U2Q1_Discuss the relevancy of confession to Police IV).

Relevancy of confession to Police [sec-25,26] and

and consequential recoveries consequential recoveries[Sec-27]
1).Inadmissibility of custodial confession (Sec.25)
Table of contents 1.1).Section-25 = Confession to police officer not to be
I).Introduction proved:
II).Confession-Meaning No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved
III).Relevancy of confession [Section 24 to 30] as against a person accused of any offence.
IV).Relevancy of confession to Police [sec-25,26] and 1.2).Principle:
consequential recoveries[Sec-27] Section 25 lays down that a confession made by a person
V).Conclusion to the police officer is inadmissible and cannot be
proved. The basic object of this section and Section 26 is
I).Introduction to prevent practices of torture by the police officers for
In the law of criminal evidence, a confession is a the purpose of extracting confessions from the accused
statement by a suspect in crime which is adverse to that persons. Although both sections seek to achieve same
person. Some secondary authorities, such as Black's Law purpose they operate in different fields. It is well known
Dictionary, define a confession in more narrow terms, that the police officer to secure confession uses short cut
e.g. as "a statement admitting or acknowledging all facts methods even by putting the arrested person into third
necessary for conviction of a crime," which would be degree so that the arrested person confesses. “The
distinct from a mere admission of certain facts that, if principle upon which the rejection of confession made
true, would still not, by themselves, satisfy all the by an accused to a police-officer or while in the custody
elements of the offense. The equivalent in civil cases is a of such officer (Section 26) is founded that a confession
statement against interest. thus made or obtained is untrustworthy.” This is the
reasons for which no confession made to a police officer
II).Confession-Meaning shall be proved under section 25 as against person
According to Sir Stephen, confession is an admission accused of an offence.
made at any time by a person charged with a crime and 1.3).Case law
suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. <Narayan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1957)>
This definition of Sir Stephen was rejected in the Pakala It was stated that the confession given to a police officer
Narayanaswami vs King-Emperor (1939) case. And it would not be admissible even if the officer is given the
was held that “confession must either admit in terms the title and power of a Magistrate.
offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which
constitute the offence”, which means that there should 2).Admissibility of custodial confession (Sec.26)
be a direct acknowledgement of all facts or elements that 2.1).Section-26=Confession by accused while in custody
constitute an offence In Aghanoo Nagesia vs the State of of police not to be proved against him:
Bihar (1965), the Supreme Court held that confession is No confession made by any person whilst he is in the
a species of admission. In the State of UP vs Deoman custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the
Upadhyaya (1961), Justice Shah referred to confession immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as
as a statement made by a person stating or suggesting the against such person
inference that he has committed a crime. The word 2.2).Principle:
confession has not been defined in the Indian Evidence Section 26 is the extension of the principle laid down in
Act, 1872. Confession has been discussed under sections Section 25. While Section 25 applies to all confessions
24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act made to some police officers, this section includes
confession made to “any person” other than police
III).Relevancy of confession [Section 24 to 30] officer, while in police custody. Under this section, it is
Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with provided that no confession made by an accused to any
the relevancy of confession. Let us discuss it in detail. person while in custody of a police officer shall be
S24=Confession by Inducement, Threat or Promise proved against him unless it is made in the immediate
S25=Confession to Police Officers Not to be Proved presence of a Magistrate. Thus, the section is intended to
S26=Confession by Accused When in Custody prevent of coercive method of extorting confession.
S27=Information Received from Accused That May be The section is based upon the same logic that the police
Proved in order to secure confession uses all types of coercive
S29=Confession Otherwise Relevant Not to Become methods, because the accused is put in constant fear and
Irrelevant forced to confess. “The reason is that a person in the
S30=Consideration of Proved Confession custody of police is presumed to be under their influence
and it provides opportunities for offering inducement or given by the accused. Section 27 is by way of proviso to
extorting confession, but the presence of a Magistrate is Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of
a safe guard and guarantees the confession.” confession made in police custody which is distinctly
2.3).Case laws relates to the facto discovered in admissible in evidence
State Of Maharashtra vs Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil agreement the accused.
