Sunday, May 21, 2017
Compiled by Adv Mir Nagman Ali,
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON SUPRATNAMA/RETURN OF ARTICLES
Manoj Vs. Shriram Tpt. Finance Company Limited, 2002 1 JT 293.
in a situation where a financier is aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to the registered owner, it would be open for him to approach the Civil Court, but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights.
Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar [ (2001) 10 S. C. C. 881
the Hon'ble supreme Court, at the stage of Section 451 of the Code, did not decide the question of title nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transaction relating to the vehicle but felt that the vehicle ought not to remain in the compound of the Police Station and exposed to heat and cold because the vehicle was likely to be lost to all in such situation and proceeded to entrust the custody of the said vehicle temporarily to the appellant who was the ostensible name-holder in the registration certificate, on behalf of the court, till the conclusion of the trial when the trial Court was required to pass an order regarding the disposal of the property.
Gijji Vs. A. K. Gopinathan (1996 Cri. LJ. 140) ;
M/s. B. C. L. Financial services Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1999 Cri. L. J. 2305 : [1999 ALL MR (Cri) 597])
Neeraj Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U. P. (1992 Cri. L. J. 1247).
In this last mentioned case, a single Judge of Allahabad high Court has said that normally a vehicle shall be released in favour of the registered owner and that a person alleging transfer of a vehicle in his name is not entitled to release order in his favour merely on that basis in the absence of the registration and the plea of transfer if true, transferee has remedy in Civil Court for compensation
Vishnu Bhagwat VS State of Mah 2014 (2) BCR(Cri) 192, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 179
Where a financier is aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to the registered owner, it would be open for him to approach the Civil Court, but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights.
RABINDRA KUMAR PATI VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
2006 STPL(LE-Crim) 27972 [2007 CRI. L. J. 819] ORISSA HIGH COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ─ Section 457 ─ Seizure of vehicle by police ─ Interim custody of ─ O.P. No. 2purchase a tractor and trolley on hire-purchase agreement from O.P. No. 1/Bank ─ Default in re-payment of loan amount ─ Bank took away the vehicle and conducted auction sale ─ Being highest, offer of petitioner/purchaser was accepted ─ Claim and counter claim by loanee andpurchaser ─ Purchaser had purchase the vehicle by paying value thereof and spent huge amounts toward Road Tax etc., repair and purchase of accessories of said vehicle ─ He is entitled to interim custody of vehicle ─ Order of court below directingpurchaser to furnish security of Rs. One Lac modified to the extent that he shall furnish a bank guarantee for like amount.
Pralhad Thombre VS Mah 2012 (4) B Cr C 12
A. Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Sections 451 and 457--Release of vehicle seized during investigation--Petitioner/owner seeking release of Tavera Jeep, seized by police in investigation of alleged murder--Courts below refusing custody by observing that said vehicle was used for murder since cushion of the jeep was cut in some places which is important piece of evidence would be destroyed if vehicle is released--Petitioner admittedly is not accused in the said crime and doing business of renting out vehicles--Jeep ordered to be returned on execution of Supartnama to avoid deterioration rusting and decay, and to enable him to utilize the same to earn his livelihood by imposing conditions of not altering the interior of vehicle in any way whatsoever and produce the vehicle before court when required.
Pirappa Birajdar VS M/s Arti Co. 2004 All MR CRI 2006
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397, 451, 457--Revision--Maintainability of--Custody of petitioners Truck forcibly taken by respondents/financer--Complaint against financer under Section 379 of Penal Code--Magistrate ordering release of Truck to petitioner Sessions Court in revision set aside the order passed by Magistrate--Held, order passed under Section 451 being interlocutory order, revision is not maintainable--Further held, when an order does not decide the rights of the parties in any manner, it would become interlocutory order.
Manoj Sharma Vs Shriram Finance 2003 AllMR(Cri) 1757,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 451 -- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 -- Release of vehicle to registered owner -- Pending Civil Suit -- Grievance of financier -- If the financier was aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to registered owner, it was open for the financier to approach the Civil Court in the pending civil suit for interference -- Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and Order of magistrate restored.
