“The rules of evidence are in general the same in civil and criminal proceedings.” Comment and state if there are any exceptions to this rule.

Question: “The rules of evidence are in general the same in civil and criminal proceedings.” Comment and state if there are any exceptions to this rule. [U.P.H.J.S. 2012, DJS 1996, HR.J.S. 2010]

Find the answer to the mains question of the Law of Evidence only on Legal Bites. [“The rules of evidence are in general the same in civil and criminal proceedings.” Comment and state if there are any exceptions to this rule.]

Answer

The rules of evidence are in general the same in civil and criminal proceedings. However, due to the different nature of civil and criminal cases, the rules applicable to them may be different. A civil case is one instituted by an individual for the purpose of securing redress for a wrong, which has been committed against him, and if he is successful he will be awarded compensation in the form of money or other personal relief.

On the other hand, a penal prosecution is instituted by the state with the aim of securing obedience to its laws via punishment. Therefore, since the relief sought as well as the purpose of instituting civil and criminal cases is different, the existence of differences regarding the strictnesses of the evidentiary rules applicable to those two cases seems proper.

Generally, the purpose of evidentiary rules is to assist the court in establishing the truth between the party’s conflicting versions of the facts in the case. However, in criminal cases, the law of evidence has a further important purpose, that is, the protection given to the accused with respect to his right to a fair trial.

The protection of the accused against the case being proven against him by evidence that is prejudicial to his right to a fair trial is one of the main reasons why the law of criminal evidence contains so many rules which exclude potentially relevant evidence from being produced before the court.

The main difference regarding evidentiary rules in civil and criminal cases lies in the required standard of proof. The “beyond reasonable doubt” standard is constitutionally mandated in criminal cases. While in civil cases, a mere preponderance of probability of evidence may be enough; in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and leave the other alternatives presented very unlikely and highly suspect.

Therefore, the law of evidence is generally the same for civil and criminal proceedings and binds like the state and its citizens, plaintiff, and defendant, prosecutor and accused, counsel and client.

There are, however, some exceptions to this general rule. They are-

1. The doctrine of estoppels only applies to civil proceedings.
2. The provisions relating to confessions (sections 24-30), the character of persons appearing before courts (sections 53-54), and the incompetence of parties as witnesses (section 120) are only peculiar to criminal proceedings.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X