Types of Evidence in Law
Laws are an essential pillar of a stable society, since by eradicating arbitrariness they ensure the smooth functioning of society.There are various procedural and substantive laws in force which lay down the basic code of conduct to be followed by individuals and the means of approaching a court of law in the event of a violation of their rights or the basic code of conduct laid down in other laws. Different lawyers view the law of proof as a set of laws to assess contentious factual issues in judicial inquiries. Everybody recognizes that the Law of Evidence is a substantive law and it determines only what facts constitute a right or a responsibility.
Whenever a lawyer puts forth a case before a court of law great stress is laid on the facts of the case. The top criminal lawyers in India and the best Supreme Court Lawyers in India look into each and every fact of the case before them as every fact is vital to a case. Evidence from which cases usually occur in the ordinary course of life and therefore all facts are to be investigated thoroughly.
Evidence law is a special piece of legislation that does not affect the legal rights of the parties, but only provides the rule to promote the course of justice. The Evidence Act simply sets the rules of evidence for the purpose of the court’s guidance. It is a procedural law that provides, among other things, how to prove a fact.
Under section 3, the term evidence is defined by the act. The act sets out that evidence means and includes; all statements that the court allows or requires witnesses to make before it in relation to the facts under investigation and all documents, including electrical records, produced for court inspection. The definition therefore speaks both of oral evidence and of documentation
Evidence is broadly classified into two types;
- Primary evidence
- Secondary evidence
Primary evidence is what a witness’s senses have personally seen, heard, or collected. Secondary evidence generally refers to indirect evidence and secondary evidence is excluded from the best rule of evidence.
Some writers and jurists have further classified evidence into direct and indirect evidence. Direct evidence goes expressly to the very point in question to prove it. Indirect evidence which is also known as circumstantial evidence does not prove the point in question directly but establishes it only by inference. Top lawyers in India often define circumstantial evidence as to evidence of circumstances. It is also referred to as presumptive evidence and ordinarily, it is not regarded as satisfactory ad direct evidence by a court of law depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. admission of circumstantial evidence requires a great deal of caution to be adopted and the following things need to be established in order to prove a person guilty based on circumstances;
- The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
- The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty
- The circumstances should be of a definitive nature and trend 4. Except for the one to be proved 5, they should exclude any possible hypothesis. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with The accused’s innocence must prove that, in all probability, the accused must have committed the act.