Basic Principles And Rules of Law of Evidence - Law Corner (2023)

Table of Contents hide

1) Introduction

2) Requirement of Evidence Law

3) Highlights On Evidence Act

4) How Can We Exclude Oral Evidence From Documentary Evidence?

5) Principles of Law of Evidence

6) Relevancy of the Facts

7) Admission

8) Confession

9) Dying Declaration

10) Plea of Alibi

11) Witnesses

(Video) Rules of Evidence

12) Conclusion


Law is the supreme governing institute above all. There are two types of body of laws- Adjective laws and Substantive laws. Adjective law includes those sections of the law relating to the application of the law and the procedure for seeking relief from the appropriate court. Substantive Law is a law that defines and determines the rights and obligations of a citizen to be protected by law. Adjective laws are divided into two categories- procedural laws and law of evidence. Law of Evidence is defined as which explains the pleading, evidence, and procedure to applicable laws. It is based on English law and derived its context from there.

Requirement of Evidence Law

Evidence is simply understood as one proof that distinguishes a certain fact as wrong or right. Evidence can be oral, based on eyewitness testimony, or documented, referring to documents and electronic records provided by the Court. Defendant’s case can be proved using some form of evidence.[1]

Evidence Law sets out the basic rules and regulations regarding collection. The process of proving any facts or evidence must therefore be governed by well-established legislation to achieve fair justice. The law of evidence is not only the basic principle that governs the evidence process but also the various purposes of administering the rules relating to the evidence process in court proceedings.

Highlights On Evidence Act

1. In terms of Section 2 such subsection (i) of Cr.P.C. proceedings in which evidence may be taken on oath are included in judicial proceedings. It is therefore a matter of the law of evidence to assist the court in judging which facts are necessary to obtain the truth and to avoid confusion and how those relevant facts will be proved in the courts by leading evidence.

2. Law of evidence provides:

a. What facts can be proved in such cases


b. What kind of evidence must be presented with facts that can also be proved and

c. Who and by what manner must be provided with any evidence to substantiate any fact.

3. The Law of India is divided into three main sections:


a. Relevancy of facts (Sections 6 to 55)

(Video) Educational Series Episode 1 of 8

b. Method of proof of relevant facts (Sections 56 to 117)

c. Who and how the evidence must be presented (Sections 118 to 167)


4. Types of Evidence:

a. Oral evidence: Oral evidence refers to a statement made by a witness in court concerning a matter of fact. The oral evidence is therefore the inclusion of such witnesses who testified to the facts or knew the facts they removed and which must be recorded by the court.

b. Documentary Evidence: `Written evidence ‘is a document for examination by a court or judge. The document is proof only if it is produced for a court examination.


c. Direct evidence: Direct or positive evidence is evidence of the actual point of contention. Oral evidence should always be accurate. The evidence is clear that if a court is to impose it, it should rely only on witnesses while it is reasonable to rely on not only witnesses but also other people.

d. Proof of Circumstances: In simple terms `Circumstantial Evidence’ means evidence relating to a series of cases which, when combined, help the court to reach any decision, in the absence of eyewitness testimony. Evidence of condition should not be confused with hearing or secondary evidence. Proof of status is always accurate but proves any relevant circumstances.

Usually, the physical facts are proved by eyewitnesses, but sometimes in the absence of an eyewitness to give eyewitness testimony, the court relies on a series of circumstances that help the court find the truth. Where a witness has not witnessed criminal prosecution by the defendant, the court may rely on the circumstances surrounding or before the criminal commission linking the defendant with the case.


5. Two things are necessary to determine whether the fact has an issue-

a. The fact in question must be disputed between the parties.

b. The fact must relate to the question of entitlement or liability.


(Video) Common Law

6. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that “The fact that whether or not it is a matter of fact or is linked to the fact that it is part of the same transaction is valid whether it took place at the same time and place or at a different time and place” Section 6 of the Evidence Act “Res Gestae” Section 6 appears to provide evidence having collateral nature.

