Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law – CS Professional Study Material

Chapter 5 Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law – Forensic Audit ICSI Study Material is designed strictly as per the latest syllabus and exam pattern.

Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law – CS Professional Forensic Audit Study Material

Question 1.
In a college, the cashier has been accused of embezzling fees collections. After the conclusion of forensic audit, the Forensic Auditor (FA) obtained a confession statement from the cashier admitting the embezzlement. Forensic Auditor plans to make use of the same in fortifying his conclusions and in the suit proposed to be initiated against the cashier.
(a) Discuss the aspects involved in construing the confession obtained as “admission”. (June 2019, 4 marks)
(b) Examine whether the same will be accepted as evidence in the Court of Law. (June 2019, 5 marks)
(c) Can part of the confessional statement alone be used ? (June 2019, 3 marks)
Answer:
(a) Evidentiary value of Admission of Guilt:
In general, Admission is a voluntary acknowledgment of a fact. Importance is given to those admissions that go against the interests of the person making the admission. For example, when A says to B that he stole money from C, A makes an admission of the fact that A stole money from C. This fact is detrimental to the interests of A. The concept behind this is that nobody would accept or acknowledge a fact that goes against their interest unless it 4s indeed true. Unless A indeed stole money from C, it is not normal for A to say that he stole money from C. Therefore, an admission becomes an important piece of evidence against a person. On the other hand, anybody can make assertions in favor of themselves. They can be true or false. For example, A can keep on saying that a certain house belongs to him, but that does not mean it is necessarily true. Therefore, such assertions do not have much evidentiary value. According to Black’s Law Dictionary [Roosevelt v. Smith, 17 Misc. Kep. 323, 40 N. Y. Supp. 381], “A voluntary acknowledgment, confession, or concession of the existence of a fact or the truth of an allegation made by a party to the suit.”

An admission is any statement made by a party to a lawsuit (either before a court action or during it) which tends to support the position of the other side or diminish his own position. For example, if a husband sues his wife for devoice on the grounds of adultery, and she states out of Court that she has had affairs, her statement is an admission. Any admission made by a party is admissible evidence in a court proceeding, even though it is technically considered hearsay (which is normally inadmissible). Attorneys tell their clients not to talk to anyone about their case or about the events leading up to it in order to prevent their clients from making admissions.

An admission is the testimony which the party admitting bears to the truth of a fact against him. It is a voluntary act, which he acknowledges as true the fact in dispute. An admission and consent is, in fact, one and the same thing, unless indeed for more exactness we say, that consent is given to a present fact or agreement, and admission has reference to an agreement or a fact anterior for properly speaking, it is not the admission which forms a contract, obligation or engagement, against the party admitting. The admission is, by its nature, only the proof of a pre-existing obligation or guilt committed, resulting from the agreement or the fact, the truth of which is acknowledged.

(b) Admission of Confession whether be accepted as an Evidence An admission is defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances mentioned in the three succeeding sections.

The section does not, therefore, contain a complete definition of the word “admission”, in as much as it does not define the persons whose statements amount to admissions, nor the circumstances under which a statement must be made so that it may amount to an admission. This part of the definition of an admission is left to the interpretation of sections 18 to 20 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Therefore, the question whether a statement amounts to an admission or not depends upon whether it was made by any of the persons, and in any of the circumstances, described in sections 18-20, and whether it suggests an inference as to a fact in issue or a relevant fact in the case. The fact that the statement suggests an inference in favor of the person who made the statement and/or does not make the statement as less an admission, as the question whether a statement is or is not an admission, different from the question whether an admission may or may not be proved in favor of the person making it.

So that a statement may be an “admission” in the sense in which this word is used in this set of sections, it must be an oral or documentary statement. A statement may be made otherwise than by word of mouth or writing, but such a statement can hardly be described as an oral or documentary statement.