Ansari & on 14 March, 2013 3.4).Example
State Of U.P. vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960 The statement given by the person was “I will produce a
Commissioner Of Police, New Delhi vs Narender Singh sword concealed in the courtyard of my house with
on 5 April, 2006 which I stabbed A”. And the sword was recovered.
Kishore Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 There are two parts to this sentence. The second part i.e.
August, 1990 with which I stabbed A, is not relevant. But the
Aghnoo Nagesia vs State Of Bihar on 4 May, 1965 remaining part is relevant, which led to the discovery of
Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994 the weapon used in the offence.
Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 3.5).case laws:
December, 2006 <Navaneethakrishnan vs the State by Inspector of Police
Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 (2018)>
May, 2017 It was held that section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
Vikram Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, incorporates the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent
2010 facts. According to this doctrine, the statement made in
police custody is subject to the subsequent discovery of
3).Admissibility of information received from an facts.
accused person in custody (Sec.27) <Ram Richhapal v. State>
3.1).Introduction It is found that a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court
The recovery consequent upon the information is has observed in Ram Richhapal v. State that Section 27
commonly known as 'Section 27 Evidence Act constitutes a proviso or an exception to Sections 24, 25
Recovery' or 'Recovery Evidence'. and 26 which bar confessions made by accused persons
"Section 27 Evidence Act recovery" is consequent upon in certain cases
the concocted extra-judicial confession.
The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence V).Conclusion
Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. A confession is the admission of the crime or the guilt of
The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact an accused person. It may be said that confession is the
is discovered in a search made on the strength of any species and admission is the genus. Admission (section
information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery 17 to 23) is mere admitting or agreeing to the facts of the
is a guarantee that the information crime, but confession (25 to 30) is the acceptance or the
3.2).Section-27=How much of information received acknowledgement of the guilt of the maker. Therefore, it
from accused may be proved: is correctly said by Albert Camus – “A guilty conscience
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered needs to confess. A work of art is a confession.
in consequence of information received from a person
accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts
to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered, may be proved.
3.3).Principle:
Section 27 lays down that during the period of
investigation or during police custody any information is
given by the accused of an offence to the police officer
that leads to discover any fact, may be proved whether
such information amounts to confession or not, and
obtained under inducement, threat or promise. Section
27 is by way of a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 and a
statement even by way of confession made in police
custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is
admissible in evidence against the accused.
Under sections 24, 25 and 26 a confession which is
inadmissible would be admissible under section 27
subject to discoveries of facts on the basis of information
U2Q2_Examine the relevancy of dying declarations speak only truth. Indian law recognises this fact that “a
in dowry death cases dying man seldom lies”.

Table of contents IV).Dowry - meaning

I).Synopsis the modern practice of dowry has no resemblance to its
II).Dying declaration-Definition and Meaning original concept as enshrined in Hindu law. The practice
III).Relevancy of dying declarations [Reason for which was mainly voluntary has now become a demand
admitting dying declarations in evidence] from the groom’s side. Women after marriage are
IV).Dowry - meaning considered to be a burden in their new family and are
V).Essentials for proving dowry death demanded money as compensation for their expenses by
VI).Dying declarations in dowry death cases the husbands and his family members. This practice is
VII).Case laws not limited to the women who are not earning but
VIII).Conclusion extends to those women as well who are earning and are
not financially dependent on their husbands.
