Blog - Ipleaders - in - Indian Evidence Act Extent and Applicability
Blog - Ipleaders - in - Indian Evidence Act Extent and Applicability
Blog - Ipleaders - in - Indian Evidence Act Extent and Applicability
HOME BLOG SUBMIT ARTICLE ACTS CAREERS LAW NOTES WEEKLY COMPETITION
This article has been written by Deyasini Chakrabarti from KIIT School of law,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha. This article mainly focuses on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – its
basic meaning, concepts, extent and applicability along with case references.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Meaning Of Evidence
3. Background Of The Indian Evidence Act
3.1. The Ancient Hindu Period
3.2. The Ancient Muslim Period
3.3. In the British Era
4. Territorial Extent as per The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. Applicability of The Indian Evidence Act
5.1. Concept
5.2. Relevant Cases based on the Application
6. Different Views And Decisions As To The Applicability: Important Findings
6.1. ⊗ Judicial proceeding
6.2. ⊗ Evidence Act if applicable to the arbitration procedure
6.3. ⊗ Affidavits
6.4. ⊗ Affidavits filed suo moto
6.5. ⊗ Affidavits in Interlocutory application
6.6. ⊗ Domestic enquiry
6.7. ⊗ Applicability of the Act to Tribunal
6.8. ⊗ Application of the Act to the Commissioner
6.9. ⊗ Applicability of the Act to Labour Courts
6.10. ⊗ Applicability to Income tax authorities
6.11. ⊗ Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act
7. Conclusion
8. Reference
Introduction
The dynamic changing society fails to believe in the words of mouth, rather they prefer
written, documented statements to believe the facts of the same. Thus, evidence plays a
very important role in establishing the occurrence of events that had taken place or which
gradually would be taking place. Therefore, in order to establish the happening or non-
happening of events, evidence also plays a very important role in the Court of Law.
The law of evidence is therefore based on reasoning and logic. Without a proper piece of
evidence to determine the merit of the case in the Court of the Law, there will be much
delay in trial to ascertain and give justice to the people. Thus, the very idea of the
formation of the Indian Evidence Act is to give power to the judiciary and help them to
decide the case and give a verdict of conviction and acquittal depending on the facts and
evidence brought before it. Therefore, the Indian Evidence Act is a mode or an instrument
through which the court upheld its functions by reaching the truth of each case.
Meaning Of Evidence
When we hear the word ‘Evidence’ the first word with which we could associate it is the
word prove. Therefore, the word ‘Evidence’ is derived from a Latin word ‘evidera’ which
means to discover clearly or to ascertain. Some of the Jurists had defined evidence as:
Thus, it means the facts proved to exist by words or things and regarded as grand work of
inference as to other facts which are not so proved. Thus, the evidence is a medium or
instrument through which justice could be met out by the proper discovery of the facts of
the case.
However, Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, states that “Evidence” means and
includes:
1. All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of facts under inquiry;
2. All documents which also include electronic records produced for the inspection of the
Court; such documents are documentary evidence.
Thus, to determine and distinguish the disputed facts, evidence plays a very important role
in it. It’s very objective is to determine or conform to the controverted question of fact in
the judicial proceedings, hence evidence is the judicial investigation based on logic and
reasoning.
Click Here
The English Law of evidence was not the Law of the Mofussil Court. On the other hand, the
Mohammedan Criminal law including the Mohammedan law of Evidence was no longer the
law of the country, and even though the Mohammedan Law was abandoned, the English
Law of evidence was not substituted in its place.
In British India, the administration courts by ideals of the Royal Charter build up in
Bombay, Madras and Calcutta were adhering to English standards of the law of evidence. In
Mofussil courts, outside the administration towns, there were no clear standards identifying
with the Law of Evidence. The Courts delighted in liberated freedom in the matter of
affirmation of proof. The whole organization of equity in the Mofussil courts, without any
positive principles in regards to the Law of Evidence, was in all-out mayhem.
There was a desperate need for the codification of the principles of law. In 1835, the main
endeavour was made to arrange the principles of evidence by passing the Act, 1835.
Somewhere in the range of 1835 and 1853 around eleven enactments were passed
managing the Law of Evidence. In any case, every one of these enactments was discovered
insufficient.
In the year 1868, a Commission was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Mayne. He
presented the draft, which was later discovered inadmissible to Indian conditions. Later in
the year 1870, this task of codification of the standards of the Law of Evidence was
dependent on Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. Stephen presented his draft and it was alluded
to the select council and furthermore to High Courts and individuals from Bar to evoke the
conclusion, and, in the wake of social occasion feeling, the draft was put before the
governing body and it was instituted. Finally, “The Evidence Act ” came in to force on first
September 1872.
Before Independence, there were upwards of 600 princely states in India, which were not
inside the locale of the British arrangement of equity. Every one of these states had its own
principles of the Law of Evidence. Be that as it may, all things considered, followed the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. After independence, there was a merger of princely states into
the Indian Union. Both the substantive as well as procedural laws have been made
consistently relevant to all States, regardless of whether the British region or native States.
