EVIDENCE
IQBAL
NEW DELHI :-The word evidence is derived from the English language evidence from the Latin word avidare which means to clearly represent, to be clearly ascertained and to prove that the word evidence is not defined in the Evidence Act, rather those things are stated. Which is included in the word evidence
According to Taylor, evidence excludes all legal means except arguments that prove or not prove the veracity of the facts.
According to Black Stone the evidence is ascertained to explain the truth of the disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant
Normally, the word Evidence refers to the condition of an object or an object which is proved or ascertained by a fact which is a matter, of the condition of any such object or object which can clarify the facts before the court.
For example, when there is a question whether there was an explosive before the fire, then the explosion of the explosive and its glow will be evidence of this. Those people who saw this spark can hear the sound of this explosion, they can testify by it
Such as the record of a fact will also be evidence of an event where the fact of the garment of the goods under a contract is written on a document such as the garment register document will be the evidence of the fact of delivery.
Section 3 of the Evidence Act gives the following definition of evidence
All those statements in respect of which the facts of the facts under which the court permits it to be known by the witnesses before it
Such evidence is oral evidence
All documents submitted for court inspection, including electronic records) are documentary evidence.
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations
In the State of Maharashtra vs Praful Patel case, video conferencing is considered as documented evidence
R.M .The Malkani State of Maharashtra 1973 Supreme Court, said that when there is a thing going on that is relevant as part of a practice, if such a conversation is recorded at the same time then such tape record will be relevant
In the case of Ziauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brajmohan Ramdas Mehra and others 1976 SSC was held that the tape of the speeches is the document defined in Section 3 of the Report Act. The Court has imposed the following three conditions for receiving such evidence which Are the following
The person making the statement has been fully identified by the person recording the voice, or by the person of his or her identity.
The record must have been proved by the person determining the correctness of the kiln and the evidence must be satisfactory enough, circumstantial and there should be no tampering of evidence.
Recorded subject matter must be shown to be in accordance with relevant rules found in the Evidence Act
Types of evidence
(A) Oral and documentary evidence
(B) Actual and personal evidence
(C) Primary and Secondary Evidence
(D) direct and circumstantial evidence
(E) Original and disciplined evidence
(A) Oral and documentary evidence
The term defined in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act contains only two evidences
The statements of the Witnesses, which they present before the court and are expressly expressed, are oral evidence.
All documents that reveal oral evidence before the court are documentary evidence.
(B) Actual and personal evidence
Actual evidence includes evidence that is presented directly to the judgment and belief of the court that is conceivable by the senses and other items other than documents presented before the court under section 60 such as pistols used in murder Or blood stained clothes, stolen goods
Personal Evidence Witnesses include both written and oral testimony
(C) Primary and Secondary Evidence
The primary evidence is the original document which is presented before the court. It is the best evidence. The definition of primary witness is given in section 60.
Secondary evidence can be given in the absence of primary evidence. It is called lower grade evidence. Its definition is given in Section 63 and Section 65, under which conditions one can be given
(D) direct and circumstantial evidence
Evidence of a person who is watching an incident related to a case is called direct evidence.
Evidence that does not directly prove the fact of the facts, but rather the circumstances reveal that the facts are true, they are called circumstantial evidence. There is a formula regarding circumstantial evidence. The witness may lie but not the circumstances where the accused There is a lack of direct evidence in relation to the conviction and its culpability is determined on the basis of circumstantial evidence where the Supreme Court to explain the circumstance in the suit of Sharad Virdhi Chandra v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 (1622) 5 Golden principles given
(i) The circumstances must be absolutely certain
(ii) All circumstances are indicative of the crime of the accused
(iii) In order to maintain conviction, it is necessary that whatever the circumstances are, they should be beyond hypothesis.
(iv) All the evidence links should be connected to each other in such a way that there is no doubt.
(v) Circumstances should be fully proved
The case of Dharamdev Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2014 stated that DNA can not be blamed only on last seen together, DNA plays a major role in identification. It has been used for a long time for the justice system. Useful so it cannot be doubted
(E) Original and hearsay evidence
Basic evidence is evidence in which a witness gives evidence of what he himself has seen or heard.
Hearsay evidence is evidence in which a witness gives evidence based on what he or she has not heard or heard themselves, but through the other person.