All of us know what importance evidence holds under any court proceedings. Evidence is a certain reliable and relevant set of facts which proves or abstains from proving any matter; there is a prescribed manner on which the cycle of evidence works which has been divided into two main heads- Oral and Documentary evidence by the Evidence Act 1872.
Oral Evidence has been defined under Section 3(1) of the Indian Evidence Act as the statements which are required to be made before the court by the witnesses in relation to matters of the fact under the inquiry. The term “oral evidence” means the words spoken by mouth.
Oral Evidence is dealt with under Section 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
In section 59 and 60 of the Indian evidence act, where written documents exist, they shall be formed as being the best evidence of their contents and no oral evidence can be offered to prove as to what is wrong in the document. Receiving oral evidence great Care must be exercised. The Court must examine the evidence, separate grain from the chaff, and accept only what it finds to be true and reject the rest. The real test for accepting or rejecting the evidence is:
- How reliable the story is with itself
- What extent it fits in with the rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case.
- How much it stands the taste of cross-examination
PROOF OF FACT BY ORAL EVIDENCE [SECTION-59]
According to Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, all facts, except for the contents of the documents or electronic records may be proved by the Oral Evidence. Under this Section, if in any matter there is any written documents, then, in that case, there can be no oral evidence made to prove the said document wrong.
As it was held in the case of Bhima Tima Dhotre v. The Pioneer Chemical co. that “Documentary evidence becomes meaningless if the writer has to be called in every case to give oral evidence of its contents. If that were the position, it would mean that, in the ultimate analysis, all evidence must be oral and that oral evidence would virtually be the only kind of evidence recognised by law. This provision would clearly indicate that to prove the contents of a document by means of oral evidence would be a violation of that section.”
ORAL EVIDENCE MUST BE DIRECT [SECTION 60]
Section 60 of the Act lays down that the Oral Evidence must be direct. In other words, this means that if the evidence is about any fact which has been heard, seen, perceived by any other senses or about an opinion. Then according to this section Oral Evidence will be valid only when such evidence has been given by the person who himself heard, saw, perceived or formed an opinion.
The credibility of the Oral Evidence of the witness will be doubted if the statement is in contradiction to any previously given statement by him/her. But where the statement is merely an elaboration of the statement recorded before the police with minor contradictions, then it will be held as reliable oral evidence.
At present days oral evidence is much less satisfactory medium of proof than documentary evidence.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.