7. Essentials of Res Gestae Doctrine

a. The statement made should not be an opinion and should be a statement.


b. Statements must be made by the participants of the transaction.

c. The statements should contain sufficient detail to describe or brief the incident.

d. Man-made statements or human actions must occur spontaneously and at the same time as the main action.


How Can We Exclude Oral Evidence From Documentary Evidence?

The best evidence rule is the question to this answer. It is the fundamental principle of the Evidence Act. Although it is not mentioned anywhere in the act.

In Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad[2] it was said that Section 91 of the Act applies in particular to the issuance of an original document to prove the contents but does not preclude parties from providing certain evidence if the title deed can be taken differently to prove the procedure is understandable.

In Amina (Mst.) v. Lakhmi Chand[3] the marriage contract is not signed by any of the parties to the contract but is in the form of a memorandum prepared by nikahkhwan, in which case it is open to one party to prove by other evidence, verbally or documentary, that he or she was married and therefore open to another party documentary, that you are married.


(Video) Western law vs Sharia law (full video) | Bob | Speakers' Corner debate

This law prohibits a party to produce disturbed or altered evidence that could have a significant effect on the decision of the case. An important part of the law of evidence is that in all cases it is the best evidence to be given. Where evidence is presented in the form of a record, the record is the highest evidence of the truth. Oral evidence is less valuable than documentary evidence, as oral evidence requires proof of acceptance. It also requires additional relevant evidence to consider the quality of the evidence presented before the Court and not the quality of the decision-making process. As such oral evidence cannot be substituted for written ones where written text exists as proof of action, as written evidence. Such evidence is more reliable than oral evidence.

Principles of Law of Evidence

1. Evidence must be present and related to the matter under issue.

2. Hearsay evidence must not be allowed.

3. In all cases, the best evidence must be given.

4. Judicially noticeable facts are not needed to be proved. (Section-56)

5. Facts admitted need not be proved. (Section-58)

Relevancy of the Facts

One fact is said to be consistent with another when that one is connected to the other in any way or methods mentioned from Section 5 to 55 Chapter II. So only those facts that fall into Section 6 to 55 will be known as Relevant Facts.

Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 sets out the law of compliance. Evidence may be provided in respect of (i) the fact of the matter and (ii) the relevant fact that falls within the category Chapter II and not under any other section. The views and opinions of an individual may therefore not constitute evidence except to the extent permitted by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.


Admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained electronically, which proposes any consideration of any facts or relevant facts to be produced, and made by any person, and under these circumstances, stated herein. It is dealt with from sections 17 to 23 of Chapter II of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

1. Admission must be clear, accurate, and straightforward and must be the language spoken by the person admitting the person-drawn tendencies of the admitting person cannot be called admission.

2. Admission is the voluntary confession or acknowledgment of a party or any person identified with them in that of the existence of certain facts by legal interest, the outstanding features of those types of evidence are their binding nature.


Confession is accepted as evidence-based on the same principle of admission, that is, a person will not make a false statement against his or her will or interest. Confession is given from sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Raggha v. Emperor[4], a man of sound mind and a full age man, who makes a statement in plain simple language, must be bound by the language of the statement and its ordinary meaning. Confession is only acceptable to the person who does so.

Dying Declaration

The term “dying declaration” means any statement is written or oral referred to through the relevant facts by a person, a deceased person, or a statement of the deceased stating the circumstances of his or her death.

In Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan[5], Apex Court defined the dying declaration as, “when a statement was made by a person who was threatened by his death or in connection with any circumstances that created a threat or consequences to his death, and because the cause of death his statements were accepted as evidence such statement is referred as ‘dying declaration’.

Plea of Alibi

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Acts defines the concept of ‘Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant’ and makes provision as a place of protection for the defendant. A simple definition of this section is the situation in which the incident took place and the defendant is accused of the incident could protect him if he explained that at the time of the incident he was not present at the scene. Although in the past it should not have been possible for the court to know his whereabouts as the investigation shows he had committed the crime but his explanation that he was not at the scene made the insignificant facts to be correct. An important part of Section 11 of the Evidence Act is that this law was only accepted when evidence was received and no other law provides for that law.