Admissions by conduct are not governed by this set of sections, as inferences suggested by active or passive conduct are not oral or documentary statements. The proper section under which the relevance of admissions by conduct must be established is Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as a statement made by conduct will be admissible or inadmissible according to whether it falls or does not fall within the terms of that section.”
If an admission is capable of two interpretations, an interpretation unfavorable to the person making it should not be put on his admission. The requirement is that an admission must be clear, precise, not vague or ambiguous.

(c) Can a part of the admission alone be used?
An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all [Hanumant Govind Nargundkarv. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091]. When a statement which is sought to be given in evidence forms part of a longer statement, evidence shall be given of so much of the statement as is necessary to the full understanding of the nature and effect of the statement.
Before any statement can be used as an admission it must be shown to be unambiguous and clear on the point at issue. In no matter, a confessional statement in part can be used, as held by the Apex Court.

Question 2.
What do you mean by Question in Law and Question in Fact? Discuss in detail.
Answer:
Question of Law and Question of Fact:
Question of Law:
In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles and can be applied to many situations rather than be dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a “conclusion of law.”
In several civil law jurisdictions, the highest courts consider questions of fact settled by the lower court and will only consider questions of law. They thus may refer a case back to a lower court to re-apply the law and answer any fact-based evaluations based on their answer on the application of the law. International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice will only answer questions of law, asked by judges of national courts if they are not certain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organizations.

Question of fact:
In law, a question of fact, also known as a point of fact, is a question that must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. The answer to a question of fact (a “finding of fact”) usually depends on particular circumstances or factual situations.

All questions of fact are capable of proof or disproof by reference to a certain . standard of proof. Depending on the nature of the matter, the standard of proof may require that a fact be proven to be “more likely than not” (there is barely more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a preponderance of the evidence) or true beyond reasonable doubt.

Answers to questions of fact are determined by a trier of fact such as a jury, or a judge. In many jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, appellate courts generally do not consider appeals based on errors of fact (errors in answering a question of fact). Rather, the findings of fact of the first venue are usually given great deference by appellate courts.

The distinction between “law” and “fact” has proved obscure wherever it is employed. For instance, the common law used to require that a plaintiff’s complaint in a civil action only state the “facts” of his case, not any “legal conclusions.” Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to tell whether the allegation that “on November 9, the defendant negligently ran over the plaintiff with his car at the intersection of State Street and Chestnut Street” is a statement of fact or a legal conclusion, in fact, the distinction between law and fact is just the legal version of the philosophical distinction between ‘ “empirical” and “analytical” statements, a distinction on whose existence philosophers have been unable to agree to this day…. we will see that many defendants charged with impossible attempts are not in fact attempting the crime they are charged with attempting.

Question 3.
Discuss the Relevancy of Evidence.
Answer:
Relevancy:
While defining a tree a person will describe its characteristics such as stems, leaves, branches, fruits etc. But what shade of green does the leaves of tree has or what colour of fruit it bears will be irrelevant unless it is asked to define a specific tree. Similarly while proving or disproving a fact in issue it becomes important that the evidence put forth is relevant.- It is related to the fact in issue. Question now comes as to what is relevancy?

“The word ‘relevant’ means that any two facts to which it is applied are so related to each other that according to the common course of events, one either taken by itself or in connection with other facts proves or renders probable the past, present or future existence or non existence of the other.” Thus from the definition above we can infer two important ingredients:
1. Material connection (or relation to fact in issue or another fact.)
By material connection it means that the fact in issue and the fact to be produced must have some sort of connection or they should be related to each other. Something cannot exist without any reason. The state of one thing affects the formulation of another and thus the material connection defines that relation, effect, cause or reasoning.

2. Probative value
By the word probative we mean ‘capacity to prove something’. If we read Sir Stephens’ definition again we find that a relevant fact must ‘prove’ or ‘render probable’ the existence or non existence of fact in issue or other fact. It implies that either something is proved beyond doubt or the probability that something exists has grown higher by producing the evidence.

Types of Relevancy and Test to Determine Relevancy:
Though, it is clear that for an evidence to be appreciable it has to be relevant. However, often it becomes difficult to draw a line between relevant and irrelevant material. In such circumstances it becomes necessary to lay down test of relevancy. The test can be considered by also having a look at two types of relevancy,

Logical Relevancy and
Legal Relevancy.