I).Synopsis Many times, if the demands of the husbands and his
Dying Declaration is a statement made by the person family members are not met, women are harassed and
while he was dying and states the reason for his death. even killed in many cases. The killing of women for
The statement given by the dying person can be dowry became so persistent that the Indian legislature
circumstantial or tells the cause for his death. Hence, the enacted stern laws to curb it
only statement given just before the death of a person is
called Dying Declaration. The person who is conscious V).Essentials for proving dowry death
of Compos Mentis and knows that death is about to In order to establish dowry death, certain conditions
happen can make a declaration and state the cause of his have to be fulfilled:
death and that statement will be Admissible and treated a).The death must have been caused due to burns, or any
as Evidence in the Court. Declaration made by the bodily injury or otherwise under unnatural
deceased person can be in oral, written and by conduct. circumstances.
b).The death must have been caused within 7 years of
II).Dying declaration-Definition and Meaning the marriage.
When the statement is made by a person as to the cause c).The woman must have been harassed by her husband
of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the or his relatives soon before the death.
transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which d).The harassment must be for or in connection with the
the cause of that person's death comes into question. demand of dowry.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who Once these essentials are established, then, the accused
made them was or was not, at the time when they were will be presumed to have committed the crime as per
made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his
death comes into question. VI).Dying declarations in dowry death cases
In the cases of dowry death, bride burning where the
III).Relevancy of dying declarations [Reason for death took place in a short period then dying declaration
admitting dying declarations in evidence] of that women would be admissible in the court of law.
The statement made by the deceased person will be Moreover, where there is a case of Dowry’s death, the
treated as Evidence and Admissible in a Court of law. dying declaration should be noted or recorded soon in
The reason behind this can be followed by Latin maxim the medico-legal register by a medical officer and it
Nemo Mariturus Presumuntur Mentri which means that should importantly be signed by him. In the case of the
“Man Will Not Meet His Maker With Lying On His state of U.P v. Harimohan, the victim wrote a letter to
Mouth. More precisely in our Indian law, it is the fact her father to take her home otherwise his mother-in-law
that the dying man can never lie or Truth sits on the lips and brother-in-law would murder her, two days before
of dying man. Hence, the Dying Declaration is when the murder took place. Then in this case the dying
Admissible and considered as Evidence in Court, and declaration in the form of the letter given by women.
can be used as a weapon to punish the culprit
In case Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan. Court held that VII).Case laws
dying declaration is admitted upon consideration is made <Ram Kumar @ Nanki v. State of Madhya Pradesh>
in extremity; when the maker of the statement is at his In this case, the court first established that the declarant
bed end, every hope of this world is gone; and every was in a fit state of mind to make the statement, saying
motive of falsehood is silenced and mind induced to that the lack of a medical certificate does not bar the
declaration from being accepted as long as it was
rational and did not blame third parties. Furthermore, The court relied on the medical evidence and held the
despite the fact that the death happened within seven accused guilty of dowry death.
years of marriage in this case, the statement indicated
categorically that the declarant set herself on fire during <Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2013>
a personal disagreement. Due to a lack of evidence a dying declaration of a woman was recorded in which
indicating the spouse requested dowry and the she told how her husband used to harass her and taunt
prosecution's inability to build a prima facie case under her for bringing inadequate dowry and how she set
Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, the appellant was herself to fire on getting tired of such conduct. The
given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted by the court. husband, on the other side, argued that her larynx and
trachea were burnt and thus, she was not in a condition
<Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan 2009> to make any statement. The medical experts stated that
it was alleged by the father of the woman that she had she was in a condition to speak and clarified that if the
been burnt and was being harassed for dowry. As per the larynx and trachea of a person are burnt then that person
medical evidence, the whole body of the woman was cannot speak. However, if they are in the process of
burnt and the bones of her skull were broken. It was being burnt, then the person is capable of speaking.
opined by the doctor that the woman was killed before Further, if the vocal cord of the larynx is burnt, then the
she was burnt. The court, relying on the medical person will be able to speak unclearly. The court relied
evidence, held the accused guilty of dowry death. on the medical evidence and upheld the dying
declaration of the woman convicting the accused with
<Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra 2006> the charges of dowry death under Section 304B of the
a woman was killed by hanging her to death. However, IPC.
the defence argued that she died due to a snake bite. The
medical evidence clarified that she died due to asphyxia <Paniben v. State of Gujarat 1992>
caused by compression of the neck and not by snakebite the Supreme Court observed that even though the Dowry
since there was no evidence of poison in her body. Prohibition Act, 1961 has improved the position of
Relying on the medical evidence, the court held the women in the society, it is not enough to control the
accused guilty of dowry death. crime completely.

