Appreciation of Evidence and Case-Law Application
What is tested
The final examination of testimony: has the prosecution or the plaintiff discharged the burden?
Core rules
- Standard: proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases; preponderance of probability in civil cases; 'proved' carries the prudent-person test of BSA section 3.
- Interested witnesses: relationship to the victim is not a ground to discard testimony; the court scrutinises it and seeks corroboration only where prudence demands (Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab).
- Dying declaration: admissible without corroboration if found voluntary and truthful.
- Child witness: competence depends on the ability to understand the question and to give rational answers.
- Hostile witness: cross-examination with leave; the evidence is not effaced and may be relied on to the extent it supports the case.
- Expert evidence is advisory; the court decides.
- Electronic evidence requires the BSA section 63 certificate; oral evidence cannot substitute for it.
Worked example
Two eyewitnesses are the victim's brothers and their presence is challenged. A judgment dismissing their testimony merely because of relationship is perverse. The correct approach tests consistency with the medical evidence, the timing of the FIR and the conduct of the accused. If the FIR is prompt, the medical report matches the weapons and cross-examination reveals no contradiction, conviction follows; if they contradict the FIR on the weapon, independent corroboration becomes necessary.
Traps
- Treating investigation statements as substantive evidence.
- Requiring corroboration of a dying declaration as a fixed rule.
- Convicting on recovery without proving the chain of custody.