INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

 Every fact which prove right or liability i.e. fact-in-issue.

 Every fact which prove fact-in-issue called relevant fact.
 Anything which is ingredient of any section in IPC i.e. fact-in-
issue.
 Concept of relevancy is subjective concept and one fact will
be relevant not in isolation. (it must be connected with other
fact B)
 Legally connected section 6 to 55 is a matter of law.
 Facts which are asserted or denied is issue of fact and answer
to such issue of fact is fact in issue.
 Admissibility of fact – proviso 1 of section 165.
 Admissibility of evidence – section 136.
 Section 155 even though character of witness perse is not
relevance fact still it is allowed to be proved.
 In CPC there are provision which are prohibitory to give
evidence are o7r14, o8r1A, o13r1, o41r27.
 Judgment = relevant + duly proved ( section 165 proviso 1)
 Reliability – whether evidence or fact is truth worthy –
reliability is a matter of application of judicial mind.
 Section 01 of IEA is general provision and section 149© IRA
is a special provision so, sec 49© will prevail.
 Exception 2 of sec 91 says probate is basically the certificate
of will.
 Section 92 – principles of conclusively of document.
 If oral evidence give regarding that material thing – court may
require the production of that material thing.
 Concept of hearsay is subjective evidence.

CONTACT NUMBER – 85570-95460 pg. 1

  Court has power of inquisitive participation into the
proceedings.
 Section 165 ‘evidence of evidence’ – used by Bentham.
 u/s 165 court can ask even leading question or question of
hearsay nature. u/s 165 court cannot ask question on sec 121
to 131, 148 and 149, secondary evidence except sec 65.
 Sec 165 prevail on sec 162 CRPC.
 Answer given u/s 165 will be on oath.
 Section 311 CRPC apply when party has to call witness out of
turn.
 u/s 313(2) examination of accused without oath.
 Party who signed the document, that document is primary
evidence against the party who signed that document.
 Sec 63 is not exhaustive about secondary evidence also
provided u/s 65(b).
 Carbon copies are primary evidence.
 Newspaper report hearsay evidence.
 Sec6 any part which occurred in same transaction with fact-
in-issue will be called relevant fact.
 Conduct parallel fall u/s 6.
 Conduct of witness fall u/s 6, not u/s 8 but victim’s fall u/s 8.
 Sec 8 – conduct in reference to relevant part or it relevance
fact-in-issue or relevant fact.
 Sec 8 explanation -1 conduct and statement by one party.
Explanation -2 conduct and statement by different persons.
 T.I.P always in the course of investigation.
 T.I.P never conduct before police officer otherwise it will hit
by sec 162 CRPC so, it is either before private person or before
judicial or executive magistrate.
 TIP used as corroborative in trial u/s 157 IEA.
 Accused can’t claim TIP as matter of claim.

CONTACT NUMBER – 85570-95460 pg. 2

  Court may admit TIP as substantive evidence if witness retract
from identification in court despite having identified the
accused in TIP and if witness does not have any reasonable
explanation for his retraction.
 Relevancy of relation u/s 9 and conclusive proof u/s 112.
 In sec 32(5) atleast one of them is alive but in sec 32(6) both
of them are dead.
 u/s 50 opinion is expressed by conduct is relevant.
 May presume – ‘presumption huminis’ presumption by human
mind. Sec 86, 87, 88, 88A are presumption of document and
sec 107, 108, 113A, 114 are presumption of fact.
 Section 101 – burden of proof for entire case, section 103 –
burden of proof for any particular fact.
 Sec 102 at this stage who has duty to give evidence.
 Sec 132 apply on witness and only in trial, not during
investigation.
 Parties can be competent witness under o18r3A.
 M.C. Vargnese versus T J Poonam 1948 SC – sec 120.
 If lawyer who is your friend is not barred by sec 126.
 Estoppel concept based upon British case – Pickord versus
Sears.
 Essential principle of estoppel is /doctrine of legitimate
expectation’.
 Estoppel not apply in case of fraud or illegal transfer of
property. (Jus tertii)
 Tehsildar Singh versus State of UP 1959 SC – u/s 145 directs
contradict to witness possible without his cross examining
him.
 Question asked on previous statement u/s 145.
 Question asked on own prudent u/s 146.

CONTACT NUMBER – 85570-95460 pg. 3

  If question related to relevant fact u/s 147 then, provision of
sec 132 will apply especially it proviso of sec 132.
 Hostile witness – retreat (not giving evidence) or giving
evidence against A – either way declared as hostile witness.
 Oral admission of content of document fall u/s 22.
written admission of content of document fall u/s 65(b).
oral account of content of document fall u/s 63(5).
 Confession relevant, but not admissible u/s 25 and 26.
 Even if confession irrelevant u/s 24 or inadmissible u/s 25 and
26 then, the discovery statement u/s 27 is relevant.
 Sec 91 and 92 is general provision whereas sec 22 is special
provision so, sec 22 will prevail.
 If person in judicial custody then it is not hit by sec 26.
 u/s 27 accused have specific knowledge that where object is,
place where it is found, object actually discoverance from the
same place.
 Logic behind sec 27 is theory of confirmation by subsequent
finding of fact.
 Sec 162 CRPC is general provision and sec 27 IEA is special
provision so, sec 27 will prevail.
 u/s 24 – if by inducement and promise – relevant u/s 27, if by
threat – sec 27 not relevant because hit by Article 20(3) of
Constitution.
 Confession is relevant under departmental inquires.
 Accomplice – co-accused – pardon – approver.
 Co-accused when joined with main accused in joint trial u/s
223 CRPC.
 Joint confession statement generally used against who made
first but, if it is trust worthy or truly taken then may be used
against both.