The Law of Evidence is presently material to all States establishing the Union of India.
Territorial Extent as per The Indian Evidence Act,
1872
Part 1, Chapter 1 and Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 state about the extent of
the Indian Evidence Act. It plainly expresses the way that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
reaches out to the whole of India aside from the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It
additionally applies to all the legal procedures in or under the watchful eye of the any Court
including the Court-martial, other than the Court-martial convened under the Army Act,
Naval Discipline Act or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act 1934, or the Air Force Act yet not to
affidavits produced to any Court nor to procedures before a judge.
Concept
As already stated in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that it also deals with its
applicability. Evidence is the law of those matters which are completely governed by the
law of the country in which the proceeding takes place irrespective of the fact whether a
witness is competent or not, whether certain evidence proves certain fact of not. Therefore,
the lex fori determines all the questions which are related to the admission or rejection of
evidence.
It had been held on account of Queen v. Tulja (1887) 12 Bom. 36, 42 that an enquiry
where evidence is lawfully taken can be remembered for the term of the judicial
proceeding.
Similarly, in the case of, Queen-Empress v. Bharma (1886) 11 Bom. 702 FB, it had been
held that procedure before a Magistrate who isn’t authorized to direct an enquiry is not a
judicial proceeding in any case.
It had been held in the case of Munna Lal v. State of U.P AIR 1991, All 189, 1991 Cr LJ
1893, that a Family Court also falls inside the ambit of the significance and articulation
of Court.
The statutory provisions additionally don’t have any significant bearing before an
arbitrator. Consequently, an arbitrator will undoubtedly comply with the standards of
natural justice. They are not limited to the specialized technique of the rule of evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act additionally doesn’t also apply to the affidavit.
Slide 1
⊗ Judicial proceeding
The term Judicial Proceeding is defined under this Act. However, it had been held by
Justice Spankie in the case of R v. Gholam (1875) ILR 1 All that judicial proceeding can
be expressed as any procedure over the course of which evidence is or might be taken,
or in which any judgment, sentence or final order is passed on recorded evidence.
The Court has to perform administrative or executive and legal obligations all together
so that in a judicial proceeding, the adjudicator or the magistrate must act in a judicial
capacity.
⊗ Affidavits
The definition of evidence is excluded from the meaning of evidence under Section 3 of
the Indian Evidence Act and is also explicitly avoided under Section 1 of the said Act. In
this manner, affidavit is a personal oath or affirmation which is based on a person’s own
knowledge.
Affidavits per se don’t become evidence in suits, however, it can become evidence just
by the assent of the parties or where it is exceptionally approved by any provisions of
law.
However, in the case of Shamsunder v. Bharat Oil Mills AIR 1964 Bom 38, it had been
held that affidavits can be used as evidence if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes
an order under Order 19, rule 1,2 of the Code Of Civil Procedure 1908. It, therefore,
stated that an affidavit cannot be treated as evidence unless an order has been passed
under Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the case of Radhakrishnan v. Navoraton Mal Jain A 1990 Raj 127, 130, it had been
held that when there was no order of the court under Order 19 rule 1, affidavits filed by
the parties without giving them the opportunity of cross-examining the deponents,
cannot be treated as evidence.
⊗ Domestic enquiry
In the case of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh AIR 1977 SC 1512, it had been held
that the rule of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply to the domestic enquiry.
Similarly in the case of K.L. Shinda v. State of Mysore AIR 1976 SC 1080, the rule of
evidence doesn’t apply to departmental proceeding as well.
However, again there is a contradictory view in the case of Balkrishna Mesra v. Presiding
Officer, Orissa (1977) 35 Fac LR 11 (SC), that there is no bar on the part of the
competent authority to rely on evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
Conclusion
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is so vast and its implications and interpretations are wide.
The application of the above Act though mostly depends upon the statutory provisions but
depending upon the circumstances, nature of the case along with the underlying principles
of natural justice the application also varies hugely. However, the very objective of the
Evidence Act is meted out that is the Court has to find out the truth on the basis of the
facts brought before the Court by the parties to meet the ends of justice as expeditiously
as possible. Thus, the Rule of Evidence is not to put limitations and restrictions on the
parties rather it acts as a guiding factor for the Courts to take evidence.
Reference
1. Law of Evidence: Sarkar, 19th Edition Vol. 1.
2. Law of Evidence by H.K. Saharay and M.S. Saharay.
3. Law of Evidence; Batuk Lal.
4. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/148732/8/08_chapter%202.pdf
Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so that you never miss another post! Just complete this form…
Name
Email Address
10-6=?
SUBSCRIBE!
Women-centric laws : consequences Analysis of the enforcement of the Will AI translate into the new age of
faced by males decree against legal representatives terrorism
LEAVE A REPLY
Comment:
Name:
Email:
Website:
Post Comment
PDFmyURL.com - convert URLs, web pages or even full websites to PDF online. Easy API for developers!