3. Interpretation clause

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Courts

• “Court”- includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence.
• The definition of ‘court’ in this Act is framed only for the purpose of the Act itself and should not be extended beyond its legitimate scope. Special laws must be confined in their operations to their special subject. The definition of the word ‘court’ in the Act is not meant to be exhaustive- AIR 1941 Pat. 65, so in a trial by jury, the court does not exclude the jury.
• Legally authorized to take evidence- The right to take evidence is not an incident of an appellate court. Whenever an appellate court possess the right to receive evidence it is by the virtue of an express enactment such as those contained in Sec. 391, CrPC, 1973, and Order 41, R. 27, CPC
• A District Magistrate hearing an appeal under Sec. 163 of the Municipalities Act is not legally authorized to take evidence and so it is not a court- State of U. P. v. Ratan Shukla, AIR 1956 Aii. 258.
• A SDO hearing election petition under Panchayat Raj Act is not a court- AIR 1959 All. 43

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Evidence

• Evidence is an important aspect of any civil suit or criminal proceedings in a court of law because every allegation or relief in court has to be supported by some evidence otherwise it will be considered baseless.
• The Expression ‘Evidence’ is derived from the  Latin word ‘Evidentia’ which means ‘being clear’ or ‘apparent clear’ the latin word Evidene or Evidere, means to show clearly  or to prove or discover clearly. It means to make clear to the sight, to make plainly, certain, to ascertain, to prove.
• Evidence is Anything that gives reason for believing.
• According to Phipson, Evidence means the testimony, whether oral, documentary, or a real which may be legally received, in order to prove or disprove some fact in Dispute.
• According to Taylor :
  ” Evidence is adduced to prove any fact the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.”

Section – 3 of Evidence Act –Definition

• According to Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872, evidence means and includes:
• All such statements which the court allows or needs to be presented before it by the witnesses in connection to matters of fact under inquiry. These statements are termed as oral evidence.
• All such documents including any electronics record, presented before the court for inspection. These documents are termed as documentary evidence.
• The definition of word “evidence” Under Section. 3 of Indian Evidence Act is explanatory and not precise.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Types of Evidence

• • Types of Evidence
  • According to the definition given in the Indian Evidence Act, evidence can be divided into two categories:
  • Oral Evidence;
  • Documentary Evidence.
  • It should be noted that evidence can be both oral and documentary and also, electronic records can be presented in the court as evidence, which means that even in criminal cases, evidence can be presented by way of electronic records. This shall include video-conferencing.
  • Oral and documentary evidence can be divided into two categories:
  • Direct or primary; 
  • Indirect or hearsay or secondary.
  • There is also a category of real or material evidence, which is supplied by material objects for inspection of the Court such as a stolen good or the weapon of offense.

The ten types of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act are:

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. Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Evidence

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – ORAL EVIDENCE

• The provision of section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the recording of oral evidence.
• All those acceptable statements which the court assumes from the witnesses to help accomplish the direction of the truth of the facts laid before the court are called Oral Evidence. Oral evidence is that evidence which the witness has himself has seen or heard. It must always be direct. Evidence is direct when it primarily establishes the main fact in an issue.
• Example: A tells B that he will Murder C. A’s statement is oral evidence.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Documentary Evidence

• Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act states that all documents presented before the court for inspection are claimed to be documentary evidence.
• The expression ‘document’ is defined in section 3 of the Evidence Act, as follows:
  “Document”.—“Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
• Illustrations
  Writing is a document;
  Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents;
  A map or plan is a document;
  An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document;
  A caricature is a document.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Primary Evidence

• In Lucas vs Williams, Privy Council held:
• primary evidence is evidence which the law requires to be given first and secondary evidence is the evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence when a proper explanation of its absence has been given
• Primary evidence, more commonly known as best evidence, is the best available substantiation of the existence of an object because it is the actual item. It differs from secondary evidence, which is a copy of, or substitute for, the original. If primary evidence is available to a party, that person must offer it as evidence.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence

• Section 63 states it is evidence that occupies a secondary position, produced in the absence of the primary evidence; therefore, it is known as secondary evidence.
• Secondary evidence may be given in the absence of the (better) primary evidence if proper explanation is given for such absence. Section 65 of the Evidence Act provides for circumstances in which secondary evidence is admissible.
• Following are the circumstances in which secondary evidence is admissible (Section 65).

1. The person in possession of the original is not within the reach of the Court.
2. If the original is in possession of the opposite party.
3. If the original is lost.
4. When original deed had already been admitted in the Court.
5. If Original is public document.
6. When the original is not easily movable; and
7. When the original consists of many accounts.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Real Evidence

• Real or material evidence is the evidence of fact brought to the knowledge of the Court by inspection of physical object and not by information derived from the witness or documents, for e.g. stolen property, weapons, etc.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Hearsay Evidence

• It is also known as second hand or unoriginal evidence, a witness is merely reporting not what he himself saw or heard but what he has learnt in respect of the fact through the medium of the third person. It is a statement made by a witness of what he has been said and declared out of court by a person and not before the court.
• Hearsay evidence is no evidence and is not admissible in general but there are some exceptions like sec – 6 of evidence act
• A’ is being tried for stealing B’s Cycle. ‘C’ as witness says that he (C) heard ’D’ saying that ‘D’ saw ‘A’ with B’s Cycle.  Such evidence given by ‘C’ is not admissible on the ground that testimony of C is hearsay evidence.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Judicial Evidence

• Evidence received by the court of Justice in proof or disproof of facts before the court is called judicial evidence.
• Example: The confession made by the accused in the court, statements of witnesses, and documentary evidence and facts for the examination by the court are judicial evidence.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Non – Judicial Evidence

• Evidence given in the proceeding before the Magistrate or officer not in a Judicial capacity but in an administrative one, is non Judicial evidence, e.g. evidence in proceedings u/s. 164 of Cr. P.C. i.e. recording of confession and statements.
• Any confession made by the accused outside the court in the presence of any person or the admission of a party is called non-judicial evidence.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Direct Evidence

• When the facts of the case are presented before the court by witnesses, it is direct evidence.
• It is also known as ‘positive evidence’. Evidence given by direct witness / eyewitness is called Direct Evidence. Direct Evidence is the testimony of a witness to the existence or non existence of a fact or fact in issue. It is evidence of fact actually perceived by a witness with one of his own senses.
• The person who had actually seen the crime being committed can help describe the offence, and through its statement, help serve as a direction for the facts to be established in the case presented.
• A is tried for setting fire to the house. B deposes that he saw A setting Fire. B is eye witness.
• A sues B for breach of contract C deposes that he was present at the time of agreement entered into between A and B witnessed.
• In this Example C is the direct witness/ Eye witness.

Section – 3 of Evidence Act – Indirect Evidence

• There is no difference between circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence. They are synonymous
• Circumstantial evidences is that which tends to establish fact in issue by proving another fact which though does not itself conclusively establish that fact, affords and inference as to its existence.
• In the case of Hanumant vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 the Supreme Court observed:
• “In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that suspicion may take the place of legal proof. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is circumstantial, the circumstances
• from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established.
• And all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt.
• In other words, there can be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused,
• and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.

Watch this topic – Section 3 of Evidence Act Interpretation clause on YouTube