May 26, 2018 This is the Part I video of important provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for quick revision along with short notes. It covers Section 1 to 90 of the Act. Follow us on facebook at https://www. EVIDENCE ACT U—“xxusLLVwRS“—L L. Important explanatory evidence. Important matter in issue between the accused and the prosecution. Important matter in issue between the accused and a co-accused. Evidence to correct a false impression. Attack on another person’s character.
Contents.History of the rule The rules of hearsay began to form properly in the late seventeenth century and had become fully established by the early nineteenth century. The issues were analysed in substantial detail in Wright v Doe d Tatham. The technical nature of the discussion in Doe d Tatham inhibited much reasoned progress of the law, whose progress (in the form of judicial capacity to reform it) ended not long afterwards. Later attempts to reform through the common law it got little further, with Lord Reid in Myers v DPP sayingIf we are to extend the law it must be by the development and application of fundamental principles.
We cannot introduce arbitrary conditions or limitations; that must be left to legislation: and if we do in effect change the law, we ought in my opinion only to do that in cases where our decision will produce some finality or certainty. If we disregard technicalities in this case and seek to apply principle and common sense, there are a number of parts of the existing law of hearsay susceptible of similar treatment. The only satisfactory solution is by legislation following on a wide survey of the whole field. A policy of make do and mend is not appropriate.There was some statutory reform in the nineteenth century (see ), and later the made some further if cautious reforms. The state of the hearsay rules were regarded as 'absurd' by Lord Reid and Lord Diplock.The Law Commission and Supreme Court committee provided a number of reports on hearsay reform, prior to the Civil Evidence Acts and.The ('2003 Act'), which went into force on 4 April 2005, introduced significant reforms to the hearsay rule, implementing (with modifications) the report by the in (LC245), published on 19 June 1997.Previously, the carved out exceptions to the hearsay rule for unavailable witnesses and business documents.
These were consolidated into the 2003 Act.Reasoning behind the rule The reasoning behind the hearsay rule can be seen by comparing the acceptance of direct evidence and hearsay. Direct evidence is given under (with potential criminal liability for if the testimony is subsequently proven false), in the presence of the court and jury, and may be. In adducing direct evidence (that is, recollection of a witness in court) the court considers how the witness would have perceived the event at the time, potential ambiguities, and the witness's sincerity. These can be tested in cross-examination.A statement reported in hearsay is not generally subject to these safeguards. The person making the original statement was not testifying under oath, and was not subject to cross-examination.
![Evidence Evidence](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125507944/329269950.png)
Even assuming that the witness reporting the original statement does so completely truthfully, it remains possible that the person making the original statement was lying, joking, or exaggerating. It is also possible that the witness testifying at trial misunderstood the original statement. (1837) 7 Ad & El 313.
Sugden v Lord St Leonards (1876) 1 PD 154; see also Sturla v Freccia, below. ^ 1965 AC 1001 at 1021.
Jones v Metcalfe 1967 1 WLR 1286 at 1291. 13th Report of the Law Reform Committee Cmnd 2964 (1966), para 11.
![118 118](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125507944/411924950.jpg)
Report of the Committee on Supreme Court practice and procedure, Cmnd 8878 (1953). Thayer, Legal Essays, 1907. R v Olisa 1990 Crim LR 721.
2 St Tr 15.,. The Hearsay Rule in Civil proceedings (LC216), Cm 2321 (1993) - see, Law Commission. ibid s.7(3).,., formerly in the.
(2003) 26 E.H.R.R. 46, European Court of Human Rights. 2004 6 Archbold News 2, Court of Appeal., formerly in the. R v Humphris, 169 J.P. 441, Court of Appeal. (4 December 1963),. 1986 AC 41.External links.
Criminal Justice Act 2003:,.
Within Sections 118 to 166 of the IEA, 1872 we will cover the primary requirements of witnesses, their competency and their examinations.WITNESSAs per Bentham, witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. Often oral evidence is needed to clarify or help determine the rights and liabilities of the parties in a legal proceeding. Witnesses can be the people or experts with valuable input for the case. It is through witnesses and documents that evidence is placed before the court. Even the genesis of documents can be proved by the witnesses.
Thus, the law has to be very clear with regards to certain issues like who is a competent witness? How many witnesses are needed to prove a fact?
Can a witness be compelled to answer every question posed? How can the credibility of the witnesses be tested? Whether a witness can refer to notes to refresh his memory and what are the judges standing with respect to the witnesses.In India, it is a common problem that many do not come forward as witnesses whether due to unreasonable delay in police or court proceedings or fear of persecution can not be determined that easily. In some countries like the USA, Canada and China, ‘Protection of Witnesses’ Acts have been enacted to offer protection and equity to a person who is a witness.The Jessica Lal Murder case and Nitish Kataria murder case served to bring the up the issues regarding witnesses, their protection and conduct to the forefront.