Jagjeet Singh VS Mah 2013 ALL MR CRI 486
Criminal Procedure Code,1973,Sections 451 and 457--Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972, Section 50--Return of truck seized under Act,1972--Truck driven by driver found to be loaded with 320 bags of cement and a carcass of spotted-deer--Applicant owner of vehicle not aware of offence if any committed by his driver or cleaner when they were sent on their way to Nagpur from Andhra Pradesh--Order rejecting return of truck on the ground that property seized by competent officer under Act,1972 has becomes Government property is erroneous--Truck directed to be released in favour of applicant on execution of bond.
Hasan Khan Vs Mah 2014 (1) BCR Cri 286
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 3 and 7--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 457--Interim custody of seized wheat--Magistrate as also Sessions Court refusing to hand over interim custody of seized wheat to petitioner by observing that District Supply Officer had not filed his report and had not passed orders as regards confiscation of seized goods--Petitioner already claiming that he had not received any notice is respect of confiscation proceedings--Failure of Supply Officer or investigating agency to say that confiscation proceedings had commenced could not have been viewed in their favour and adversely to petitioner-- Admittedly after completion of investigation charge sheet has already been filed--Holding impugned orders passed by below courts as perverse ,quashed and set aside--Interim custody directed to be handed over to petitioner on executing bond of Rs.1,40,000/-
Gulam Hussain VS Mah 2010 (4) B Cr C 44
Criminal Procedure Code,1973,Setion 457--Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960,Section 11(d)(e)(f)--Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act,1976,Section 5(1)--Interim custody of animals--Purchaser having valid licence to sell and purchase animals since is a rightful owner of the animals, such purchaser of animal would have preferential right of interim custody subject to condition of not subjecting animals for slaughtering.
(See 2014 (6) LJSOFT (AUR) 109)
Return of vehicles — Claim by financier — Open for him to approach the Civil Court but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights
Bhagwan Shiram Ahir vs Maharashtra 27 April 2012 Aurangabad Bench
Even if the gold ornaments have been converted into gold ingot. If the prosecution is not disputing the ownership of ornaments then gold ornaments entitled to be handed over to applicant.
BHARATH METHA VERSUS STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI
[AIR 2008 SC 1970 = (2008) 5 SCC 752 = 2008 AIR(SCW) 2289 = 2008 CRI. L. J. 2245 = 2008 (5) SCR 478 = (2008) 4 Scale 186 = (2008) 3 SCC(Cri) 72]SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 451 and 457 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Sections 4(1)(A) and 4(1)(aaa) - Rectified Spirit Rules, Rules, 5 and 6 - Release of vehicle - Sought by financier -In the Registration Certificate the name of financier has been indicated and factum that vehicle was subject to such an agreement noted - In the agreement appellant-financier is described as owner - Respondent No. 2 as hirer - Application filed by Respondent No. 2 for release of vehicle accepted by High Court on certain conditions which were not fulfilled - Vehicle is lying with the seizing authorities for nearly eight years - Court directed release of vehicle in favour of appellant subject to conditions stipulated for respondent No. 2.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. VS MADHUKAR RAO
[(2008) 14 SCC 624 = JT 2008 (1) SC 364 = 2008 AIR(SCW) 787 = (2009) 2 SCC(Cri) 1140] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451 - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 50(1)(c) - Criminal Procedure - Power of Magistrate - Sapurdnama - Interim release of vehicle - During pendency of trial in exercise of powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. - Provision of section 50 of the Act and the amendments made thereunder do not in any ways effect the Magistrate's power.
(Paras 17 and 18)
(B) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 39(1)(d) - Wild life protection -Provision of Section 39(1)(d) would come into play only after a court of competent jurisdiction found that accusation and the allegations made against the accused was true and recorded the finding that the seized articles was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence - Any attempt to operationlise section 39(1)(d) merely on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations levelled by the departmental authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provision and would render it unconstitutional and invalid.
SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VERSUSSTATE OF GUJARAT
AIR 2003 SC 638 = (2002) 10 SCC 283 = JT 2002 (10) SC 80 = 2002 AIR(SCW) 5301 = (2002) 8 Supreme 525 = 2002 (Supp4) SCR 217 = (2002) 8 Scale 516]SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 429, 420, 465, 468, 477(a), 114 - Property in custody disposed during pending cases - Various articles kept at police station for long period were alleged - Misappropriation of cash - Replacement of muddamal articles with spurious ones - For evolving suitable procedure to prevent misappropriation and replacement, court directions were sought - Held, for disposal of muddamal articles, some broad guidelines and procedures to be followed - Directing magistrates to ensure powers under s. 451 are property and promptly exercised - Articles kept in the police stations not more than fifteen days to one month in any case - Rules framed by high court to be supervise by high court registry and its property implementation - Adjourned for three weeks.
