1.

SUBSTANTIVE LAW
2. PROCEDURAL LAW
TYPES OF LAWS
 SUBSTANTIVE LAW:- Determines our rights and
Liabilities.(examples- IPC, Contract, TPA).

 PROCEDURAL LAW:- Determines mechanism for

enforcement of Rights and Liabilities- (examples:-
Cr.PC., CPC, Evidence)
 LATIN MAXIM
UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM

For every wrong- Law provides remedy

Difference between ACT and CODE
 ACT deals with a  Code is exaustive law
particular matter. and cover each and every
 Eg. Indian Evidence aspect of that law. Ex.
Act,1872. Cr.pc.,CPC.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IS A
PROCEDURAL LAW or an
Adjective Law
Scope or Object of INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT,1872
 IEA,1872 actually comes into action after the trial
begins.
 IEA,1872 is basically to guide JUDGES/MAGISTRATES
relating to admissibility and relevancy of Evidences
during trial.
 Right to Life U/A 21 of Constitution includes Right to
speedy trial, therefore irrelevant evidences must not
be admissible for that.
 Like every procedural law IEA,1872 is based upon
Principles of Natural justice. i.e. Equity, Justice and
Good conscience.
 OBJECT
 ZAHIRA HABIBBULLAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT AIR
2004 S.C. 3114.
It was held in this case that IEA. Is based on principle of
Fair Trial.
 Fair Trial
 Equity, Justice and Good conscience.
 Trial means presiding officer/ Judge is on chair, Both
counsels are present in court and accused standing in Doc.
 End product of trial is Judgment.
 Judgment is appreciation of evidences put up during trial.
 Trial is based upon evidences.
 Evidence’s proper appreciation is backbone of Fair Trial.
 IEA,1872 Prescribes the procedure about which evidence is
admissible and the way they are admissible.
Preamble

 Consolidate and Amend the law that is existing

Yajnavalkya Smriti
 4 Types of Laws which were existing during ancient
times
1. LEKHYA :- Documentary Evidence.
2. Sakshya :- Oral Evidence.
3. Bhukti :- Law of Possession.
4. Divya :- Depending Upon God.
Documentary Evidence(Lekhya)
1. Raj sakshika :- Kings Court DOCUMENT same as
Public documents u/s 74 of IEA.
2. Sa sakshika :- Private Documents, However need to
be attested.(67-73 IEA.)
3. A sakshika :- Private Documents written by own
hand. Sec 67 is reflected this in IEA,1872.
Sakshya
 Character of person was Relevant in Civil law. However
now it is relevant in Criminal Law.
reflected u/s 53 IEA.
BHUKTI
 Law of Possession. Section 110 IEA,SECTION 6 SRA,
deals with it.
Direct Evidences Prefer over
indirect Evidences
 Direct Evidences are seldom to be have in this
imperfect world therefore we have to rely upon
indirect evidences however chain of direct evidences
must be so complete that leave no doubt in the mind
of reasonable prudent man.
 We cannot convict any person merely on conjecture,
surmise, suspicion.
Standard of Proof
 Beyond Shadow of Doubt
 Beyond Reasonable doubt
 Preponderance of probability
 Mere balance of probability
Standard of proof
 In criminal cases Standard of Proof is Beyond
Reasonable Doubt.
 In civil cases Standard of proof is Preponderance of
Probability.
Indian Evidence Act,1872
 IEA,1872 came into force on 1st september ,1872.
 Ist Act of Evidence was made in 1835 and applied to
British India.
 Sir James Stiphen heading the Committee along 5
other members drafted a new act of IEA,1872.
Lex Fori
 Nihar Indu Dutt v. Emperor 1942
It was held place where the Trial takes place, the law of
that particular forum will be applicable in that Trial.
Cardinal Philosophies
1. Best Evidence Rule.
2. Need For Relevancy.
3. Need for appreciation of Evidence.
Evidence Act Revolves around 4
Questions.
1. Which Kind of facts can be proved.
2. What kind of Proof is to be given of these facts.
3. Who will give that proof.
4. How is that proof to be given.
1. Best Evidence Rule
 Cogent, Reliable and weightage is lithmus test of Best
evidence Rule.
 Connotation of best.
1. Qualitative: single weighted Sec 134 IEA
2. Comparatively better than other: Inter ( Documents
preferred over oral)
Need For Relevancy
 Relevancy on the basis of proving fact in issue or issue
of fact of criminal or civil matters.
 All legal relevant things are always logically relevant.
However not vice versa, on the basis of public
policy.eg. Confession before police officer even
logically relevant but not Legally Relevant.
 Irrelevant facts are not admissible or which are not
covered under legal relevancy are not admissible as a
general rule.
Proper appreciation of Evidence
 Judge must necessarily appreciate evidences put before
him.
 Appreciation of evidence is ensuring evidence is
reliable before admitting it.
 Corroboration for determining reliability of evidence