Oral Evidence, under the Indian Evidence Act | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Understanding Oral Evidence in Court

• In legal proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the individual who must provide evidence to support their case and arguments. This evidence is crucial for substantiating charges against defendants.
• According to the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, oral evidence, defined in Sections 59 and 60, encompasses statements made by witnesses related to the matter at hand in court.

Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act

• Section 59 specifies that, except for electronic records, facts can be proven through oral evidence. This form of evidence involves verbal statements presented in court.
• While oral testimony is considered less reliable than documented proof, it plays a vital role in the administration of justice.

Factors Affecting Witness Credibility

The credibility of witnesses hinges on several factors:

• Whether the witness had access to accurate information
• Their motivation to tell the truth
• Consistency in their testimony

Electronic records were initially inadmissible in court; however, amendments to the Information Technology Act now allow their use as evidence.

Courts must carefully assess oral evidence, distinguishing truth from falsehood and identifying relevant facts for just decision-making.

Section 60: Oral Evidence must be direct

• Facts must be based on direct evidence: This section emphasizes that oral evidence should be based on facts that a witness has personally seen or heard.
• Perception through senses: It also highlights that evidence can be based on facts perceived through any sense, and the witness must have personally perceived or heard it.
• Opinions as evidence: Opinions presented as evidence must be rooted in the witness's personal knowledge and not on information acquired from others.

For example, in the case of R v Gibson, the court rejected the plaintiff's evidence as hearsay. The accused was charged with harming the plaintiff by throwing a stone. However, since the plaintiff did not witness the act but relied on information from another person, the court did not consider it as valid evidence.

Hearsay evidence refers to statements made by a witness based on second-hand information rather than personal knowledge. According to legal principles, hearsay is not admissible as direct evidence and falls under the category of indirect evidence.

Differences between Direct Evidence and Hearsay Evidence:

• Direct Evidence: This type of evidence is acquired firsthand by the witness through their own observations and perceptions.
• Hearsay Evidence: In contrast, hearsay evidence is information that has been obtained from other individuals and not directly witnessed by the person testifying.
• Nature of Evidence: Direct evidence involves facts that are meant to be proved, while hearsay evidence is typically admitted under specific exceptional circumstances.
• Liability: The responsibility for direct evidence lies with the person providing the testimony, whereas in the case of hearsay evidence, the responsibility is less clear.
• Cross-Examination: Individuals who provide direct evidence are subject to cross-examination, allowing for a more thorough scrutiny of their statements. This is not possible for those presenting hearsay evidence.
• Source Identification: In the case of direct evidence, the source of the information is known and can be verified. However, with hearsay evidence, the original source may be unknown or harder to trace.