B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Law of Evidence 2015 Jun Question Paper with Solutions

For full marks, cover: two parts. (1) The definition: "evidence" in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (oral and documentary, including electronic records), and the one test of "proved", "disproved" and "not proved". (2) The statement explained: why the rules are the same (section 1 applies the Act to "all judicial proceedings", with the line it draws shown by State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh; the rules shared by both kinds of case, with sections 32(1), 132 and 167 saying so in terms); one definition of "proved" but two levels of proof (R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder; Woolmington); why the statement says "in general": the burden of proof (section 105, Dahyabhai), admissions and confessions (section 23; sections 24 to 30), character (sections 52 to 55), the parties as witnesses (section 120; section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 20(3)), presumptions for crimes, and judgments (K.G. Premshanker); a table; why the differences exist; the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in a line; a conclusion.

Part 1: what evidence is

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says "Evidence" means and includes two things.

Part 2: why the rules are, in general, the same

One Act for every court. Section 1 says the Act "applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial". It excludes only "affidavits presented to any Court or officer" and "proceedings before an arbitrator". There is no separate code of evidence for a civil suit and another for a criminal trial. A suit for damages and a murder trial are governed by the same sections.

Facts. In State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491, a bus conductor was checked by a flying squad. Eleven passengers on board had no tickets, though they said they had paid. After a domestic inquiry he was dismissed. The civil courts set the dismissal aside because no passenger had been examined.

Held. The Supreme Court held that the strict rules of the Evidence Act may not apply to a domestic inquiry. Material that is logically probative to a prudent mind may be used, even hearsay with a reasonable nexus and credibility. The case shows where section 1 draws its line. The Act binds courts, civil and criminal alike, and not inquiries outside them.

The rules both kinds of case share.

2. Section 132 says a witness is not excused from answering "in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding" because the answer may criminate him.
3. Under section 167, improper admission or rejection of evidence is not of itself a ground for a new trial or reversal "in any case". The test is whether the other evidence justifies the decision.

One test of "proved", two levels of proof

The definition of "proved" is the same, but the court applies it to different stakes. The words "under the circumstances of the particular case" allow this.

Facts. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple, decided on 8 October 2003, a landlord sued for title, rent and possession of a property in Tirupur, which a temple also claimed. Photocopies of two of his documents were admitted without objection. The High Court later excluded them in second appeal.

1. Burden of proof. Sections 101 to 104 apply to both: whoever asserts a fact must prove it. In a criminal trial the accused is presumed innocent, and the prosecution's burden never shifts. Under section 105, an accused who claims a General Exception, such as self-defence or insanity, must prove it.
2. Admissions. Admissions (sections 17 to 21) are relevant in both kinds of case. Section 23 applies only "In civil cases". It makes irrelevant an admission made on an express condition, or an understanding, that evidence of it is not to be given. This protects offers of settlement.
3. Confessions. Sections 24 to 30 deal with confessions by "an accused person". They arise only in criminal proceedings. A confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, or made to a police officer, is excluded.
4. Character. "In civil cases", character to prove conduct is irrelevant (section 52), but character affecting damages is relevant (section 55). "In criminal proceedings", the accused's good character is relevant (section 53). His bad character is irrelevant unless evidence of his good character has been given (section 54). In sexual offence cases the victim's character is irrelevant on consent (section 53A).

Held. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt from the beginning to the end of the trial. The accused may rebut the presumption that he was sane. But "the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings". So a civil standard operates inside a criminal trial. Even if he fails, his evidence may raise a reasonable doubt, and he is then acquitted.

Two proceedings, each on its own evidence.

Facts. In K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87, a Superintendent of Police was prosecuted for assaulting a newspaper publisher in custody. A civil suit on the same incident had recorded findings. He argued that those findings bound the criminal court.

Held. Sections 40 to 43 decide which judgments are relevant and how far. A civil judgment is relevant in a criminal case only if one of those sections applies. It is not conclusive except as section 41 provides. Both proceedings had to be decided on their own evidence.

The two kinds of case side by side

Why the law keeps these differences

The differences follow what is at stake. A civil case is usually a dispute between two private parties about money, property or status. If the court errs, the loss can often be repaired, so the more probable story wins.

A criminal case is brought by the State, with the police and the prosecutor behind it. The accused risks his liberty, his reputation and sometimes his life. So the law guards him by the presumption of innocence and the higher level of proof. It also excludes confessions that may be forced, and keeps his bad character out except in reply.

These differences are few and specific. Every one is stated by a named section or comes from the higher level of proof. Outside them, a student learns one set of rules, and the courts apply it to both kinds of case.