<State of Karnataka v. Chowdegowda 2007> VIII).Conclusion

where a woman named Mahadevamma was killed by her Dowry is one such evil practice that has been taking the
in-laws for dowry. The facts are as follows: When lives of innocent women for ages. Women are not only
Mahadevamma married, there was an agreement killed or forced to commit suicide but the facts of their
between the families that an amount of 20000 along with death are misrepresented in such a way that the
6 tolas of gold would be given as dowry in two offenders get acquitted instead of getting punished.
instalments. After marriage, she was continuously Medical evidence, thus, plays a very crucial role in
demanded money by her in-laws. After her death, the placing the offenders of dowry death in the right place
defence argued that she had epilepsy and died due to the by shedding light on the actual cause of death. As has
injuries sustained by falling from stairs. However, the been emphasized in the above-mentioned cases, it was
medical evidence was saying something else. As per the due to medical evidence that the offenders of the crime
medical experts, the woman had severe red congestion were convicted who might have gone undiscovered.
around her neck and her chest had small superficial Therefore, medical evidence ensures that justice is
abrasions. delivered.

<Deen Dayal v. State of UP 2009>

the body of a dead woman was recovered from a well.
The prosecution argued that she was killed and thrown
in the well by her husband for not fulfilling the dowry
demands. However, the husband pleaded innocence by
claiming that she slipped into the well and died as a
result of the accident. However, the medical evidence
revealed that she died because of a coma resulting from
an injury on her head. Further, there was no water in her
lungs or the windpipe. The medical experts opined that
such kind of injury cannot be caused by falling into the
well with water in it.
U2Q3_All confessions are admissions but all A confession may be of the different type according to
admissions are not confessions the matter of the cases. Broadly confession is
differentiated into two different statuses like- when the
Table of contents confession by the means of statements is given itself in
I).Synopsis the court of law then such confession will be considered
II).Admissions - overview as judicial confession, whereas, when the confession by
III).Confessions - overview the way of statements is produced at any place other than
IV).All confessions are admissions but all admissions court then such confession will lead towards
are not confessions extrajudicial confession.
V).Conclusion
IV).All confessions are admissions but all admissions
I).Synopsis are not confessions
The term ‘Admission’ means stating something or All confessions are Admissions, but all Admissions are
admitting something other than guilt. So now the not Confessions…
question is does confession also meant the same. The The Difference between Admission and Confession will
answer is no, as there is a very thin life difference prove this statement as below...
between confession and admission. The word
‘confession’ means acknowledgment of guilt made by a # Admission Confession
person after an offense has been committed. 1 If a statement is made If a statement made by a
by a party in civil party charged with
II).Admissions - overview proceeding it will be crime, in criminal
Section 17 to 23, specifically deals with the portions called as admission proceeding, it is called as
related to admission, in evidence act. a confession
As per the section 17 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 2 The expression The expression
“An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or ‘Admission’ means ‘Confession’ means “a
contained in electronic form, which suggests any “voluntary statement made by an
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and acknowledgement of accused admitting his
which is made by any of the persons, and under the the existence or truth guilt. If a person accused
circumstances mentioned in the act. of a particular fact” of an offense (accused)
Admissions can be either formal or informal.The formal makes a statement
admission is also called as judicial admission which is against himself, it is
made at the time of the judicial proceeding, while the called confession.
informal admission is those admissions which are made 3 An admission is Confession is specie
in during the normal day to day activity like in the genius, which means hence all confessions are
normal course of life. Formal admission or the judicial all admission does admissions but all
admissions are completely admissible by the Court of not includes admissions are not
law under Section 58 of the same act and has much confession confessions.
higher probative value into substantive any fact. They 4 The Term Admission Confession is the term
are generally rebuttable in nature and require no further is applicable to a for admission of guilt
proof to disprove the facts admitted in a court of law statement, oral or in made in the criminal
unless the court asks for the same. writing made by a side.
party on civil side.
