Contents
Meaning of Evidence
Case Laws on Evidence
Definition of word “evidence” under the Evidence Act is exhaustive
What would be the meaning of the ‘evidence‘ has been elucidated by Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardip Singh & Ors vs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it was held as under:
For getting free Indian Judgments in your inbox click Subscribe
According to Section 3 of the Evidence Act, ‘evidence’ means and includes:
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such statements are called documentary evidence;
# Meaning of Evidence
According to Tomlin’s Law Dictionary, Evidence is “the means from which an inference may logically be drawn as to the existence of a fact. It consists of proof by testimony of witnesses, on oath; or by writing or records.
Bentham defines ‘evidence’ as “any matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of which presented to mind, is to produce in the mind a persuasion concerning the existence of some other matter of fact- a persuasion either affirmative or disaffirmative of its existence. Of the two facts so connected, the latter may be distinguished as the principal fact, and the former as the evidentiary fact.
According to Wigmore on Evidence, evidence represents
“any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or a logical principle, considered with a view to its being offered before a legal tribunal for the purpose of producing a persuasion, positive or negative, on the part of the tribunal, as to the truth of a proposition, not of law, or of logic, on which the determination of the tribunal is to be asked.”
The provision and the above-mentioned definitions clearly suggest that it is an exhaustive definition. Wherever the words “means and include” are used, it is an indication of the fact that the definition ‘is a hard and fast definition’, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression that is put down in the definition. It indicates an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expression.
# Case Laws on Evidence
M/s. Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P., AIR 1989 SC 335
Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 682
P. Kasilingam & Ors. v. P.S.G. College of Technology & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1395
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 968
Ponds India Ltd. (merged with H.L. Limited) v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, (2008) 8 SCC 369
In Feroze N. Dotivala v. P.M. Wadhwani & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 433, Apex Court observed as under:
“Generally, ordinary meaning is to be assigned to any word or phrase used or defined in a statute. Therefore, unless there is any vagueness or ambiguity, no occasion will arise to interpret the term in a manner which may add something to the meaning of the word which ordinarily does not so mean by the definition itself, more particularly, where it is a restrictive definition. Unless there are compelling reasons to do so, meaning of a restrictive and exhaustive definition would not be expanded or made extensive to embrace things which are strictly not within the meaning of the word as defined.”
# Definition of word “evidence” under the Evidence Act is exhaustive
In Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 760, while dealing with the issue Apex Court held :
“33. The word “evidence” is used in common parlance in three different senses: (a) as equivalent to relevant, (b) as equivalent to proof, and (c) as equivalent to the material, on the basis of which courts come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of disputed facts. Though, in the definition of the word “evidence” given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act one finds only oral and documentary evidence, this word is also used in phrases such as best evidence, circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc.”
In relation to a Civil Case, Apex court in Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 355, held that the examination of a witness would include evidence-in- chief, cross-examination or re-examination.
In Omkar Namdeo Jadhao & Ors v. Second Additional Sessions Judge Buldana & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 331; and Ram Swaroop & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2943, Apex Court held that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation are not evidence. Such statements can be used at the trial only for contradictions or omissions when the witness is examined in the court.
See also:
Podda Narayana & Ors. v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 1252
Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294
State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 250
In Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1892, it was held that it is evident that a person, even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added as an accused to face the trial. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge- sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.
The majority view of the Constitution Bench in Ramnarayan Mor & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 949 has been as under:
“9. It was urged in the alternative by counsel for the appellants that even if the expression “evidence” may include documents, such documents would only be those which are duly proved at the enquiry for commitment, because what may be used in a trial, civil or criminal, to support the judgment of a Court is evidence duly proved according to law. But by the Evidence Act which applies to the trial of all criminal cases, the expression “evidence” is defined in Section 3 as meaning and including all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry and documents produced for the inspection of the Court. There is no restriction in this definition to documents which are duly proved by evidence.”
Similarly, Apex Court in Sunil Mehta & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., JT 2013 (3) SC 328, held that “It is trite that evidence within the meaning of the Evidence Act and so also within the meaning of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the manner stipulated under Section 138 in the case of oral evidence. Documentary evidence would similarly be evidence only if the documents are proved in the manner recognised and provided for under the Evidence Act unless of course a statutory provision makes the document admissible as evidence without any formal proof thereof.”
With respect to documentary evidence, it is sufficient, as can be seen from a bare perusal of Section 3 of the Evidence Act as well as the decision of the Constitution Bench, that a document is required to be produced and proved according to law to be called evidence. Whether such evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible, is a matter of trial.
For getting free Indian Judgments in your inbox click Subscribe
Thus, it would be clear from the aforesaid exposition of law that ‘evidence’ within the meaning of the Evidence Act, with regard to documentary evidence would be evidence only if the documents is proved in the manner recognized and provided for under the Evidence Act and it is only when the document produced according to law, then it can be called ‘evidence’.