RAMESH CHAND JAIN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
2010 STPL(LE) 43746 SC [(2007) 15 SCC 126 = (2010) 3 SCC(Cri) 527]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451- Criminal Procedure - Disposal of Property - Truck seized for non-production of papers - Conditional order of release of truck on super Dari - Affirmed by High Court - Appeal - Contended that respondent 2 merely one of guarantors for repayment of loan taken by appellant from bank for purchase of truck, not entitled for interim custody of seized vehicle - Held that inter se civil liabilities of appellant/registered owner of the truck, financier and guarantors not subject-matter relevant for granting interim custody of seized vehicle - Hence, impugned order set aside - Direction for furnishing security in sum of Rs4 lakhs to satisfaction of trial Magistrate - Appeal allowed.
KIRTA RAM VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
2008 STPL(LE-Crim) 29171 RAJ RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 457, 482-Order rejecting application for interim custody of vehicle-Quashing of-Present petition for-Seizure of vehicle during the course of transportation of poppy straw-Petitioner is registered owner of vehicle-Occupant of said vehicle claimed himself to be the owner of said vehicle on strength of agreement for sale executed by petitioner in his favour-Evidence showing that petitioner shifted the stand in claiming ownership of vehicle on strength of registration certificate which stands in his favour while denying ownership of vehicle during investigation-More so, it was “D” who was in possession of vehicle at the relevant time of offence on strength of agreement for sale and he has not sought the custody of vehicle-Therefor, petitioner is not entitled to interim custody of vehicle in question.
RABINDRA KUMAR PATI VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
2006 STPL(LE-Crim) 27972 ORISSA HIGH COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ─ Section 457 ─ Seizure of vehicle by police ─ Interim custody of ─ O.P. No. 2 purchase a tractor and trolley on hire-purchase agreement from O.P. No. 1/Bank ─ Default in re-payment of loan amount ─ Bank took away the vehicle and conducted auction sale ─ Being highest, offer of petitioner/purchaser was accepted ─ Claim and counter claim by loanee and purchaser ─ Purchaser had purchase the vehicle by paying value thereof and spent huge amounts toward Road Tax etc., repair and purchase of accessories of said vehicle ─ He is entitled to interim custody of vehicle ─ Order of court below directing purchaser to furnish security of Rs. One Lac modified to the extent that he shall furnish a bank guarantee for like amount.
ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTDVERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
2011 STPL(LE-Crim) 34645 ALL (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) 2011 CrLJ 2011
Criminal Procedure Code; 1973 - Section 451 - Release of vehicle - Case registered under Sections 394/411 I.P.C. - Vehicle was recovered by police during investigation - Ownership is not absolute - Registration certificate was subject to Hire Purchase Agreement showing that ownership of said vehicle was subject to the terms and conditions agreed into between the hirer and owner - Revisionist being owner of vehicle, entitled to its custody - Order impugned releasing the property/vehicle in the name of O.P. No. 2/hirer - Not sustainable - Impugned order liable to be quashed and set aside - Lower Court directed to take possession of vehicle and release it to the custody of revisionist.
MANOJVERSUS SHRIRAM TPT. FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
2002 STPL(LE) 30870 SC [JT 2002 (1) SC 293 = (2002) 2 Supreme 107] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451 - Mr. Rao appearing for the financier vehemently contended that in view of the pendency of the civil suits, and the order of the status quo passed therein, the magistrate was not justified in passing the order granting the vehicle in possession of Shri manoj Sharma
Monday, May 1, 2017
Some legal issues relating to Electronic Evidence and Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
November 15, 2016TheJurist
Almost all data is digital these days and most communication is exchanged electronically through SMS,Email, Whatsapp, Facebook, Twitter etc. In Civil as well as Criminal Cases, the courts are frequently called upon to rule on whether ‘electronic evidence is admissible or not’. Practice has shown that this is not an easy question to answer. Some of the illustrative cases where courts have to rely on electronic evidence are :-
Electronically produced Books of Accounts in a Commercial Dispute;In a case of Divorce based on Adultery – WhatsApp/facebook messages, emails, SMSes exchanged by the adulterous spouse with the paramour;CCTV footage in a ATM robbery case;Voice Recording and Call Detail Records in an Extortion case.
