Comparison of definition of Evidence in IEA and BSA

 


Read More on New Criminal Laws.

Vande Matram Friends!

Welcome to the blog series of New Criminal Laws in Bharat. In this blog I am comparing the provisions regarding definition of 'evidence' in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). To read more such blogs on the comparison and interpretation of these two statutes, please follow this blog and share it with others.

Before going further note some things regarding the presentation of the things. Provisions given in Red colour are from IEA and those given in Blue colour are from BSA.

Evidence:

For easy reference both definitions are reproduced here:

Evidence under Section 3 of IEA:

“Evidence”. ––“Evidence” means and 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 documents are called documentary evidence.

Evidence under Section 2 (e) of BSA:

2(e)        "evidence" means and includes—

(i)   all statements including statements given electronically which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and such statements are called oral evidence;

(ii) all documents including electronic or digital records produced for the inspection of the Court and such documents are called documentary evidence;

In both enactments, there are two types of evidences included in definition one is oral evidence and other is documentary evidence.

Let us first discuss the ‘oral evidence’. As per definition of ‘oral evidence’ in both enactments

·         An oral evidence is a statement,

·         That statement is given by the witness,

·         The statement is permitted by the Court or it is required to be made before the Court.

·         The statement is in relation to the matter of fact under inquiry.

·         Only difference is that definition under BSA includes statement given electronically, while in IEA such statement is not included.

·         “Statement given electronically” is a new term and required to be discussed and defined separately.

Now let us discuss the term ‘documentary evidence’. As per both definitions in IEA and BSA,

·         A documentary evidence is a document

·         Such document is produced for the inspection of the Court.

·         Such type of document includes the electronic record.

·         The term ‘electronic record’ was inserted in IEA by Act 21 of 2000 i.e. Information Technology Act, 2000.

·         In BSA the term ‘digital record’ is also inserted in the inclusive definition of the documentary evidence.

Justification of the amendments under BSA:

·         During the COVID-19 pandemic, Courts all over the world were functioning using digital technology. Filing was done by scanning of the plaints and hearing was done through video conferencing. Even I used to scan and mail the petitions to the Court on the designated email address and used to assist my senior college in online hearing through video conferencing. Due to this digital revolution, I worked for judiciary from my home. Few of hearings I attended from shelter of my agricultural farm, which was a different experience. Digitalisation of every document and proceeding is need of time to continue work in situations like pandemic.

·         Now a days all the filing is done online. Hence all the proceedings are conducted electronically and digitally in certain situations. Hence it is necessary to include oral evidence given electronically in the definition of the term ‘evidence’

·         All the government records are being digitalised for easy access by the concerned person. Digital India made it possible. Hence the term ‘digital record’ must be there in the definition of ‘documentary evidence’.

·         The amendment of the definition of ‘evidence’ which is including ‘statement given electronically’ and ‘digital record’ are need of the hour. 


Read More on New Criminal Laws.

Thank you for reading till the end. Please share this blog with friends and family. Your comments are welcomed so feel free to comment. Bharat Mata Ki Jay!

#NewCriminalLaws, #LawOfEvidence, #Bharat, #CriminalJurisprudence, #BNS, #BNSS, #BSA, #IPC, #CRPC, #IEA,

Support me by scanning this QR Code.



References:

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Download pdf

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Download pdf


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Legal interpretations from Ayodhya Verdict Part 8

Image
  =================== Jay Shree Ram! These are some notes from Ayodhya Verdict regarding legal interpretations of certain statutory provisions: Read more Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Principle as to personality of institutions.- Apart from natural persons and corporations, which are recognised by English law, the position under Hindu law is that if an endowments is made for a religious or charitable institution, without the instrumentality of a trust, and the object of the endowment is one which is recognised as pious, being either religious or charitable under the accepted notions of Hindu law, the institution will be treated as a juristic person capable of holding property. – Justice B K Mukhergea Upon making an endowment, the donor relinquishes all claims to the endowed property. The property now vests in the pious purpose at the heart of the endowment which is recognised as a legal person. The idol forms the material manifestation of th...
Read more

Forfeiture of Citizenship in USA

  UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs M/s. GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. Forfeiture of Citizenship in USA: The aforesaid proposition has also been confirmed by the House of Lords in R v. H, [2003] 1 ALL ER 497. 17.19 In Kennedy v Mendoza¬Martinez, 372 US 144 (1963), the Supreme Court of the United States, while concerned with the constitutionality of legislation that imposed forfeiture of citizenship on those who had left or remained outside the United States during wartime to evade military service, had laid down the following relevant factors to classify forfeiture law: (a) Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (b) Whether it has been historically regarded as a punishment; (c) Whether it is only applicable where there has been a finding of scienter (that is, a finding that an act has been done knowingly and intentionally); (d) Whether its operation promotes the traditional retributive and deterrent aims of punishment; (e) Whether the behaviour t...
Read more

Legal Interpretation from Ayodhya Verdict Part 9

Image
  =================== Jay Shree Ram! These are some notes from Ayodhya Verdict regarding legal interpretations of certain statutory provisions: Read more Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Where there exists an express deed of dedication, the legal personality vests in the pious purpose of the founder. The idol is the material embodiment of the pious purpose and is the site of jural relations. There are instances of the submergence or even destruction of the idol inspite of which it has been held that the legal personality continues to subsist. Even if a testator were to make a dedication to a religious purpose but the idol did not exist at the time the dedication was made or the manifestation of the divine was not in the form of the idol, but in the form of some other object of religious significance, the legal personality would continue to vest in the pious purpose of the dedication itself. A Swayambhu deity is a manifestation of God tha...
Read more