Introduction:
Evidence is an essential part of legal proceedings to prove or disprove the facts and truth of the event, and it enables the court to pass an appropriate judgment.
Many kinds of evidence available in India these are governed under the Indian evidence act,1872; hearsay evidence is among them, which is directly not counted as evidence, but it has some provision to prove the accuracy or relevance of truth. In this article, we discuss the hearsay evidence rule according to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Types of Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act:
Different types of evidence are available under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; let’s see what are that?
Oral evidence –
This type of evidence is defined under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. A person gives this evidence that he has seen or heard himself. That’s why this kind of evidence is called direct, which positively impacts the case.
Documentary evidence –
This type of evidence is defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. This type of document is presented by the parties in a documentary form; that’s why it is called documentary evidence. Here is one thing we should know: the court permits documentary evidence for inspection.
Primary evidence –
This type of evidence is defined under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the name, the primary evidence is preferable as well admissible in terms of evidence; because this kind of evidence plays a crucial part in the case.
Secondary evidence –
This is defined under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, in certain circumstances. If primary evidence is not available in the case, then secondary evidence can be used as evidence.
Real evidence –
This type of evidence comes into play by inspecting any physical object presented in the court. This kind of evidence mainly helps to consider the facts.
Judicial evidence –
Judicial evidence means the evidence given before the court, whether the facts of this evidence are proven or not. Even the witness’s statement is also included in that.
Non-judicial Evidence –
This type of Evidence is collected out of court; that Evidence might be admissible after proving it before the court as judicial Evidence.
Direct Evidence –
This kind of Evidence determines any particular fact; that plays a crucial part in deciding some specific proof.
Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence –
This kind of Evidence does not define the proof in terms of direct Evidence. However, it helps on the basis of the basic idea of the proof.
Hearsay Evidence –
Hearsay evidence means when a person has heard or seen something about an event from another, but it does not directly involve his particular knowledge and experience. In this article, we discuss hearsay evidence in detail.
What is Hearsay Evidence?
In simple words, we can say the general meaning of hearsay is a combination of two words: hear and say. Which is not define particular knowledge of an event. When a witness is heard, he gives some information regards the event from another say. Such type of evidence may be treated as second-hand evidence, which is never permissible like direct evidence.
As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, hearsay evidence can not be considered evidence because such is not direct evidence.
Suppose we refer to Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, which clearly says that in terms of oral evidence. The information is given by a witness who has gathered it from another, and cannot be treated as full proof and direct evidence.
Admissibility of Hearsay evidence:
In the case of the hearsay witness, it may happen that he can not be able to explain the fact by his statement. There may be some mistakes or inaccuracies that come at the time of his testimony given as a witness; the reason for that is,
- such a type of witness doesn’t hold any responsibility regarding his statement.
- He has a chance to commit fraud by making a false representation that another person hears.
What does section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act say?
According to that section, it is specified that the witness must give oral evidence in direct terms. Oral evidence must be direct in all circumstances; that is,
- If a witness refers to a fact, the witness can be heard; it must be the testimony of a witness who claims to have heard it.
- If it applies a truth that may be interpreted in some other way or some different sense, it must be the testimony of a witness who claims to have experienced it in that way or by that definition.
It must be the facts of the individual who holds the opinion on specific grounds, whether it applies to views or the grounds on which they are expressed.
In the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri (AIR 2011 SC 760), the Supreme Court observed that Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person whose statement is relied upon into court for his examination in a regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross-examination. The phrase “hearsay evidence” is not used in the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under Indian Law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A statement, oral or written, made otherwise than by a witness in giving evidence and a statement contained or recorded in any book, document or record whatever, proof of which is not admitted on other grounds, are deemed to be irrelevant for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated. An assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted. The reasons why hearsay evidence is not received as relevant evidence are “(a) the person giving such evidence does not feel any responsibility. The law requires all evidence to be given under personal responsibility, i.e., every witness must give his testimony, under such circumstances, as expose him to all the penalties of falsehood. If the person giving hearsay evidence is concerned, he has a line of escape by saying “I do not know, but so and so told me”; (b) truth is diluted and diminished with each repetition, and (c) if permitted, gives ample scope for playing fraud by saying “someone told me that”. It would be attaching importance to false rumours flying from one foul lip to another. Thus, the statement of witnesses based on information received from others is inadmissible.[1].