III).Confessions - overview 5 An admission is not A confession, if
The term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined or expressed conclusive proof of voluntarily and free, may
in the Indian Evidence Act, but the inference explained the matters admitted in discretion of the judge
under the definition of admission in Section 17 of Indian and is always or magistrate, by itself be
evidence Act also applies to confession in the same rebuttable. accepted as conclusive
manner. proof of matters
Thus, the confession is something which is made by the confessed and is alone
person who is charged with any criminal offences and sufficient to warrant a
such statements conferred by him shall be suggesting a conviction.
conclusion as to any fact in issue or as to relevant facts. 6 An admission may be But confession always
We may also define the confession in other words that proved by or behalf goes against the person
the admission by the accused in the criminal proceedings of the person making making it
is a confession. it.
7 An admission may be While an agent can never
made by an agent in make confession of an 1 has been prescribed. for recording u/s 164 of
course of business. offense against a co- Cr.P.C.
defendant.
8 Admission by one of Confession made by one
the several or two or more accused V).Case laws
defendants in suit is jointly tried for the same
not evidence against offense can be taken into 1).Admissions are the Substantive Evidence
other defendants. consideration against the <Bharat Singh And Anr Vs Bhagirathi>
co-accused The Supreme Court here observed that Admissions are
9 Retraction is not Retraction is possible in substantive evidence under the Indian Evidence Act they
possible in Confession are not the conclusive proof of the admitted matter. As it
Admission does not matter that whether the party is making witness
1 It can be used on the Confession is always to appear in the witness box or that party was confronted
0 behalf of the person against the person who with those statements that they had made.It was under
who makes it as it is makes it as it is made by Section 17 and 21 of the Act.
made by the agent to the accused itself.
the party in 2).Admissions Can be Used Against the Party who Made
proceeding or by the The Statement
third party <Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya Vs The State of Bombay>
1 It is not conclusive in It is conclusive in nature The Court held that the statements made by the parties
1 nature could be used as admissions against them even if they
1 Admissions may be If the confessions are might not have communicated to any other person. For
2 operated as estoppels purposefully and are example the bank statements in the account book of a
because they are not made on someone’s own person that tells that he was indebt can be used as
conclusive as to the will then it may be admissions against him even though these were never
facts admitted by the accepted as conclusive of communicated by the person.
person who in his the facts confessed by
statement admit some the confessor. 3).Witness could Be Confronted with the Previous
facts Statements
1 Additional evidence Here guilt can be proved <Tara Singh Vs The State>
3 is required to prove on the basis of The Court held that the evidence in the Court cannot be
the guilt. confessional statement. used in the Sessions Court unless the witness is
1 It is not regarded as It is regarded as confronted with the previous statement. This is
4 Conclusive proof u/s conclusive proof, if it is mentioned in section 145of the Indian Evidence Act.
31. made voluntarily and Witness is cross examined with the previous statements
truly made. if this satisfies the prosecution then nothing more is
1 It is usually not Confession is relevant if required to do so but if it does not then the examination
5 relevant if it is made it is made on promise of could lead forward. Then only the matter could be
on promise of secrecy secrecy u/s 29. brought as substantive evidence under Section 288.
u/s 23.