Logical Relevancy:
To understand logical relevancy let us have a look at Stephens’s definition again. It talks about ‘common course of events’. The reliance is to be proved on common stock of knowledge about the world that is logic, common sense and general experience. Thus when we derive relevancy on the basis of logic it can be said logical relevancy. There are many ways to derive relevancy on the basis of logic for example syllogism.

Legal Relevancy:
By legal relevancy we mean that a fact should be relevant under the rules laid down by law. In India Section 512 provides that only those evidences can be given which are relevant under the act. That is from section 6 to 55. Hence, these provisions lay down what are the relevant facts to be considered while recording evidences. Any fact howsoever material not falling under the provisions will not be considered as evidence and hence not admissible. Thus, the actual test to determine relevancy becomes whether the fact is relevant under the provisions of the statute or not.

Admissibility and Weight of an Evidence:
The court after deciding whether the fact is relevant or not decides upon the matter of admissibility. By admissibility we mean capability to be accepted. A fact may be highly relevant but to the chagrin of lawyers court refuses to admit the evidence because it is non-admissible for several reasons. Thus if an evidence is legally relevant and does not prejudice the trial then only it will be admissible in the court of law. Whether evidence outweighs costs of admission depends on the discretion of the court.

Question 4.
What do you mean by Admission of Evidences? Discuss the admission as per Indian Evidence law.
Answer:
Admission of Evidence:
Every case, whether civil or criminal, that comes before a court of law has a fact story behind it. Facts out of which cases arise keep happening in the ordinary course of life. There is a crowded road, for example, people are moving, vehicles are moving. Everyone is running at unmitigated speed suddenly two vehicles run against each other. The nature and cause of the accident would be in question. The facts which led up to the climax will have to be reconstructed before the court, so that the judge in the court is able to consider what really happened. Only then he will be able to apply the appropriate law to the fact to arrive at a solution about the right and liabilities of the parties. The practical reality is that the truth of a case is worth less unless they can be proved to the satisfaction of the judge and allows him to act on them.
In general, Admission is a voluntary acknowledgment of a fact. Importance is given to those admissions that go against the interests of the person making the admission. For example, when A says to B that he stole money from C, A makes an admission of the fact that A stole money from C. This fact is detrimental to the interests of A, The concept behind this is that nobody would accept or acknowledge a fact that goes against their interest unless it is indeed true.
An admission is any statement made by a party to a lawsuit (either before a court action or during it) which tends to support the position of the other side or diminish his own position. For example, if a husband sues his wife for divorce on the grounds of adultery, and she states out of court that she has had affairs, her statement is an admission. Any admission made by a party is admissible evidence in a court proceeding, even though it is technically considered hearsay (which is normally inadmissible). Attorneys tell their clients not to talk to anyone about their case or about the events leading up to it in order to prevent their clients from making admissions. An admission is the testimony which the party admitting bears to the truth of a fact against himself.

Section 17: An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
An admission is a statement of fact which waives or dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true. Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect to the matter in dispute, whether by acts, speech or writing, which is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention, is a fact relevant to the issue. Admissions are very weak kind of evidence and the Court may reject them if it is satisfied from other circumstances that they are untrue. The Supreme Court has observed: Admissions as defined in Sections 17 and 20 and fulfilling the requirements of Section 21 are substantive evidence. An admission is the best evidence against the party making it and, though not conclusive, shifts the onus to the maker on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may be reasonable presumed to be true so that until the presumption is rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be true. An assessee cannot resile from his admission made in tax return even at appellate stage.

Section 18: Admission by party to proceeding or his agent; by suitor in representative character; by party interested in subject-matter; by person from whom interest derived – Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to made them, are admissions.