Exceptions to the rule of Hearsay Evidence:
As per the above discussion, we know that there is more reliability of direct evidence than hearsay evidence. But here are some exceptions to that rule; in those circumstances, hearsay evidence may be accepted. Let’s know when hearsay evidence can be received.
Res Gestae:
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act makes an exception to the general rule of evidence. According to that provision, the hearsay evidence also becomes admissible, but the essential requirement is that it must be the same transaction as the act, and there should be no gap between the events.
In the case of Pratapsingh and another, Appellants vs. State of M.P. (1971 Cri LJ 172), the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the requirement of S.6 is that the statement must have been made contemporaneously with the act or immediately after it and not at such an interval of time as to make it a narrative of past events or to allow time for fabricating it.[2].
In the case of Bhaskaran vs State of Kerala (1985 CRI. L. J. 1711), the Kerala High Court held that the statements must be of a person who has seen the actual occurrence and who uttered the same simultaneously with the incident or soon after it so as to make it reasonably certain that the speaker is still under the stress of excitement caused by his having seen the incident. [3].
Admission and Confessions:
Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines admission, which is an exception to hearsay evidence. According to that, admission may be a statement in terms of oral, documents, or electronic form given in the court.
The court can accept such type of evidence that a person gives against his own. Because, basically, it should be understood that no one can provide a statement against himself; the court also accepts such a statement on the same ground.
The same thing is also laid down in the confession; in the Indian Evidence Act, sections 24 to 30 deal with a confession. In simple words, we can say confession means accepting guilt in court.
When a person confesses his guilt out of court, it can be proved by his testimony. A witness who has never seen or heard about the event; however, such a confession can be confirmed by his testimony.
Dying declaration:
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with a witness who gives a statement but does not appear in court for his testimony. When a person is on a deathbed, due to any other disability, or a person who gives his statement but cannot be found anywhere, it can not be possible for a witness to appear in court.
In that situation, a statement was given by a dead person or the cause of his death, who received such a statement. He can appear in the court as a witness and present his evidence as hearsay evidence as well he can declare such a statement that he receives from that person as relevant.
In the case of Qaiyum Mian and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1993 Cri LJ 1756), the Patna High Court held that when the evidence of a witness to the dying declaration of the deceased discloses the manner of assault, weapon and persons causing assault as the same as in the evidence given by other witnesses and also when the declaration is corroborated by medical evidence, the evidence of declaration is admissible.[4].
Evidence was given in the former proceedings:
Section 33 of the Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of evidence proven in the subsequent proceeding, where the truth or facts are mentioned in a subsequent proceeding.
Suppose a person dies or unable to present before appearing to the court as a witness in that situation. In that case, the statement given by that person in previous proceedings might be used as evidence to prove the fact in current proceedings.
Statements in public documents:
Section 35 of the IEA deals with the relevance of public records that have formed part of their performance of public duty. For example, books of account, public registers, documents, an electronic form, etc., state a relevant fact, which a public servant makes as part of his duty. If the person who made that record is not alive, then the evidence made by him as part of a previous official duty is admissible in court.
Conclusion:
The evidence given in the case enables the court to pass a relevant, accurate judgment but should be proved without reasonable doubt. After discussing the above details, we can conclude that there is also a value of hearsay evidence that will come on the record when hearsay evidence is proved according to the above provisions of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.
Reference:
(1) Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, (AIR 2011 SC 760).
(2) Pratapsingh and another, Appellants vs. State of M.P (1971 Cri LJ 172).
(3) Bhaskaran, vs State of Kerala, (1985 CRI. L. J. 1711).
(4) Qaiyum Mian And Ors. vs State Of Bihar, (1993 Cri LJ 1756).
