directed towards the guilt of the accused, circumstantial evidence could be admissible. As they say- Men may speak lies, circumstances, if reasonably inferred, will not.

Hearsay Evidence: Generally, as per the common rules of evidence law, hearsay rule is inadmissible in the eyes of law. This type of evidence is ambiguous and capable of numerous meanings. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act aims at avoiding hearsay evidence. The gist of this section is that the statements made out of court cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter contained in such statements.

In Bilal Haroon Galani v. State of Gujarat, it was stated that this evidence is not stated in the Evidence Act as it is inaccurate and vague. One of the rules of Evidence Act is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible and cannot be cross-examined. The tendency of evidence to protract legal investigations to an embarrassing and dangerous length, its intrinsic weakness, its incompetent nature to convince the mind of a Judge about the presence of a fact, and furthermore the fraud that may have been practiced under its cover without any ramifications or penalty, combines to support the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

In Dalveer and Ors. v. State, it was stated that the principle embodied in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act embodies the principle of res gestae. This means that that fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction-becomes relevant by itself.” This rule could be considered to be an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. This is because of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But it is necessary that such fact or statement must form a part of the same transaction.

Judicial Pronouncements:
In State of M.P. v. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414, it was held that the evidentiary value of injured witnesses is greatly used and their statements should not be discarded lightly unless compelling circumstances exist.

While deciding the evidentiary value of an affidavit in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Court held that affidavit does not come under the ambit of “evidence” as described under Section 3. It can be used as evidence only when the court passes an order under Section 19 and for those reasons as prescribed under the Order. Therefore, if an affidavit is filed for one’s own statement and in their own favor, it cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal on the basis of which a sufficient conclusion can be reached. However, in cases of cross examination, the cross examination of the defendant can be relied upon.

In State of U.P. v. Dinesh (2009) 11 SCC 566, the evidentiary value of medical evidence vis-à-vis ocular evidence was questioned. It was stated that although ocular testimony has a greater evidentiary value when it comes to comparing the two, but when the ocular testimony is completely improbable by the medical evidence, it becomes relevant in evaluating the evidence.

Although post mortem report is not a substantive piece of evidence, the evidence or statement of a doctor who has conducted the post mortem cannot be considered to be insignificant. This was laid down in State of H.P. v. Jai Chand (2013) 10 SCC 298.

Evidence plays an extremely important role while deciding any case. Laws and opinions are not enough and thus, evidence is indispensible to meet the fair and impartial administration of justice. Evidence plays a huge role in convincing the court about the existence or non existence of any event or object. It helps in reaching a fair and rational decision and delivers proper justice to the people. Evidence is can be of different kinds ranging from oral to documentary to forensic evidence. The evidentiary value of such evidence depends on the courts and depending on the circumstances, some evidence gets more emphasis than the others. Generally, best evidence or direct evidence holds more value than the others. It is essential that the evidence presented before the court of law should be scrutinized properly and checked carefully as that would help in giving the verdict.
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Ankita Sethi