1 Persons who are not Confession can be made
6 parties can make only by an accused.
admission u/s. 18, 19 4).Party Must be True unless Contrary is Shown
& 20. <Nathoo Lal Vs Durga Prasad>
1 It may not be It must be direct, free The Court here held that as any of the admissions made
7 Voluntarily made. and voluntarily made. by the parties in the suits are a very important piece of
1 It cannot be used It may be used against a evidence and the persons who are related to the subject-
8 against the co- co-accused u/s 30. matter of the case and are the real parties in interest but
plaintiff or defendant. are not on record. On the other hand, if a person is a
1 It may be used in It is always used against party in the suit but does not have any interest in the
9 favor of the maker as the persons who make it. subject matter of the case then his statement would not
exception u/s.21 be an admission. Hence it was observed that what is
admitted by a party to be true should be presumed to be
2 It is relevant when It is irrelevant when
true unless the contrary is shown.
0 made in police made in police custody
custody u/s 27. u/s 25 & 26.
2 No form of admission It has prescribed format
5).Plaintiff Could Not be Bound by Decision Based on
Special Oath
<K.M. Singh Vs Secretary, Association of Indian
Universities and Others>
It was held by the Court that as per Section 20 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the oath as per the
plaintiff’s statement was administered and hence no
doubt was on the manner that the two persons who took
the oath according to Section 20. The two persons here
were the plaintiff’s nominee by the virtue of Section 20
of the Evidence Act. Thus the orders of the court were
unassailable and the High Court dismissed the petition.

V).Conclusion
It can be said that Admission has a wider scope than
confession as every Confession is an Admission but
every Admission is not Confession. Its distinction is
important because it shall give explanation to the
statements which are admissible in the Court of Law
under the Act of 1872. As if a statement is found to be
Admission it shall be admissible under Section 21 and if
it’s vice- versa it shall be admissible under Section 24 to
30. Hence by this we come to know that Confession is
made by a person who is under Criminal proceedings
and Admission is made by a person who is under civil
proceedings.
As per the provision of the Indian evidence act, hearsay
evidence cannot be considered evidence because such is
not direct evidence.
Suppose we refer to section 60 of the Indian evidence
U2Q4_Hearsay evidence is no evidence - Justify act, which clearly says that in terms of oral evidence.
statement along with its exceptions The information is given by a witness who is gathered
from another that cannot be treated as full proof and
Table of contents direct evidence.
1).Introduction
II).Types of evidence under the Indian evidence act IV).Hearsay evidence is no evidence
III).Meaning of Hearsay Evidence 1).Oral evidence must be direct
IV).Hearsay evidence is no evidence Evidence given by the witness may be oral or
V).Exceptions to hearsay Evidence documentary.
VI).Conclusion Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act says that, oral
Evidence to be admissible, it must be direct.
1).Introduction In other words, Hearsay Evidence is no evidence.
Evidence is an essential part of the legal proceedings to A statement oral or written, by a person not called as
prove or disprove the fact and truth of the event, and it witness comes under the general rule of hearsay.
enables the court to pass appropriate judgment.
Many kinds of evidence available in India these are 2).Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
governed under the Indian evidence act,1872; hearsay Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct; that
evidence is among them, which is directly not counted as is to say -
evidence, but it has some provision to prove the If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the
accuracy or relevance of truth. In this article, we discuss evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
the hearsay evidence rule according to the Indian If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the
evidence act, of 1872. evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any
II).Types of evidence under the Indian evidence act: other sense or in any other manner, it must be the
1).Oral evidence evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that
2).Documentary evidence sense or in that manner;
3).Primary evidence If it refers to opinions or to the grounds in which that
4).Secondary evidence opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person
5).Real evidence who holds that opinion on those grounds
6).Judicial evidence Provided that the opinion of experts expressed in any
7).Non-judicial Evidence treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on
8).Direct Evidence which such opinions are held, may be proved by the
9).Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence production of such treatise if the author is dead or cannot
10).Hearsay Evidence be found or has become incapable of giving evidence or
cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay
III).Meaning of Hearsay Evidence: or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.
