Law of Evidence: Relevance, Confessions and Proof
Law of Evidence tests the Indian Evidence Act 1872, re-enacted as the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. The MP Civil Judge paper asks what facts may be proved, by whom, and by what kind of proof-relevance, admissions, confessions, dying declarations, burden of proof, presumptions, documentary and electronic evidence.
Core rules
- Relevancy is logical; admissibility is legal. A relevant fact may still be excluded by an exclusionary rule.
- A dying declaration under Section 32(1) is admissible as substantive evidence if the maker was dying and the statement relates to the cause of death.
- A confession to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25; Section 27 permits so much of the information as leads distinctly to a discovery.
- The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact; Sections 101–104 allocate it, and presumptions may shift the evidential burden.
- Electronic records require a certificate under Section 65B, now Section 63 BSA, and the certificate must accompany the record.
Worked example
D is charged with murder. The victim's statement to a magistrate says D struck him. D objects that it is hearsay. The court admits it under Section 32(1): the victim is dead, the statement concerns the cause of death, and the magistrate recorded it. Weight depends on consistency, the victim's condition and corroboration; it need not be corroborated as a rule. Reasoning: admissibility is statutory, weight is judicial.
Traps
- Section 25 excludes confessions to police, not all statements; Section 27 is a narrow exception.
- An admission is not conclusive proof and may be retracted; a confession is a species of admission.
- The electronic-evidence certificate is mandatory, though courts may permit later filing in limited cases.
- A hostile witness's testimony is not erased; the court may rely on the reliable part.