SYNOPSIS : Evidence Act is essential to remember the circumstances, objects, and people that prove the sequence of events in an act to establish the truth. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is still appropriate for India’s current legal system.
In India, the Evidence Act is applicable to all court proceedings. Court martials are also included in this term. Affidavits filed with a court or before an officer are examples of exceptions, as are proceedings before arbitrators.
The Act and the development of criminal law go hand in hand.
Regarding the latest developments in technology, the applicability of electronic evidence is also examined.
The Indian Evidence Act recognizes the relative importance of first-hand witness testimony over hearsay. This reinforces the significance of concrete, authentic evidence.
Additionally, the law of evidence recognizes and makes provisions for the distinctions between civil and criminal law.
The Act also states whether a fact can be proven, refuted, or left unproven based on the evidence at hand.
In criminal cases, where one party is accusing the other, the prosecution bears the burden of proof; in civil cases, the burden of proof is with the plaintiff seeking relief.
The Evidence Act of 1872 makes clear the conditions under which the burden of proof is shifted by a particular fact.
Under the 1872 Act, suspects’ confessions made outside of court are not considered credible evidence against the accused.
The Act uses the phrase “court may presume” to validate circumstances, giving the judicial officer the discretion to accept or reject particular evidence.
Conversely, phrases such as “must presume” impose an obligation on the judge to accept particular evidence while leaving no room for discretion.
In terms of court evidence, the Act is not definitive. Additional laws, such as the Code of Civil Procedure, the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Stamps Act, etc., also supplement relevant provisions.
TOPICS