“The Indian Evidence Act is not a complete code in itself.” Comment.

Question: “The Indian Evidence Act is not a complete code in itself.” Comment

Find the answer to the mains question of the Law of Evidence only on Legal Bites. [“The Indian Evidence Act is not a complete code in itself.” Comment.]

Answer

According to Whitley Stokes and Thayer, permanent jurists of evidence: The definition of evidence in the Indian Evidence Act is complete.

Section 3 of the Act defines evidence as; the collection of statements brought in before the court, which proves or disproves the advanced arguments in relation to facts in dispute.

There are certain circumstances under, which a code of law can be said to be incomplete. For this, it is a prerequisite to check out the meaning of code before analyzing its incompleteness. The assessment of the legal completeness of a law or an enactment will be based on its lucid nature and its mastery in dealing the future contingencies.

Per contra, incompleteness in law is the ramification of its inconsistency in adapting to the dynamic status quo and inability to provide clear guidance. It also depends on the vagueness and obscurity of the same. Here comes the need for statutory interpretations, where the court steps to reduce the incompleteness. However, the court only responds and resolves the issue, which leads to the inadequacy of sources to address future novel problems.

Section 3 of the Act states the term evidence includes,

1. All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
2. all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such statements are called documentary evidence;

Hence, oral evidence is the statement of the witness or witnesses. And the documentary evidence comprises all documents (including electronic recordings) produced for the inquiry. Thus, as per this definition, the following will not be considered as a piece of evidence,

1. Statement of the parties,
2. Accused confession- The suo moto confession of the accused is not covered under ‘statement of witnesses produced before the court’.
3. Accused person’s confession about his partner or co-accused(Section 30),
4. Real evidence- Real evidence is always three-dimensional material evidence but there is no mention in IEA of it except section 16 when oral evidence of real evidence to be given, can be called to use as evidence.
5. Court presumptions out of circumstantial evidence- Sometimes, judges write about ‘demeanour of witness’ when not worthy of reliability so demeanour of witness even though included in judgment by the judge is not covered under the definition of evidence. Also, spot inspections by judges in certain cases form an important part of the appreciation of evidence in pronouncing judgment but it does not find a place in the definition of evidence.
6. Judicial notice- The court takes judicial notice of things that are already as proof available in common parlance and need not be proved but are not covered under the definition of evidence as well.

Even though Section 3 has not defined and includes the aforementioned concepts within its ambit, the court could examine these matters to determine the fact in issue.

---

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