Meaning of Evidence
Case Laws on Evidence
Definition of word “evidence” under the Evidence Act is exhaustive
What would be the meaning of the ‘evidence‘ has been elucidated by Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardip Singh & Ors vs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it was held as under:
For getting free Indian Judgments in your inbox click Subscribe
According to Section 3 of the Evidence Act, ‘evidence’ means and includes:
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such statements are called documentary evidence;
# Meaning of Evidence
According to Tomlin’s Law Dictionary, Evidence is “the means from which an inference may logically be drawn as to the existence of a fact. It consists of proof by testimony of witnesses, on oath; or by writing or records.
Bentham defines ‘evidence’ as “any matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of which presented to mind, is to produce in the mind a persuasion concerning the existence of some other matter of fact- a persuasion either affirmative or disaffirmative of its existence. Of the two facts so connected, the latter may be distinguished as the principal fact, and the former as the evidentiary fact.
According to Wigmore on Evidence, evidence represents
“any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or a logical principle, considered with a view to its being offered before a legal tribunal for the purpose of producing a persuasion, positive or negative, on the part of the tribunal, as to the truth of a proposition, not of law, or of logic, on which the determination of the tribunal is to be asked.”
The provision and the above-mentioned definitions clearly suggest that it is an exhaustive definition. Wherever the words “means and include” are used, it is an indication of the fact that the definition ‘is a hard and fast definition’, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression that is put down in the definition. It indicates an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expression.
# Case Laws on Evidence
M/s. Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P., AIR 1989 SC 335
Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 682
P. Kasilingam & Ors. v. P.S.G. College of Technology & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1395
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 968
Ponds India Ltd. (merged with H.L. Limited) v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, (2008) 8 SCC 369
In Feroze N. Dotivala v. P.M. Wadhwani & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 433, Apex Court observed as under:
“Generally, ordinary meaning is to be assigned to any word or phrase used or defined in a statute. Therefore, unless there is any vagueness or ambiguity, no occasion will arise to interpret the term in a manner which may add something to the meaning of the word which ordinarily does not so mean by the definition itself, more particularly, where it is a restrictive definition. Unless there are compelling reasons to do so, meaning of a restrictive and exhaustive definition would not be expanded or made extensive to embrace things which are strictly not within the meaning of the word as defined.”
# Definition of word “evidence” under the Evidence Act is exhaustive
In Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 760, while dealing with the issue Apex Court held :
“33. The word “evidence” is used in common parlance in three different senses: (a) as equivalent to relevant, (b) as equivalent to proof, and (c) as equivalent to the material, on the basis of which courts come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of disputed facts. Though, in the definition of the word “evidence” given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act one finds only oral and documentary evidence, this word is also used in phrases such as best evidence, circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc.”
In relation to a Civil Case, Apex court in Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 355, held that the examination of a witness would include evidence-in- chief, cross-examination or re-examination.
In Omkar Namdeo Jadhao & Ors v. Second Additional Sessions Judge Buldana & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 331; and Ram Swaroop & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2943, Apex Court held that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation are not evidence. Such statements can be used at the trial only for contradictions or omissions when the witness is examined in the court.
See also:
Podda Narayana & Ors. v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 1252
Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294
State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 250
In Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1892, it was held that it is evident that a person, even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added as an accused to face the trial. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge- sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.
The majority view of the Constitution Bench in Ramnarayan Mor & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 949 has been as under:
“9. It was urged in the alternative by counsel for the appellants that even if the expression “evidence” may include documents, such documents would only be those which are duly proved at the enquiry for commitment, because what may be used in a trial, civil or criminal, to support the judgment of a Court is evidence duly proved according to law. But by the Evidence Act which applies to the trial of all criminal cases, the expression “evidence” is defined in Section 3 as meaning and including all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry and documents produced for the inspection of the Court. There is no restriction in this definition to documents which are duly proved by evidence.”
Similarly, Apex Court in Sunil Mehta & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., JT 2013 (3) SC 328, held that “It is trite that evidence within the meaning of the Evidence Act and so also within the meaning of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the manner stipulated under Section 138 in the case of oral evidence. Documentary evidence would similarly be evidence only if the documents are proved in the manner recognised and provided for under the Evidence Act unless of course a statutory provision makes the document admissible as evidence without any formal proof thereof.”
With respect to documentary evidence, it is sufficient, as can be seen from a bare perusal of Section 3 of the Evidence Act as well as the decision of the Constitution Bench, that a document is required to be produced and proved according to law to be called evidence. Whether such evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible, is a matter of trial.
For getting free Indian Judgments in your inbox click Subscribe
Thus, it would be clear from the aforesaid exposition of law that ‘evidence’ within the meaning of the Evidence Act, with regard to documentary evidence would be evidence only if the documents is proved in the manner recognized and provided for under the Evidence Act and it is only when the document produced according to law, then it can be called ‘evidence’.
Comments
Post a Comment