Evidence Act And Rules Of Admissibility In Criminal Proceedings
I. Overview: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
In criminal trials, evidence is the foundation of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governs what evidence is admissible, how it is presented, and its relevance.
1. Types of Evidence
Oral Evidence (Section 60): Evidence given by word of mouth, such as witness testimony.
Documentary Evidence (Section 61–90): Written documents, records, or digital evidence.
Real (Physical) Evidence: Tangible items, weapons, or objects directly linked to the crime.
2. Key Rules of Admissibility
Relevance (Sections 5–55): Only evidence relevant to the fact in issue is admissible.
Best Evidence Rule (Section 65–73): Original documents are preferred; copies or secondary evidence are admissible only under specific conditions.
Opinion Evidence (Sections 45–51): Expert opinions are admissible if the subject requires specialized knowledge.
Confessions (Sections 24–30): Admissible if voluntary, not obtained under coercion, inducement, or threat.
Dying Declarations (Section 32(1)): Statements made by a person under the apprehension of death can be admissible.
Electronic Records (Sections 65A–65B): Digital or electronic evidence must satisfy authenticity and proper certification to be admissible.
II. Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (Dying Declaration)
Facts: The victim of a murder made a dying declaration naming the accused before losing consciousness.
Legal Issue: Whether the dying declaration could be admitted as evidence and how much weight it carries.
Judgment & Analysis:
The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration is admissible under Section 32(1) if it is voluntary and the declarant is in a position to understand the consequences.
The Court emphasized corroboration with other evidence but did not require it in every case.
Lesson: Dying declarations are powerful evidence but must be scrutinized for voluntariness and clarity.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (Expert Opinion Evidence)
Facts: In a medical negligence case, expert medical evidence was presented to establish negligence.
Legal Issue: Admissibility and weight of expert opinion under Sections 45–51.
Judgment & Analysis:
The Supreme Court ruled that expert evidence is admissible when technical skill or scientific knowledge is needed.
Expert evidence is not binding; the Court may accept or reject it based on other corroborative evidence.
Lesson: Expert opinion aids the court but cannot substitute for fact-based evidence.
Case 3: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (Confession)
Facts: The accused allegedly confessed to the crime while in police custody.
Legal Issue: Whether the confession was voluntary and admissible under Sections 24–30.
Judgment & Analysis:
The Supreme Court held that a confession made under inducement, threat, or promise is inadmissible.
Police cannot extract confessions through coercion; the burden is on the prosecution to prove voluntariness.
Lesson: Voluntariness is key for confession evidence. Any doubt leads to exclusion.
Case 4: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (Electronic Records and Section 65B)
Facts: A criminal case relied on electronic records, including emails and digital logs, as primary evidence.
Legal Issue: Whether electronic evidence is admissible without a certificate under Section 65B.
Judgment & Analysis:
The Supreme Court ruled that electronic evidence is inadmissible without a proper certificate under Section 65B.
The certificate must confirm authenticity, source, and integrity of the record.
Lesson: Digital evidence must meet statutory formalities to be admissible in criminal proceedings.
Case 5: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (Circumstantial Evidence)
Facts: A murder case with no eyewitness; prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Legal Issue: Admissibility and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
Judgment & Analysis:
The Court held that circumstantial evidence is admissible but must be complete and point unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
Missing links can result in acquittal if doubt arises.
Lesson: Circumstantial evidence is powerful but must be logically complete.
Case 6: Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (Best Evidence Rule)
Facts: In a theft case, the prosecution submitted photocopies of ledger entries instead of originals.
Legal Issue: Whether secondary evidence can be admitted under Sections 63–65.
Judgment & Analysis:
The Supreme Court emphasized the Best Evidence Rule. Originals should be produced.
Secondary evidence is admissible only if originals are lost or beyond reach, with due notice to the accused.
Lesson: Courts require originals unless a valid exception exists; secondary evidence has limited weight.
III. Summary Table: Key Evidence Rules and Case References
| Rule/Section | Case Example | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Dying Declaration (Sec 32(1)) | State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam | Voluntary dying declarations admissible; corroboration desirable |
| Expert Opinion (Sec 45–51) | State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai | Expert evidence admissible, not binding |
| Confession (Sec 24–30) | State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh | Must be voluntary; coerced confession inadmissible |
| Electronic Records (Sec 65B) | Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer | Certificate required for admissibility |
| Circumstantial Evidence | State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram | Complete chain required; all links must point to guilt |
| Best Evidence Rule (Sec 63–65) | Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra | Originals preferred; secondary evidence limited to exceptions |
IV. Practical Implications for Criminal Trials
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is mandatory.
Admissibility challenges often arise in:
Confessions
Electronic evidence
Expert opinions
Forensic and procedural compliance ensures evidence is not excluded.
Corroboration strengthens weak evidence (e.g., dying declarations, confessions, circumstantial evidence).
RELATED Blog
0 comments