Hearsay Evidence means whatever a person is heard to Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the
say it includes: i) A statement made by a person, not existence or condition of any material thing other than a
called as witness; ii) A statement contained or recorded document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the
in any book, document or record which is not production of such material thing for its inspection.
admissible. The hearsay witness may not be able to say
correctly and completely the truth of his statement. 3).Conditions:
As stated above, The fundamental principle of law of
In simple words, we can say the general meaning of evidence is: Hearsay Evidence must not be admitted.
hearsay is a combination of two words like hear and say. Hearsay Evidence is also known as derivative or second
Which is not define particular knowledge of an event. hand or unoriginal evidence. It is the evidence of facts,
When a witness is heard, he gives some information which the witnesses has not learnt through his own
regards the event from another say. Such type of bodily senses, but learnt through the medium of others.
evidence may treat as second-hand evidence, which is It is regarded as ambiguous and misleading.
never permissible like direct evidence.
4).Exclusion of hearsay evidence:
Section 60 excludes hearsay Evidence. The evidence of It is provided that evidence is given by a witness in the
fact the happening of which could be seen can be given proceeding can be used as an evidence of the truth of the
only by an eyewitness. If the evidence refers to a fact facts stated in any subsequent proceeding between the
which could be perceived by any order sense or in any same parties, provided that the witness has died or is, for
other manner, it shall be the evidence of a person who some other reasons, not available.
Personally perceived it by that sense or in that manner.
Thus in all cases, the evidence has to be that of person
who himself witnessed the happening of the fact of
which he gives Evidence. such witnesses is called as eye 5) Statements in public documents (Section 35)
witnesses or a witness of fact and the principle is known The statement in public document such as, the Acts of
as that of direct Oral Evidence or of the exclusion of the Parliament, official books and registers can be
hearsay Evidence. proved by the production of the documents and it is not
necessary to produce before the court the draftsman of
5).Reasons for Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence: the documents.
The reasons for exclusion of hearsay Evidence are as
follows: 6) Opinions of Experts (Section 45- Section 51) :
1) Hearsay Evidence cannot be tested by Cross- It is provided that the opinion of experts expressed in
Examination. any treaties commonly offered for sale and the ground
2) It supposes some better evidence and encourages on which such opinions are held may be proved by the
substitution of weaker for stronger evidence. production of such treaties if the author is dead or cannot
3) Hearsay Evidence is intrinsically weak. found or become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot
4) The evidence is not given on oath or under personal be called as witness without an amount of delay or
responsibility by the original declarant. expense which the court regards reasonable. Thus the
5) It has a Tendency to protect legal investigation opinion of experts can be cited in his absence only.
6) As truth depreciates in the process of repetition, it is
not reliable. 7) Entries in books of Accounts (Section 34)
7) Its reception will increase opportunities for
fabrication VI).Conclusion
The evidence given in the case enables the court to pass
V).Exceptions to hearsay Evidence a relevant, accurate judgment but should be proved
1) Res gestae under Section 6 : without reasonable doubt. After discussing the above
The statement of a person may be proved through details, we can conclude that there is also a value of
another person who appears as a witness if the statement hearsay evidence that will come on the record when
is a part of the transaction issue hearsay evidence proves according to the above
provisions of the Indian evidence act,1872.
2) Admission and Confessions (Under Section 17 -
Section 23 and Section 24 - Section 30) :
An admission of liability or confession of guilt which
takes place outside the court is proved through the
testimony of the witnesses to whom the admission or
confession was made. such witness is not a witness of
fact as he has not seen or observed the main occurance
through nay of his sense but had only heard about it
from the mouth of the party who admitted his liability or
confessed to the guilt.

3) Statement Relevant :
Statements by a person who cannot be called as a
witness (Dying Declaration. Section 32(1). Statements,
which are mostly the statements of the deceased persons
who are not available as witnesses. The evidence of such
statement is therefore, the evidence of hearsay and it
specially declared to be relevant.

4) Evidence given in former proceedings (Section 33)