Alibi’s plea must be taken in the first instance of the case and must be proved without reasonable doubt as the burden of proof lies with the person who benefits from Section 10 i.e., Plea of ​​Alibi.


Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act sets out certain rules of ‘who can testify’. This law stipulates that all will be able to testify in court unless witnesses are protected by another framework who cannot understand the question presented before proving any facts legally. Prima facie, this section of the Act stipulates that in addition to all persons who are not eligible to testify any facts in the matter are competent witnesses. The basic premise for assessing the suitability of witnesses is to see if the witness understands the questions and can answer logically or not.


Therefore, in dealing with the various decisions rendered by the apex court and in terms of Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it can be argued that it is the duty of prosecutors that they must lead the best evidence to establish its case against a defendant and failure to do so brings them in the ambit of doubt. In addition, the suppression of such evidence allows the court to assert that the withheld evidence would contradict them.

However, it should be borne in mind that consideration under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Act is the only valid procedure and is not a requirement. This is because Section 114 of the Act uses the word ‘may’ instead of ‘shall’. Therefore, the Rule of Best Evidence does not benefit the defendant in any way of failing to present evidence or examining a witness when the evidence presented in the record is sufficient to prove the prosecution’s case without hesitation and all material evidence has been examined.

It is rightly said that- The rules of the procedure without content rules are empty, while the rules of content without rules of procedure are blind.

[1] Vilas PandurangPatil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 3562.

[2] AIR 2006 SC 3359

[3] 1934 L 705

[4]AIR 1925 All 627

[5]AIR 2001 SC 1814

This article has been written by Aditi Vishnoi, 2nd Year B.A.LL.B (Hons) student at The ICFAI University, Dehradun.

(Video) The Game of Life and How to Play it (1925) by Florence Scovel Shinn

Related Posts


What are basic rules of evidence? ›

In legal terms, evidence covers the burden of proof, admissibility, relevance, weight and sufficiency of what should be admitted into the record of a legal proceeding. Evidence -- crucial in both civil and criminal proceedings -- may include blood or hair samples, video surveillance recordings, or witness testimony.

What does Rules of Evidence mean in law? ›

Rules of evidence are, as the name indicates, the rules by which a court determines what evidence is admissible at trial. In the U.S., federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, while state courts generally follow their own rules.

Why are rules of evidence important? ›

Purpose. In general, the purpose of rules of evidence is to regulate the evidence that the jury may use to reach a verdict. Historically, the rules of evidence reflected a marked distrust of jurors. The Federal Rules of Evidence strive to eliminate this distrust, and encourage admitting evidence in close cases.

Which evidence is the best evidence? ›

This undergirding principle of evidentiary law is called the Best Evidence Rule, also referred to as the original writing rule. The foundation of the Best Evidence Rule is that the original writing, recording or photograph is the 'best' way to prove the actual content of the evidence.

What are the 5 rules of evidence? ›

These five rules are—admissible, authentic, complete, reliable, and believable.
  • Admissible. This is the most basic rule and a measure of evidence validity and importance. ...
  • Authentic. The evidence must be tied to the incident in a relevant way to prove something. ...
  • Complete. ...
  • Reliable. ...
  • Believable.

What is the most basic rule of evidence? ›

A. The Relevance Rule

The most basic rule of evidence is that it must be relevant to the case. Irrelevant evidence should be excluded.

What is the difference between rule of law and rule of evidence? ›

The law of evidence is that branch of law that deals with proving the alleged offences, usually by the prosecution in criminal cases. Rule of law is the ultimate authority on the land which acts as a guardian for the society and the laws governing society.

What is an example of rules of evidence? ›

Rules of Evidence Basics

A jury can be instructed to only use evidence to help determine a single fact and not draw inferences to other facts, for example. A jury can also be instructed to apply evidence to only one party to a case in certain circumstances.