CONTACT NUMBER – 85570-95460 pg. 4

  ‘Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire means no person would
dies with lie in his lips.
 A mere expression of suspicious is not sufficient for sec 32.
 Oral dying declaration not so strong that can sole basis of
conviction.
 Written dying declaration proved in court and may be a sole
basis of conviction.
 Sec 161 and 164(5) are not evidence so does not fall u/s 33.
 Shall presume – presumption juris – presumption by law.
 Skill or person (expert) – peritus.
 Sec 46 only about expert opinion, sec 51 even 3rd person
opinion is relevant.
 Sec 47 an ordinary person give its opinion.
 Opinion about custom relevant u/s 48, particular event,
transaction u/s 13.
 If come to court – relevant u/s 48 and 49.
if ant particular event, transaction – relevant u/s 13.
if not able to come to court – relevant u/s 32(4).
 Scientific evidence – Narco test – sodium pentothal.
 Opportunity deal with last seen theory.
 State of thing over a period of time, continuance
circumstances.
 Selvi and ors. Versus State of Karnatka 2010 SC held that
accused can’t compelled to disclose information based on
personal knowledge Article 20(3).
 Narco test under compulsion – unconstitutional no evidence.
 Conflict between inquest and post mortem – adopt report
which seems more correct as per the circumstances.
 Generally ocular evidence will be given reference upon
scientific evidence.
 Sec 11 is a residuary section.

CONTACT NUMBER – 85570-95460 pg. 5

  First of all prosecution evidence is proved, then plea of alibi
raised.
 ‘Res Ispa Liquitor’ fault of state.
 Reputation – what other thinks about person.
Disposition – his behavior towards others.
 If bad character is directly a fact-in-issue, the evidence of it
can be given in civil cases u/s 52 of IEA.
 Previous conviction bunch (236, 248(3), 298, 324) CRPC, 75
of IPC.
 In sec 14 similar occurrence with respect to same person or
same subject matter but u/s 15 – it is with respect to different
subject matter.
 Sec 14 is wider provision and covers so many other facts apart
from/along with similar occurrences whereas sec 15 is
restricted only to similar occurrences.
 Judicial admission – deal with sec 58.
 Extra judicial admission sec 17 to 20.
 Admission – statement must suggest inference towards any
fact-in-issue or relevant fact.
 Concept of admission is a subjective concept.
 Admission also be made by some 3rd person as per sec 18, 19
and 20 and this is called exception to ‘rule of privity’.
 Sec 18 para 1 and 2 are rule of privity and para 3 and 4 are
exception to rule of privity.
 Only that admission are admissible which are of self-harmed
nature.
 u/s 21(2) state of mind or state of body + conduct, which
makes its falsehood improbability.
 Confession also relevant u/s 21.
 Maxim – ‘SALUS POPULI SUPERMALEX’ – sec 123 – public
welfare is highest law.

CONTACT NUMBER – 85570-95460 pg. 6

  ‘Judicial notice’ under IEA means to recognize without proof
something an existing.
 Presumption of fact is based on logic that human experience
and natural event and law of nature.
 Contents of electronic record may be proved by IEA with the
provision of sec 65 B.
 Electronic agreement can be presumed u/s 85A.
 IEA does not expressly mention about circumstantial
evidence.
 As per preamble of IEA, purpose of act is, to consolidate,
define and amend the law of evidence.
 Sec 105 applies to criminal trial.
 ‘Any Person’ – u/s 106 means party to suit.
 Presumption u/s 41 is irrebutable presumption of law.
 Presumption u/s 90 in IEA, can be drawn in respect of original
document.
 Queen Empress versus Abdullah, ILR 7 Alt 385 – sec 8 –
conduct.
 Sec 81 A added by IT Act, 2000 to provide presumption as to
gazettes in electronic process.
 u/s 27 IEA fact discovered means knowledge of accused as
to place and object.
 Evidence of hostile witness can be relied on by the prosecution
as well as defence.
 Rule of ‘Res Gestae’ is applicable in civil and criminal cases.
 Burden of proof u/s 101 IEA never shifts.
 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has inserted the sec 53
A.
 All consumer forum does not fall under the term ‘court’ under
IEA.
 Law of evidence under Indian evidence Act is procedural law.

CONTACT NUMBER – 85570-95460 pg. 7

  ‘Court’ does not include Arbitrators.
 Sec 65B related to admissible of electronic records.
 Under IEA, court may permit such ques. Which it regards
indecent or scandalous if- they relate to fact-in-issue.
 Sec 146 has been amended by criminal law (Amendment) Act,
2013.
 State through P.S Lodhi Colony versus Sanjeev Nanda – SC
observed that if a witness become hostile to subvert the
judicial process, the court shall not stand as a mute spectator
and every effect should be made to bring home the truth.
 Deposition relevant u/s 33 of IEA, but is subject to the control
of sec 158 of IEA.
 A person who taken solemn promise of silence gives evidence
in writing in the open court. His evidence shall be deemed to
be oral evidence.
 Record of tribunal, record of municipal board, memo of
associations of a company are not public document.
 A witness cannot refresh his memory by referring to another
witness for taking his assistance.
 Document forming the records of will written by governor of
state – not a public document.
 An evidence given by a dumb witness in an open court in –
an oral evidence.

CONTACT NUMBER – 85570-95460 pg. 8