Section 19: Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit- Statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against the made if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject of such liability.
The object of this section is not to lay down that certain statements are relevant and admissible, but to add to the category of persons whose statements may amount to admissions. A statement, in order to be admissible under this section, must satisfy the evidentiary requirement laid down in section 17. When a statement falls within the terms of this section, it becomes by reason of section 21, provable against, and not in favour of, the party against whom the position or liability of the maker of the statement is necessary to be proved in the suit. The statements of persons who are strangers to the suit are, in general, not admissible as admissions. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule, and one such exception is mentioned in the present section. When the issue is substantially upon the mutual rights which, at the time of the admission, were respectively possessed by a party to the record and the person who made such admission, such evidence will, in general, be let in as would be legally admissible in an action between the party and the person making the admission.

Section 20: Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit – Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions. This section forms another exception to the rule that admissions by strangers to a suit are not relevant. Under it, the admissions of a third person are also receivable in evidence against, and have frequently been held to be in fact binding upon, the party who has expressly referred another to him for- information in regard to an uncertain or disputed matter.
If a reference is made over a disputed matter to a third person, not in the nature of a submission to arbitration, but rather as an aid to the settlement of the differences existing between the parties and to enable the parties themselves to effect a settlement on the information, in such cases the party is bound by the declaration of the person referred to in the same manner and to the same extent as if it was made himself. If a man refers another upon any particular business to a third person, he is bound by what this third person says or does concerning it as much as if that had been said or done by himself. Therefore, where a party refers another to a third person for information or an opinion on a given subject, the information or opinion so given is receivable against the referee as an admission. It is immaterial whether the referee has, or has not, any peculiar knowledge on the subject, or whether the reference is made expressly, or by conduct evincing an intention to rely on the statement as correct. It is not necessary that the reference should be on questions of fact within the knowledge of the referee.

Section 21: Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases:

An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
An admission may by proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
An admission may be proved by on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

Section 22: Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.
Section 22A: Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.
This section has been inserted by the Information Technology Act, 2000. The purpose of this section is to provide for the circumstances in which an oral admission could be proved as to the contents of an electronic record. The section disallows the evidence of oral admission as to the contents of an electronic record. The section disallows the evidence of oral admission as to the contents of an electronic record. It then talks of an exceptional situation, which is that when the genuineness of the electronic record produced before the court is itself in question. The section says that oral admissions as to the contents of an electronic record may be proved in evidence when the genuineness of the record has been questioned.

Section 23: in civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.
The section is applicable to civil as well as to criminal cases. It consists of two distinct parts. Under the first part, an admission is not admissible in evidence, if it is made on the express condition that it is not to be given in evidence. If the admission is not made upon such condition, but the Court can infer that the person making the admission and the party to whom the admission was made had agreed that the admission would not be given in evidence, the admission thus made will be inadmissible under the second part of the section. Where an admission is made upon a condition that it is not to be given in evidence, it is usual, though not necessary, to describe it as “without prejudice”.

Question 5.
Discuss the Direct and Circumstantial Methods of Proving a Case.
Answer:
Methods to Prove Cases:
Evidence is sometimes used as meaning to assert that a particular fact is relevant to the matter under inquiry.
Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, Evidence means and includes –

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;
All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.

Oral Evidence:
Meaning:
Oral evidence, as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, means statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matter of fact under inquiry.

As an Evidence:
Oral evidence is as much less satisfactory medium of proof than documentary evidence. But however fallible such evidence may be and however carefully it may have to be watched, justice can never be administered in the most important cases without recourse to it.
Oral evidence is generally is not subject to rule of presumption and is judged with reference to the conduct of the parties.

Appreciation of Oral Evidence:
Oral evidence should be approached with caution. Following are among the most important points to be ascertained in deciding on the credibility of witnesses:
a. Whether they have the means of gaining correct information;
b. Whether they have any interest in concealing truth; and
c. Whether they agree in their testimony.
The rule is That when there is conflict or oral evidence of the parties on any matter in issue, and the decision hinges upon the credibility of the witnesses, then unless there is some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness which has escaped the trial judge’s notice or there is a sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opinion as to where the credibility lies, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of the trial judge on a question of fact. The duty of the appellate court in such cases is to see whether the evidence taken as a whole can reasonably justify the conclusion which the trial court arrived at or whether there is an element of improbability arising from proved circumstances which in the opinion of the court outweigh such finding.”