All these pieces of evidence are stored electronically in disks/devices/huge servers. The manner of their proof before the courts is something Section 65B of the Evidence Act deals with.
Section 65B of the Evidence Act provides for conditions that are required to be satisfied in order to render electronic evidence admissible in a court of law.
A certificate, in compliance of Section 65B(4) is also required to be filed before the court to render such evidence admissible.
Q. Is the certificate u/s 65B(4) of Evidence Act mandatory for reception of electronic evidence ?
Yes. the Supreme Court in ANVAR P.V. VS. P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS [MANU/SC/0834/2014] has categorically ruled that a certificate u/s 65B is compulsory for admission of electronic evidence. The party cannot lead oral evidence to prove the contents of an electronic record in absence of the certificate. Expert evidence cannot be led either. The case (Anvar) concerned proof of video footage relating to an election matter wherein the election of a candidate was challenged on account of alleged malpractices. The court held that the output of the video footage, in the form of CD/DVD/Pen drive was inadmissible in absence of the certificate; however, if the original recorder/hard drive attached to CCTV is led in evidence, the same can be received even without the certificate as it will be primary evidence itself. However, in all other cases where the output of the electronic record is produced, either in the form of a printout or a disk/CD/DVD/Pen Drive or other soft copy, the same has to be mandatorily accompanied by the certificate.
Question : Whether the requirement of certificate u/s 65B(4) Evidence Act can be satisfied by the witness appearing and deposing as to the conditions of S.65B(4) as a part of his oral deposition in the court ? In other words, whether oral deposition in lieu of a written certificate would satisfy the rigors of Section 65B of the Evidence Act ?
The answer is No. If in a case certificate u/s 65B(4) Evidence Act is not filed, the witness who is seeking to prove the electronic record cannot be allowed to depose in the court in his examination-in-chief as to the conditions of S.65B. When the statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone and none else. Expedience cannot be given way over a specific and categoric rule of law. Therefore, the requirement of certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act cannot be satisfied by an oral deposition of the witness as its conditions. This is the import in the decision of Jagdeo Singh and Ors. Vs. The State (MANU/DE/0376/2015)
Friday, April 21, 2017
*How to prove photo in evidence?*
It is apropos to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in support of the view I have taken, in the case of Laxman Ganpati v. Anusayabai . The Division Bench in the said case was considering the proof of photo copy, negative as well as enlarged print and has considered the provisions as laid down under Sections 62 and 65 of the Evidence Act. It is held that it is only when the person who takes a photograph and develops it into a negative himself comes into the box and deposes to both those facts, that a negative becomes admissible in evidence. As far as the enlarged print is concerned, the position is still worse, for no point or enlargement can be admitted in evidence without its negative being produced and proved in the matter.
Bombay High Court
Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary Since ... vs Anant Chunilal Kate on 27 July, 2006
*Citations: 2006 (6) MhLj 571,2007(1) ALLMR313*
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
*Oral argument is one of the most exciting parts of litigation*, and only a few lawyers are really good at it. But even if you aren’t a naturally-talented presenter, you can still improve. The important thing is to get away from your outline and use a more “modular” approach to oral argument.
Many lawyers—especially those new to law practice—prepare for oral argument the same way, by creating an outline and rehearsing as they would for a speech. They may prepare for questions by talking through the issues with a colleague, but this does not usually result in effective oral argument. What it does result in is a stiff argument, awkward recovery after answering questions, and an ineffective presentation overall.
That’s because oral argument is so much more dynamic than an outline—even if you have a “cold” bench. In order to prepare for dynamic argument, you need a more dynamic approach than an outline and a few run-throughs.
*Preparing for oral argument takes a deep understanding of the law, the facts, and the arguments.* Then, you need to break up your argument into “modules.” You can organize your argument (not just outline it) around your modules, but then you must practice making your argument in and out of order. Only by doing this will you be prepared to field questions and deliver your argument with skill and nimbleness, instead of rigid adherence to an outline.
*Ditch the Outline*
An outline isn’t inherently good or bad, but it encourages rigid thinking. Lawyers who rely on an outline alone tend to get thrown off by questions, which often results in repetition and skipped issues.
