Introduction:
The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 serves as a framework for determining the admissibility and relevance of a specific item used to support or refute a claim presented in court. The act's Section 3 divides evidence into two categories: oral and documentary. The testimony of witnesses before a court may be utilized as oral evidence. Items like written testimony, documents, photos, maps, videos, and electronic records of data can all be used as documentary evidence. The act has to be followed both in civil and criminal cases. The act being enacted in 1872 contains areas that need change in order to meet the modern requirements.
The Loopholes:
Expeditious remedy is the goal of every law suit, be it civil or criminal. Evidence plays a very important role to reach to this remedy. The Indian Evidence Act to some extent lacks to provide a quicker and a more efficient process.
With the aid of established legal precedents, the interpretation of the act's current provisions has grown through time (see cases like Yashoda vs K. Shobha Rani , Prithi Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh). However, the act has undergone significant revisions time-to-time to add measures pertinent to the newly emerging issues of the modern day, such as those incorporated in the 2000 Amendment that permitted the acceptance of electronic documents as evidence (sections 65A and 65B). But there are still provisions that need scrutiny as they either prolong the duration of a case or not provide enough grounds for the admissibility of a certain thing as evidence. The following are some of the identified lacunas of the act:
Determining the legitimacy of a child with the question of access and no-access: Section 112 is used to determine the legitimacy of a child. But it functions more on morality as it fails to take into account the possibility of situations like adultery. If a kid is born during a marriage or 280 days after a marriage ends, as long as the mother has not remarried, this clause deems the child to be legitimate. In these situations, the husband's ability to demonstrate that he wasn't present at the time the kid was conceived is the sole remaining means of challenging the validity of the legitimacy of the child (the question of access and no-access). In addition, because this Act was passed before the development of these technologies and has not since been modified, DNA testing is not addressed in it. The usage of which would have reduced the time of proving the whole thing and would have made the process easier.
Issues with Expert opinion: Section 45 of the act provides for expert opinions on issues pertaining to foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting and finger impression. But the act fails to mention the requisite qualification of these experts. Expert opinions, especially if medical, plays a lot of importance in determining the fate of a case (see Golappa Avana Naik v. State). And hence having a precise requisite for the qualification and experience of the expert becomes necessary. Even after providing a written certified opinion, the expert is required to be present in court and restate the same conclusion while under oath. This adds needless time and difficulty to the process of disposing of a case.
Conclusion and Suggestions:
The importance of evidence cannot be debated. The Burkapal acquittal can be considered as one of the classic examples of what happens when a lacuna is found in the collected evidence. The 185th Law commission report on the act merely reviewed its previous attempt (69th law commission report). The Commission's methodology and approach might both be viewed as though the 69th Report's incorporation into the Evidence Act was being examined for effectiveness rather than the Evidence Act itself. Some oddities in the report include the Commission's attempt to contradict itself when it acknowledged that the Act's definition of the term "evidence" was not thorough while at the same time failing to offer any recommendations. However, the Commission has suggested and made significant changes to the Act as a whole, and has done so with the backing of reason and authorities. But the unfortunate aspect is that despite the recommendations, no changes to this outdated legislation were made.
The following ideas are suggested:
Incorporations on the use of contemporary technologically advanced resources and streamlining how different clauses are interpreted can be made.
Provisions can be framed to encourage the usage of audio-video means while a statement is being recorded or the usage of any technologically driven resources during investigation.
Every state or a region can be asked to come up with a list of trusted experts chosen by the relevant authorities who then can be approached for opinion for evidence.
The provisions to manage science, technology and forensic science issues can be included.
The provisions requiring the setting up of cameras in police stations where the crucial First Information Reports (FIRs) are filled will make the procedure more transparent.
With the crime rates being so high, encouraging the usage of cameras on streets will help provide evidence when a crime takes place and expedite the process especially in the cases of Road Rage, Rape, Drink & Drive and others.
The precedents set by courts over the years should be considered and corroborated by adding the correct & relevant ones in the act (eg-the numerous attempts to interpret the ambit of the word ‘fact’ under section 27 of the act). It is crucial that the laws governing evidence are periodically changed to reflect the evolving social and technological breakthroughs. The statute has to be improved in order to enable effective and quick procedures.
Written By,
Anjali Nair,
Intern, Chanchlani Law World
Comments