Oral Evidence Must Be Direct:
Section 60 of Evidence Act requires that the oral evidence must, in all cases whatsoever, be direct. Where the testimony of the witness is entirely hearsay and on some matters hearsay of hearsay, it cannot be admitted in evidence. Where a witness gives evidence that he received information from other person and that person does not say about it, such evidence would be inadmissible being hearsay evidence.

Refection of Hearsay Evidence:
The reasons that hearsay evidence is treated as untrustworthy are that the original declare ant of the statement which is offered in a second hand manner is not put on oath, nor is he subject to cross-examination, and the accused, against whom, such evidence is offered, loses his opportunity of examining into the means of knowledge of the original maker of the statement, the truth of the original statement is diminished in course of repetition of that statement, that admissibility of hearsay evidence would open up opportunities of weaker for stronger proof regarding proof of a fact in issue or a relevant fact.

Documentary Evidence:
Meaning:
Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court together constitutes to be documentary evidence.
The word ‘Document’ is again defined under Section 3 as- ‘any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letter, figures or makes, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.’

Proof by Primary and Secondary Evidence:
The content of the document will be taken as evidence only when it is proved by some primary or secondary evidence.

Primary Evidence:
Primary evidence means documents presented in the Court itself for examination.
Explanation I of Section 62 states that- Where a document is executed in counterparts, each part is primary evidence against the executing party and his privies; but, as against the non-executing party and his privies, it is only secondary evidence.

Secondary Evidence:
Section 63 of the Evidence Act defines the kinds of secondary evidence permitted by the Act; whereas section 65 defines the circumstances under which secondary evidence of the kind mentioned in Section 63 becomes admissible.
Section 65 lays down the conditions, wherein specifically secondary evidences have to be given. It includes:
a. When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
b. When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
c. When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
d. When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
e. When the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
f. When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence2;
g. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.
Private and Public Documents
Public Documents have been explained under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. It includes records of Sovereign Authority, tribunals and of public officers. Apart from these, all other documents constitute private documents under Section 75.
Such public documents may be produced as a proof of such documents by producing the certified copy, which has been certified by the public officer in control of such document, certifying them to be a true copy of the document. 109
Presumption of Documents:
In general terms, presumption is an inference drawn from the contents of the document. Such presumption holds good unless they have been disproved by the other parties. The various kinds of presumptions have been explained under Section 4 of the Act.
Section 79 to 90 deals with the various types of presumption in evidences. Section 79 says that the Court shall presume all certified copy to be evidence admissible in Court provided they have been certified in the manner prescribed by law.
Section 80 further provides that where any document is produced by the Evidence as part of his evidence, then such document, when accepted by the Court will qualify to be a part of the evidence so produced by the evidence and it shall be presumed that such evidence is genuine and the evidence in support of which it is presumed is also accepted in the Court. Space to write important points tor revision :

Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law Notes

Evidence, in this sense, is divided conventionally into three main categories:

oral evidence (the testimony given in court by witnesses),
documentary evidence (documents produced for inspection by the court), and
“real evidence”.

Question of Law
In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles and can be applied to many situations rather than be dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a “conclusion of law.”

In several civil law jurisdictions, the highest courts consider questions of fact settled by the lower court and will only consider questions of law. They thus may refer a case back to a lower court to re-apply the law and answer any fact-based evaluations based on their answer on the application of the law. International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice will only answer questions of law, asked by judges of national courts if they are not certain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organizations.

Question of Fact
In law, a question of fact, also known as a point of fact, is a question that must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. The answer to a question of fact (a “finding of fact”) usually depends on particular circumstances or factual situations.
All questions of fact are capable of proof or disproof by reference to a certain standard of proof. Depending on the nature of the matter, the standard of proof may require that a fact be proven to be “more likely than not” (there is barely more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a preponderance of the evidence) or true beyond reasonable doubt.

