Admissibility of Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act: A Comprehensive Exploration
The word “admissibility” is the condition of being admissible or allowable. In law, evidence refers to anything admitted by a Court for purposes of proving or disproving alleged matters of fact in a trial. Hence admissibility of evidence refers to any piece of paper, witness statement or object placed before a Court of Law. Not all evidence is allowed in court; only reliable and pertinent evidence is admissible under the law. Evidence is presented to a judge or jury to make a case point or establish an essential element relevant to the matter at hand.
''Admission''
The word ‘admission’ has been defined under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In its popular sense, the word admission stands for authority or leave to enter, admittance, entrance, access, privilege of approaching. In its legal sense, acquiescence or assent in a statement made by another, and differing from a confession in this, that an admission involves a previous question by another, but a confession may be made without any such previous question. A fact, point or statement admitted; as admission made out of Court are admissible in evidence.
Legal Provisions related to Admissibility of Evidence
Admissibility refers to all the material facts that a court considers. According to Section 136 of the Evidence Act, the judge is the sole judge of the admissibility of any evidence in any suit.
Section 136 states that where any party proposes to give evidence of any fact or circumstance, the judge before whom the matter is being tried may, without prejudice to any other mode of ascertaining the relevancy of such evidence, ask counsel for the party how the fact, if proved, would be relevant; and if the judge considers that the fact, if proved, would be relevant and not irrelevant he shall permit the evidence to be given.
Essential Elements of Admissibility
Relevancy and admissibility to be determined by the judge.
On adducing evidence the judge may call for explanation of its relevancy.
The judge shall allow the evidence if he is satisfied with the proved relevancy under Sections 6 to 55 of the Act.
Here, first we have to consider relevance and then admissibility.
Relevancy v. Admissibility
The words ‘Relevance’ and ‘Admissibility’ are generally regarded as synonyms but the legal effect of both the words are quite different. There is a very famous phrase which can explain the difference between the two words. All admissible evidence is relevant but all relevant evidence is not admissible. The meaning of relevance is wider as compared to admissibility.
The term “Relevance” and “admissibility” are sometimes used as synonyms but they have different legal connotations. All admissible evidence is relevant but all relevant evidence is not admissible.
The Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevance under Sections 5 to 55 and admissibility under Section 56.
The concept of relevance is wider as it means facts are so connected that the probability of the existence or non-existence of certain other facts is rendered by the conduct or events of common human experience. Whereas admissibility arises where facts are given legal status as relevant under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Relevance is the child of logic and human experience. Admissibility is the child of law. Relevance decides which facts are needed to prove or disprove the issue. Admissibility decides which relevant facts may be proved by evidence. Relevance is the cause. Admissibility is the effect. The court has discretion to decide on relevance. It has no discretion in admissibility.
To put it succinct, all admissible facts are relevant but all relevant facts are not admissible because they must be legally relevant before they can be proved in court.
.
In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) relevant and admissibility of evidence differs. Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act is very crucial as it talks about facts which form part of the same transaction. The facts which are so intimately connected with the matter in issue like motive, cause, effect are the most relevant and the same has been laid down in sections 6 to section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act. Relevancy of Confessions and precedents are also dealt in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The character of a person can also be relevant fact in a given case.
Unfair evidence admissible
Only one thing is relevant in case of admissibility of the evidence in Indian court of law i.e. relevancy. Illegally obtained evidence is always admissible though the weight of such evidence can be reduced as it has been held that improperly obtained evidence will be considered by the court with due caution. Supreme court of India has categorically held that there is no fundamental rights construction in the constitution which may be construed so as to import the exclusion of the evidence obtained in illegal search.
Types of Evidence -
• Oral Evidence
Oral evidence has been defined in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence which is seen or heard by the person who gives it is oral evidence. It is positive evidence and makes a strong impression on the case and proves facts of the said case. This evidence is said to be direct evidence.
• Documentary Evidence
Documentary evidence has been defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This evidence is documentary evidence which is allowed by the Court of Law to inspection. Thus, all the documents which are allowed by the Court to inspection can be called as documentary evidence.
• Primary Evidence
Original or Primary evidence is defined in Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Original evidence is the highest quality of evidence and is always admissible and permissible in the first instance. Such evidence is very important in the case.
• Secondary Evidence
Secondary evidence is defined in Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such evidence are admissible in Court, if the original evidence is not available. It is called Secondary evidence as it is below the rank of the original evidence and if there is inconsistency the original evidence will always prevail.
• Judicial Evidence
Judicial evidence is evidence which is 0ffered to the Court, for the proof or disproof of facts which are earlier to it. The statements of the witnesses are also known as judicial evidence. This is the evidence which is tendered in the presence of the magistrate.
• Non-judicial Evidence
Non-judicial evidence is the evidence which is confessed out of Court and not in the presence of the magistrate. Such evidence is admissible only if it is capable of being proved in the Court later as a judicial evidence.
• Hearsay Evidence
Evidence by hearsay is a person not having seen or heard anything in the occurrence of that event particularly but having the knowledge of certain facts of the happening of an event from someone else. Such evidence is the most weak type of evidence and is always admissible unless it is corroborated by some other strong evidence and is capable of proof.
• Real Evidence
Real evidence is evidence which is derived by the inspection of some particular physical object and not by any particular witness.
• Direct Evidence
Direct evidence is the type of evidence which proves a particular fact. Such evidence is essential and sufficient to decide the question in a particular issue. For instance, a testimony given by witnesses.
• Indirect or circumstantial Evidence
This type of evidence is not a certain proof but an abstract conclusion of what may probably have happened in a particular situation. This evidence seeks to prove the facts contained in the issue by proving other facts and gives an instance as to its existence.
Conditions of Admissibility of Evidence in Court
Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with admissions of persons referred to or by a party to a particular suit. This section lays down another exception to the general rule of admission made by strangers to the suit. The admission made by a third party are relevant and are admissible when a party refers another to him for information in case of uncertain or interrupted manner.
Generally two basic elements are considered in deciding the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence:
Relevant
The evidence must either establish or refute an matters of fact which is important in the criminal case. If the evidence does not relate to any particular fact then it is said to be “irrelevant” and hence not admissible and not it is not be permissible in Court.
Reliable
Reliability is referred to the credit of a source which is used as evidence. This generally used for witnesses’ testimony
Section 136 of the Act
The Court alone can judge of the admissibility of evidence, and of the relevance or permittibility of any proof or any fact proposed to be proved, and it may require any person who gives evidence to explain in what manner or ways the person proposes to prove the fact or facts in dispute. The proof shall be allowed if it is relevant to the matters in litigation, and the Court is satisfied with the manner in which the particular person proposes to give the evidence. The question of relevancy takes precedence of the question of admissibility in Court.
Admissibility of Evidence in Courts
In Civil proceedings- In Civil proceedings, an ingredient of the case is balanced by the preponderance or weight of evidence. But the evidence led is usually official documents like leases, sale deeds, rent notes, gift deeds, etc.
In Criminal proceedings- In Criminal proceedings, evidence is employed to establish the guilt of the accused in a disputed fact upon the beyond any reasonable doubt. But in criminal proceedings evidence can be employed only when it is deemed admissible and relevant to the facts or issues or matter or any other circumstance in dispute. It is at the discretion of the Court to decide the admissibility of any evidence or not