*Worse, many lawyers also haul a binder (or several) full of cases, pleadings, exhibits, and briefs to the podium, which they try to rely on while delivering their arguments. I think this is because they rely on their stacks of paper in place of adequate preparation.*
Of course you can use an outline if you really want to—I do—but it is important to shed the rigid thinking and intellectual laziness that outline-as-preparation encourages.
*Practice Intense Preparation*
There are no tricks to good oral argument, and the single most important component of great oral argument is preparation. I realize it is one thing to say Prepare! and another to do it with a full caseload, but it is a lawyer’s duty to prepare adequately, if not better. You must find the time.
*You must know four things about your case for every argument:*
Know the facts of your case backward and forward. Make sure you know which are actually in the record, too.
Although you probably researched the law at various points in the litigation, including when you wrote the brief, you should review at least the key cases before your argument, and learn them well enough to talk about the nuances without the case in front of you. The same goes for any statutes or rules involved, which you should know inside out.
You must also be able to state the rule you want the court to adopt and apply, whether it is a rule of existing law or a new one that you want the court to adopt. Enough judges have asked me about this that it has become one of my favorite questions to ask students when I judge moot court competitions—few are prepared with a rule. But if you want to win, you had better know how you want the court to do it.
Make sure you can explain why your client should win. This ought to go without saying, but I have seen an astonishing number of attorneys who cannot seem to articulate a coherent reason why their client ought to win.
*Your job is to convince the court that your client ought to win, and give the court a legally-permissible route to that result.* Don’t forget the second part. You cannot win without it.
*4What you want.*
This should go without saying, too. You must be able to tell the court what you want it to do. By the way, as part of this, you should make sure the court can do what you want it to do. Your client won’t thank you for the time and expense of a motion hearing if the court doesn’t have the power to grant your motion.
*Organize and Practice Your Argument*
Here’s how I like to organize my argument. I write each issue I want to discuss or point I want to make on a separate index card (or piece of paper, but the idea is to keep it short—these are prompts, not parts of a script). Then, I take each index card and practice the argument around that topic or idea. Usually, the oral argument starts to organize itself as I do this because I generally refer to other cards as I go. As the argument begins to take shape, I start laying out the cards on the floor to sort them.
As I lay all the cards out on the floor (this works great for organizing the topics you want to discuss with a witness on direct examination, too), I put them in the order that makes the most sense. Group them into the two or three main topics you need to argue. Even if your argument is going to be complicated by necessity, group it into a few main topics, if you can.
*Now, turn those main topics into a roadmap.* Starting your argument with a concise roadmap is helpful for the court because the judge will know right away if she is likely to get an answer to her questions, or if she should just go ahead and ask them now because you aren’t likely to cover them.
Spreading out index cards on the floor works for me, but you could also do an outline if you prefer. I just think it works better to start with something more flexible and convert it to an outline as it starts to come together.
Whether you do an outline or not, you should also practice your argument as a single, cohesive unit. You might get a cold bench, after all. I usually run through my argument this way a few times, then set my index cards and outline aside and go for a walk. (Bring your dog, if you are preparing at home.)
With no prompts in front of you, go through your argument several more times from memory. Work through it without resorting to your outline or notes. This will force you to learn your argument much more thoroughly than if you are always relying on your notes.
*Practice your argument with non-lawyers, too.* If they look bored, you aren’t doing a very good job. Keeping a non-lawyer interested forces you to boil down the facts, issues, and arguments to their essentials. You can always go into the nitty-gritty (boring) details if you need to, but it’s generally better to get to the point—especially with judges.
*Commit Your Argument to Memory*
Outlines, binders full of reference material, and other paper and props are distractions, not performance aids. The best way to argue is from memory (although it won’t hurt to bring your index cards or outline with you, just in case—or just for show).
If you have followed my advice so far, you have essentially committed your argument to memory. Deep understanding of the facts and law will give you the ability to discuss the issues without an outline to guide you. Practicing your argument out of order helps dissociate each issue from your outline. Getting out of your office and walking as you practice will help you embed your argument in your brain. As you walk around, your brain will associate your argument with your surroundings, which will make it easier to remember your key points when you are under stress at the podium.