Relevant Facts
In India, which is a common law country, we follow adversarial system of law. Judges do not question the parties and merely rely on evidence put forth by them. From such evidences, judges infer actual circumstances and therefore come to truth and deliver justice.
The word “evidence” is not too complicated to be defned in a lay man’s language. But when it comes to solemn court proceedings the wheel turns and debate starts as to what is evidence and what can be considered as evidence to prove a fact. Thus, it becomes necessary that proper rules as to what can be considered as evidence holding value in the eyes of law are laid down properly. Thus for an evidence to have any value in the eyes of court of law and be relied upon on reaching the decision these few rules have to be kept in mind:

Relevancy
Admissibility
Weight

Relevancy:
While defining a tree a person will describe its characteristics such as stems, leaves, branches, fruits etc. But what shade of greerr does the leaves of tree has or what colour of fruit it bears will be irrelevant unless it is asked to defne a specifc tree. Similarly while proving or disproving a fact in issue it becomes important that the evidence put forth is relevant. It is related to the
fact in issue. Question now comes as to what is relevancy?

Logical Relevancy and
Legal Relevancy.

Logical Relevancy:
To understand logical relevancy let us have a look at Stephens’s defnition again. It talks about ‘common course of events’. The reliance is to be proved on common stock of knowledge about the world that is logic, common sense and general experience. Thus when we derive relevancy on the basis of logic it can be said logical relevancy. There are many ways to derive relevancy on the basis of logic for example syllogism.

Admission of Evidence
Every case, whether civil or criminal, that comes before a court of law has a fact story behind it. Facts out of which cases arise keep happening in the ordinary course of life. There is a crowded road, for example, people are moving, vehicles are moving. Everyone is running at unmitigated speed suddenly two vehicles run against each other. The nature and cause of the accident would be in question. The facts which led up to the climax will have to be reconstructed before the court, so that the judge in the court is able to consider what really happened. Only then he will be able to apply the appropriate law to the fact to arrive at a solution about the right and liabilities of the parties. The practical reality is that the truth of a case is worth less unless they can be proved to the satisfaction of the judge and allows him to act on them.

Section 17:
Section 17 – An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

Section 18:
Section 18 – Admission by party to proceeding or his agent; by suitor in representative character; by party interested in subject-matter; by person from whom interest derived – Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to made them, are admissions.

Section 19:
Section 19 – Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit- Statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against the made if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject of such liability.

Section 20:
Section 20- Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit- Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.

Section 21:
Section 21 – Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases: –
(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
(2) An admission may by proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

Section 22:
Section 22 – Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.

Section 22A:
Section 22A – Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.

Section 23:
Section 23 – In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

Methods to Prove Cases:
Evidence is sometimes used as meaning to assert that a particular fact is relevant to the matter under inquiry.
Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, Evidence means and includes –

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;
All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.

Oral Evidence:
Meaning:
Oral evidence, as defned under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, means statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matter of fact under inquiry.

As an Evidence:
Oral evidence is as much less satisfactory medium of proof than documentary evidence. But however fallible such evidence may be and however carefully it may have to be watched, justice can never be administered in the most important cases without recourse to it. Oral evidence is generally is not subject to rule of presumption and is judged with reference to the conduct of the parties.

Rejection of Hearsay Evidence:
The reasons that hearsay evidence is treated as untrustworthy are that the original declare ant of the statement which is offered in a second hand manner is not put on oath, nor is he subject to cross-examination, and the accused, against whom, such evidence is offered, loses his opportunity of examining into the means of knowledge of the original maker of the statement, the truth of the original statement is diminished in course of repetition of that statement, that admissibility of hearsay evidence would open up opportunities of weaker for stronger proof regarding proof of a fact in issue or a relevant fact.

Documentary Evidence:
Meaning:
Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court together constitutes to be documentary evidence.
The word ‘Document’ is again defned under Section 3 as – ‘any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letter, fgures or makes, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.’