What are the 4 types of evidence? ›

Discussed below are the four types of evidence you should know.
  • Real Evidence.
  • Testimonial Statements.
  • Demonstrative Evidence.
  • Documentary Evidence.
Oct 15, 2021

What is the most important of evidence? ›

Generally, the evidence that is most critical to a matter will be that which directly relates to (meaning that it tends to prove or disprove) an allegation in issue in the matter.

What are the rules of evidence and how are they applied? ›

The rules of evidence

The laws of evidence prescribe standards to which a fact must be proved: in civil proceedings, facts must be proved on the balance of probabilities; and. in criminal proceedings, facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

What is the strongest evidence in court? ›

Direct Evidence

The most powerful type of evidence, direct evidence requires no inference and directly proves the fact you are investigating. The evidence alone is the proof, if you believe the accounts.

What is the golden rules of evidence? ›

GOLDEN RULE OF EVIDENCE - Hearsay to be excluded - Section 60, The Indian Evidence Act - Hearsay means where a fact has not been directly observed by a person rather the knowledge about the fact has been derived from another - This is generally bad in law as information might be concocted or twisted.

Are cell phone pictures admissible in court? ›

Like most legal matters, the answer to the question is “it depends”. There is no definitive answer as to whether cell phone video, or any evidence for that matter, is admissible in court. There are some basic rules that you can use to enhance your position, but in the end, the decision is ultimately made by the judge.

What are the 3 types of evidence law? ›

The probative value of evidence. Relevant evidence. Direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence.

How many types of law of evidence are there? ›

Primary and secondary evidence are the sub-types of documentary evidence only. Primary evidence can be understood as the documentary evidence produced before the court, holding supreme value.

What are the three C's of evidence? ›

credibility. cost.

What is the best evidence rule rules of court? ›

“The best evidence rule requires that the original document be produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry, except in certain limited cases laid down in Section 3 of Rule 130. However, to set this rule in motion, a proper and timely objection is necessary.

What are the rules of the rule of law? ›

In its simplest form, the rule of law means that “no one is above the law”. For the rule of law to be effective, there must be equality under the law, transparency of law, an independent judiciary and access to legal remedy.

What is the 1st rule of the law of evidence? ›

(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 produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.

What are the 4 characteristics of the rule of law? ›

This ensures that no one, not even the rulers, is above the law. There are four principles that help to further articulate the rule of law: accountability, open government, just law, and accessible and impartial justice.

What is a good example of rule of law? ›

The Rule of Law permeates all aspects of American life. For example, we have traffic laws that let us know who has the right of way and we have environmental laws and regulations that tell us what we are allowed to put into the ground, air and water.

What is the rule of evidence in criminal law? ›

Proof. In a criminal hearing or trial, it is always up to the prosecution to prove the offence, and this must be proved to a standard called 'beyond reasonable doubt'. You do not have to prove your innocence, or any alternative set of facts; you need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's case.

What are the 2 main types of evidence? ›

There are two types of evidence; namely, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In this case, the People contend that there is circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt.

What kind of evidence is not admissible in court? ›

Facts which may be proved, as part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue but must be connected with it. Though hearsay evidence is not admissible, but when it is res gestae it can be admissible in a court of law and may be reliable evidence.

What is the difference between proof and evidence? ›

There is, however, a distinction to be made between evidence and proof. Evidence is data or facts that assist us in determining the reality or existence of something. A total collection of evidence can prove a claim. Proof is a conclusion that a certain fact is true or not.

What is the most reliable evidence? ›

Well done systematic reviews, with or without an included meta-analysis, are generally considered to provide the best evidence for all question types as they are based on the findings of multiple studies that were identified in comprehensive, systematic literature searches.

In what cases are the rules of evidence not applicable? ›

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.

What makes the evidence effective? ›

Effective evidence: a consensus definition

“Effective evidence helps develop an understanding of phenomena and answers questions. It is contextual, relevant, and timely, drawing on different sources of knowledge (e.g., research, lived experience, practitioner, and organisational knowledge).

What is weak evidence in court? ›

A prosecutor's case is likely weak if it does not have enough evidence to show that you violated a criminal law. Evidence that may help prove a case includes: DNA evidence linking you to a crime, video footage showing you committed a crime, and. physical evidence like a murder weapon or a gun in a robbery case.

How do you prove evidence in court? ›

Documents must be proved by producing them at trial. Section 62 of Indian Evidence Act defines primary evidence which means a documents itself produced for inspection of Court. Secondary evidence of the contents of private documents is admissible only if the original document is not in existence or not available.

Which case has a higher burden of proof? ›

Criminal Case. The standard of burden of proof is highest in a criminal case because criminal cases often affect a defendant's freedom. Prosecutors are required to provide evidence that sustains that a defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.

What is the No evidence rule? ›

Quick Reference. The principle that a person whose interests have suffered detriment because a decision was improperly made without probative evidence will be entitled to judicial review under the rules of procedural ...

What three things must evidence have in order to be used? ›

3 Evidence Factors That Impact Court Proceedings
  • Relevance: Evidence must be relevant to the case at hand. ...
  • Materiality: Material evidence is any kind of proof that can be used to prove or disprove criminal accusations. ...
  • Weight of the evidence:
Nov 8, 2021

Do photos hold up in court? ›

In order for photo and video evidence to be admissible in court it must meet two basic requirements: relevance and authenticity. In order for evidence to be relevant it must have probative value. In other words, it must either support or undermine the truth of any point at issue in the legal proceedings.

Do pictures hold up in court? ›

As we see the sign boards outside the every court shows "photography is not allowed in court premises". In which section, Civil or Criminal we can file a compliant/case against that person.

How do I prove my voice recording in court? ›

Admissibility of phone recordings
  1. The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. ...
  2. The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence- direct or circumstantial.
Aug 31, 2022

What are the basic four types of evidence? ›

The four types of evidence recognized by the courts include demonstrative, real, testimonial and documentary.

What are the four requirements of evidence? ›

While there are many ways to evaluate evidence, four useful criteria are that the evidence should be sufficient, relevant, comprehensive, and reliable.

What are 3 examples of evidence? ›

Real Evidence

Common examples include guns, DNA, knives, blood samples, fingerprints, and other material artifacts.

What are the important questions in evidence law? ›

Top 50 Questions From the Indian Evidence Act
  • Does Evidence law talk about 'fact'? ...
  • What is proved and disproved fact?
  • What is 'evidence' as per the Evidence Act?
  • What is conclusive proof? ...
  • What does Section 5 say about the kind of evidence admissible in court of law?
  • What is meant by 'facts in issue' and 'relevant facts?

What makes an evidence valid? ›

Generally, to be admissible, the evidence must be relevant) and not outweighed by countervailing considerations (e.g., the evidence is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, a waste of time, privileged, or, among other reasons, based on hearsay).


1. Contract Law in Two Hours
(Anthony Marinac)
2. You have two Laws! Hashim Vs Kay | Speakers Corner
(The All-Loving)
3. Revised Rules on Evidence| Remedial Law| Atty. Tranquil Gervacio Salvador III
(Wiser Pinoy TV)
4. FORENSIC Law Lecture 1 | NRA | Law and its aspects | Lecture series
(Medicos Study Corner)
5. Putting Principles into Practice Mock Admissibility Hearing on Open Source Evidence - Part 2
(Swansea University School of Law)
6. AWS Certified Cloud Practitioner Certification Course (CLF-C01) - Pass the Exam!
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Arielle Torp

Last Updated: 02/10/2023

Views: 5547

Rating: 4 / 5 (41 voted)

Reviews: 80% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Arielle Torp

Birthday: 1997-09-20

Address: 87313 Erdman Vista, North Dustinborough, WA 37563

Phone: +97216742823598

Job: Central Technology Officer

Hobby: Taekwondo, Macrame, Foreign language learning, Kite flying, Cooking, Skiing, Computer programming

Introduction: My name is Arielle Torp, I am a comfortable, kind, zealous, lovely, jolly, colorful, adventurous person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.