*Your goal is not to remember your argument word-for-word; that is counterproductive.* Your goal is to know what you want to say about a topic whether or not you are interrupted. If you are interrupted, you must be able to locate the question in your argument, then segue gracefully back into your argument after you answer. In other words, know what you want to say, and then cover at least the key points whether or not you are interrupted with questions.
If you have followed the steps above, you should have your argument sufficiently “memorized.”
*If You Can, Moot Your Argument*
Not every argument merits the time and expense of a moot session—or several. But if you can moot the issue, you will get invaluable information and feedback. If your “judges” do a good job, you will have a good idea of what you may hear from the bench. You will also get great feedback on the way you argue so that you can improve.
I’ve had the opportunity to conduct several moot sessions on both sides of the “bench,” and it has been well worth the effort in each case. Do it if you can.
*Last-Minute Prep On the Day of Your Argument*
Here is what works for me on the day of my argument, but what you do is not as important as having a routine that quiets your nerves and gives you one last refresher of the facts, law, and your argument.
I usually get dressed, then go walk the dog. (My hearings tend to be first thing in the morning.) While we walk, I run through my argument—out loud—two or three times (wear a Bluetooth headset if you don’t want to look crazy, and people will think you are just on the phone). I keep it up in the car on my way to court. I don’t have my index cards or outline out when I do this.
When I get to court (always at least fifteen minutes early), I sit down and jot down my main “talking points” on a legal pad, referring to my outline if I need to. When my case is called, that’s all I take to the podium. I don’t try to review cases or the facts at this point. If I don’t know them by the time I am sitting in the courtroom, I’m not going to learn anything in those few minutes before I stand up to argue.
*Preparation is key.* If you have done enough, you will be confident behind the podium, and you will rarely be surprised by what happens in the courtroom. Don’t half-ass your preparation; it is always better to be over-prepared.
*Originally published 2015-03-27. Last updated 2015-12-25.*
*DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE*
There are different types of evidences under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These are mentioned below-
1) Oral Evidence
2) Documentary Evidence
3) Primary Evidence
4) Secondary Evidence
5) Real Evidence
6) Hearsay Evidence
7) Judicial Evidence
8) Non- Judicial Evidence
9) Direct Evidence
10) Indirect Evidence or Circumstantial Evidence
These are elaborated below-
1) Oral Evidence
Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act explains Oral Evidence. Oral Evidences are those evidences which are personally seen or heard by the witness giving them and not heard or told by some one else. All the statements which are permitted by the court or the court expects the witness to make such statements in his presence regarding the truth of the facts, are called as Oral Evidences.
Oral evidences must always be direct. An Evidence is direct when it establishes the main fact in issue.
2) Documentary Evidence
Documentary evidence is defined under section 3 of the Act. All those documents which are presented in the court for inspection regarding a case, such documents are known as documentary evidences.
3) Primary Evidence ___________________________________________
Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act defines Primary Evidence. Primary evidences are the most superior class of evidences. These are those evidences which are expected by the law and admissible and permissible at the first place. These are those evidences which in any possible condition gives the vital hint in a disputed fact and establishes through documentary evidence on the production of an original document by the court.
4) Secondary Evidences
Secondary evidence is defined under section 63 of the Act. These are those evidences which are entertained by the court in the absence of the Primary evidences. Therefore it is known as secondary evidences.
5) Real Evidences
Real evidences are those evidences which are real or material evidences. Real evidence or proof of a fact is brought to the knowledge of the court by an inspection of a physical object rather than by deriving an information by a witness or a document.
6) Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence is the ones which the witness has neither personally seen nor heard, nor has he perceived through his senses, but are those which have come to his knowledge through some other person. These are the most weak category of evidences.
7) Judicial Evidence
Judicial evidences are those which are given before the magistrate in the court. For example- a confession made by the accused before the magistrate in the court is an Judicial Evidence.
8) Non- Judicial Evidence
Any confession made by the accused outside the court and not in front of the magistrate but in the presence of some other person are termed as Non- Judicial evidences.
9) Direct Evidence ___________________________________________
Direct evidences are those evidences which establishes a fact. The best example of a direct evidence would be statement or confessions made by the witnesses.
10) Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial or indirect evidence are the ones which attempts to prove the facts in dispute by providing other facts. Circumstantial evidences are not definite proof. they only provide a general idea as to what occured at the crime scene.