Proof by Primary and Secondary Evidence:
The content of the document will be taken as evidence only when it is proved by some primary or secondary evidence.

Primary Evidence:
Primary evidence means documents presented in the Court itself for examination.

Secondary Evidences:
Section 63 of the Evidence Act defnes the kinds of secondary evidence permitted by the Act; whereas section 65 defines the circumstances under which secondary evidence of the kind mentioned in Section 63 becomes admissible.

Private and Public Documents:
Public Documents have been explained under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. It includes records of Sovereign Authority, tribunals and of public offers. Apart from these, all other documents constitute private documents under Section 75.
Such public documents may be produced as a proof of such documents by producing the certified copy, which has been certified by the public officer in control of such document, certifying them to be a true copy of the document.

Presumption of Documents
In general terms, presumption is an inference drawn from the contents of the document. Such presumption holds good unless they have been disproved by the other parties. The various kinds of presumptions have been explained under Section 4 of the Act.
Proving a Matter through Evidences On the Basis of Sources Direct evidence:
Evidence is either direct or indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence which is very important for the decision of the matter in issue. The main fact when it is presented by witnesses, things and witnesses is direct, evidence whereby main facts may be proved or established that is the evidence of person who had actually seen the crime being committed and has described the offence. We need hardly point out that in the illustration given by us, the evidence of the witness in Court is direct evidence as opposed to testimony to a fact suggesting guilt. The statement before the police only is called circumstantial evidence of, complicity and not direct evidence in the strict sense. It directly related to the real point in issue.

Circumstantial Evidence:
There is no difference between circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence. Circumstantial Evidence attempts to prove the facts in issueby providing other facts and affords an instance as to its existence. It is that which relates to a series of other facts than the fact in issue but by experience have been found so associated with the fact in issue in relation of cause and effect that it leads to a satisfactory conclusion.
According to Justice Fetcher Monten the acceptance of evidence and there appreciation thereof is not a rigid mathematical formulae and hence the circumstantial evidence qualifes a signifcant role in any matter before the court to make it possible that the court should reach to truth, reality and actual happenings of the things the matter.

Other kinds of Evidence Real Evidence:
Real Evidence means real or material evidence. Real evidence of a fact is brought to the knowledge of the court by inspection of a physical object and not by information derived from a witness or a document. Personal evidence is that which is afforded by human agents, either in way of disclosure or by voluntary sign. It indicates the object in proving or disproving the facts for which it is given in the court of law.

Expert evidence:
Section 45, 45A, 46 and 47 deal with expert evidence. It constitutes significant evidence in the court of law because it qualifies the test of reliability in the court of law. The expert evidence is considered to be reliable because an expert is having a much better knowledge n the specific area in comparison to other people outside that area.

Hearsay evidence:
Hearsay Evidence is very weak evidence. It is only the reported evidence of a witness which he has not seen either heard. Sometime it implies the saying of something which a person has heard others say. In Lim Yam Yong v. Lam Choon & Co. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court adjudged “Hearsay Evidence which ought to have been rejected as irrelevant does not become admissible as against a party merely because his council fails to take objection when the evidence is tendered.”

Primary evidence:
Section 62 of The Indian Evidence Act says Primary Evidence is the top-Most class of evidence. It is that proof which in any possible condition gives the vital hint in a disputed fact and establishes through documentary evidence on the production of an original document for inspection by the court.

Secondary evidence:
Section 63 says Secondary Evidence is the inferior evidence. It is evidence that occupies a secondary position. It is such evidence that on the presentation of which it is felt that superior evidence yet remains to be produced. It is the evidence which is produced in the absence of the primary evidence therefore it is known as secondary evidence.

Positive and Negative Evidence:
Evidence was categorized as positive and negative in the case of Rahim Khan vs. Khurshid Ahmad. Positive evidence is any evidence which claims the existence of a fact while a negative evidence is an evidence that claims non-existence of a fact. The distinction lies on the fact that they guide the court towards the approach they have to take.

Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law – CS Professional Forensic Audit Study Material

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply