“Law of Evidence is not about determining the consequences of facts but establishing those facts.”[1]
In India, judicial investigation is particularly challenging, and judges in all civil and criminal cases must decide without a jury, increasing the risk of miscarriage of justice from an uninformed court rather than undue influence. Therefore, it is better to provide every opportunity for truth to be admitted, even at the risk of falsehood or error being mixed in, rather than restrict the channels for truth to exclude falsehood.
The Law of Evidence is the most crucial branch of adjectival law. It is to legal practice what logic is to all reasoning. The use of rules of evidence is critical to legal trials. It helps judges to discern relevant facts from irrelevant ones, make sound judgments, and draw correct inferences from circumstances. By relying on this guide, judges can navigate their way among the dangers of perjury, fraud, and forgery that often arise in trials. This ensures a fair trial for all parties and prevents unnecessary delays and expenses.
The main principleswhich underlie the law of evidence are:
(1) evidence must be confined to the matters in issue;
(2) hearsay evidence must not be admitted; and
(3) the best evidence must be given in all cases.
The reason to avoid hearsay evidence is that oral evidence of a witness will have value only when he can be held responsible for its truth by cross-examination by the opposite party; secondly, hearsay evidence has no prima facie assurance of truth, and thirdly, avoidance of hearsay evidence is not merely a technical rule under the Evidence Act. Still, it is a rule of natural justice, although, in Labour courts, authority can rely on hearsay evidence.
That’s hearsay evidence when someone tells a court what someone else said. It’s only allowed in certain situations when the person who said it can’t be there to speak for themselves. Usually, hearsay isn’t allowed in court.
In A. v. Al-Khwaja, a woman accused a doctor of indecent assault. She died before the trial, so her statement was used as hearsay evidence. The court allowed it because of a law called the Criminal Justice Act of 1988. This law lets courts use first-hand document evidence in certain situations.
The law was updated in 2003. It now allows hearsay evidence if it’s in the interest of justice. In R. v. Xhabri, the defendant was charged with false imprisonment, rape, threats, and controlling prostitution. The woman had told her mother, father, a neighbor, and a police officer about the incident before she died.
In Nanuram v. State of M.P., 2005
In this case, the husband was alleged to have committed the murder of his wife on the night of their honeymoon; the letters exchanged by the deceased and accused in sorting out the misunderstanding whatever crept between them before the registration of their marriage are not admissible in evidence under Section 6 of the Evidence act as these facts are not part of the same transaction of a fact in issue. In a case of molestation of a woman, the evidence of the victim is of paramount importance, and the version given by the third person is merely hearsay. It cannot be used as corroboration to the evidence of the victim, and the evidence of the victim cannot be rejected only on the ground that there is any variation in details of the incident given by the third person to that of the victim herself. In a murder case, the statements of the witnesses, who reached the spot after the occurrence, that the father of the accused had told them that the accused had killed the deceased with an axe, which the father of the accused denied, were based on hearsay.
So, they are merely inadmissible in evidence as not covered by Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Where the witness deposed that when he reached the spot after the occurrence, the wife of the deceased told him that her husband, along with her father, was assaulted by the accused persons with a sword and lathi. The wife of the deceased could not be examined as she had died before the commencement of the trial; the statement of the witness was held to be not admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res gestae because disclosure by the wife of the deceased to this witness about the incidence though connected with the information of crime, the same did not form the part of the same transaction. His statement was hit by hearsay evidence.
Hearsay evidence isn’t based on personal knowledge but on someone else’s words. It’s not usually allowed in court, but sometimes it can be used. The Evidence Act of 1872 explains when hearsay is permitted. “hearsay” refers to statements made by someone other than the witness who is testifying. Hearsay evidence is unreliable because it is based on the witness’s credibility and someone else’s. The word “hearsay” has different meanings. Sometimes, it refers to anything someone has said; sometimes, it refers to information someone has received from another source; and sometimes, it refers to information irrelevant to the case. Typically, evidence based on what someone else has said or done is considered irrelevant and cannot be used as proof. Relevant evidence must be based on firsthand knowledge.
Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible because it’s essential to have the person who made the statement in court to be cross-examined. The term “hearsay evidence” is not used in the Evidence Act because it’s unclear or accurate. It’s a fundamental rule of Indian law that hearsay evidence is not admissible. Statements made by someone outside the courtroom, whether written or spoken, are irrelevant and cannot be used as proof.
Hearsay evidence is not admissible because it’s often weak and does not provide the necessary evidence to prove a fact. Also, it can be easily manipulated, leading to legal investigations that are unnecessarily long and dangerous. Hearsay evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination, which is another reason it’s not admissible.
If a witness testifies about something someone else told them, it’s not considered valuable evidence. The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity, and the court needs to focus on reliable evidence.
Although there are some exceptions to the hearsay rule:
Dying Declaration (Section 32): A notable exception to the hearsay rule in India involves admitting statements made by individuals on the brink of death under the belief that death is imminent. Such statements are considered admissible as evidence, as a person in such a critical condition is assumed to have no incentive to lie.
Statement of a Deceased Person (Section 32): Statements made by a deceased person can be accepted as evidence if they pertain to the cause of death or any circumstances related to the incident leading to the person’s demise.
Statement Against Interest (Section 32): Statements made by an individual against their interest are admissible, as it is presumed that people generally avoid making statements detrimental to their interests unless they are truthful.
Statements in Documents (Section 32): Statements found in documents like wills, deeds, and agreements are admissible if they are relevant to the matter under consideration. This is known as the “doctrine of admission against interest.”
Statement in the Course of Business (Section 32): Statements made by an individual as part of regular business practices, especially in books of account or other records, are considered permissible.
Public Documents (Sections 74-75): Public documents maintained by a public officer or permissible under the law are exceptions to the hearsay rule. These documents encompass government records, official publications, and certified copies of public documents.
Res Gestae (Section 6): Statements forming an integral part of a transaction, so closely connected that they become inseparable from it, are admissible. These statements must be made contemporaneously with the transaction and provide a description or explanation.
Provided highlights some common concerns associated with hearsay evidence, explaining why it is generally not considered reliable or relevant in legal proceedings. Let’s break down each point:
(a) Lack of Personal Responsibility: Hearsay evidence involves a statement made by someone not testifying in court but instead repeating what someone else said. This lack of personal responsibility can be problematic because the person providing hearsay evidence may not be under oath or subject to cross-examination. This makes it difficult to assess the credibility and reliability of the information.
(b) Dilution of Truth with Repetition: The point here is that each time information is passed from one person to another, there is a potential for distortion or misunderstanding. The original statement may be altered or misinterpreted, leading to inaccuracies. As a result, the truth can be diluted and diminished with each repetition, making the hearsay evidence less reliable.
(c) Potential for Fraud and False Rumors: Allowing hearsay evidence could provide ample opportunities for fraud. Individuals might intentionally or unintentionally spread false information, creating a chain of unreliable statements. This could lead to baseless accusations or conclusions based on inaccurate or manipulated information. By disallowing hearsay evidence, the legal system aims to prevent the introduction of unverified and potentially fraudulent information.
In essence, the exclusion of hearsay evidence is designed to ensure that information presented in court is reliable, subject to scrutiny through cross-examination, and given under the personal responsibility of the witness. This helps maintain the integrity of the legal process and the accuracy of the evidence presented in legal proceedings.
The rules of evidence have been developed by courts for over four centuries to ensure that the evidence presented is not solely based on beliefs or opinions unless the person is an expert. Although it may be frustrating for laypeople, the rules allow parties to proceed with their cases without fear of unchallengeable testimony being entered into evidence. The ability to cross-examine witnesses is essential for an effective defense and an objective trier of fact. The admissibility of hearsay evidence is a complex issue that requires a delicate balance between the pursuit of truth and the protection of fair trial rights.
Hearsay can be valuable, but it also challenges reliability and potential prejudice. The rules governing hearsay evidence vary significantly across jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions have embraced a liberal approach, recognizing exceptions and allowing for the admission of hearsay under certain circumstances. In contrast, others adhere to stricter standards, emphasizing the need for firsthand testimony to ensure the integrity of the legal process. Ultimately, the admissibility of hearsay evidence reflects the broader tension within the legal system, which is a tension between the imperative to uncover the truth and the essential to uphold fundamental principles of fairness and reliability. Legal practitioners, policymakers, and scholars must engage in ongoing discussions to refine and adapt rules to the evolving nature of litigation and justice demands. The legal community must remain vigilant in pursuing a system that ensures justice while respecting the rights of all parties involved in the judicial process. The Hearsay Rule is thus central to the proper operation of truth-seeking in the courts.
[1] MC CORMICK ON EVIDENCE, 3rd Edn., 1984, p. 1.
Author: Shubham Verma
Juris Centre 