By Saurav Yadav
Published on: December 20, 2023 at 15:02 IST
Hearsay evidence, at its core, encompasses statements made outside the court that are presented within the legal setting to prove their truth. The overarching principle is that statements made by individuals not testifying in court lack the scrutiny of cross-examination, raising questions about their reliability. This feature becomes crucial in understanding the hesitancy courts often display in admitting hearsay evidence.
Hearsay evidence, if there is a discussion going among two person for committing an offence in the near future, and somehow a third party hears all the discussion, or anyone among the two comes to the 3rd party and talks about the discussion between them, and if in future that 3rd requires has been brought to the court of law and he tells whatever he has got to know as a third party, then that information or fact will be considered as hearsay Evidence.
hearsay evidence involves statements made by a person outside of the courtroom but presented in court to prove the truth of those statements. It is evidence based on what someone else has said rather than on what the person presenting the evidence personally knows or observed. The admissibility of hearsay evidence is often restricted or excluded in legal proceedings due to concerns about its trustworthiness.
Recently, the Bombay High Court has declared that even hearsay evidence is admissible in domestic inquiries, as strict rules of evidence do not apply in such proceedings, and the supreme Court declared newspaper reports to be considered as hearsay evidence, so we shall carefully examine in this article as what is hearsay evidence and when its admissible in Court.
What is hearsay evidence?
Hearsay, encompasses statements made out of doors the court which can be offered within the prison putting to prove their truth. The overarching precept is that statements made by way of individuals now not attesting in courtroom lack the scrutiny of move-examination, raising questions about their reliability. This function turns into essential in expertise the hesitancy courts regularly display in admitting rumour evidence.
In other words, it is a statement made by a person outside of the courtroom that is presented in court to prove the truth of the statements made.
It is evidence based on what someone else has said rather than on what the person presenting the evidence personally knows or observed.
Hearsay evidence is generally considered unreliable because the person making the statement is not under oath or subject to cross-examination in court. The admissibility of hearsay evidence is often restricted or excluded in legal proceedings due to concerns about its trustworthiness.
Significance of Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay Evidence holds significant importance, Its significance is multifaceted some of the significance is mentioned hereunder as:
1. Efficiency and Convenience: Hearsay evidence can be a practical and green manner to introduce records in courtroom. It lets in for the presentation of statements made outdoor the court docket without requiring the physical presence of every person concerned.
2. Completeness of Evidence: In sure conditions, hearsay evidence may be the simplest to be had evidence to provide a comprehensive and entire expertise of the records. Excluding hearsay absolutely may want to bring about an incomplete or distorted portrayal of occasions.
3. Historical or Background Information: Hearsay is often important for supplying historical context or history statistics. In instances involving complex narratives or long timeframes, relying on hearsay may be important to colour an entire image.
4. Speedy Resolution: Introducing hearsay evidence can expedite felony complaints by averting the want to name each individual with relevant facts to testify in court docket. This is especially crucial in cases in which time is of the essence.
5. Witness Protection: Hearsay proof can be essential in cases in which the safety of a witness is a subject. Allowing statements to be presented without requiring the physical presence of the declarant can protect witnesses from capability damage.
6. Corroboration of Evidence: Hearsay evidence can function corroborative or supporting evidence. When a couple of rumour statements align, they will improve the general reliability of the proof provided in courtroom.
7. Exceptional circumstances: There are specific exceptions to the hearsay rule where certain types of hearsay evidence are considered more reliable and therefore admissible, for example, dying declarations or statements against interest that it is more reliable under certain circumstances.
The Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
In India, the admissibility of hearsay evidence is governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Act provides the framework for determining the admissibility of various types of evidence, including hearsay. Here are some key aspects related to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in India:
- General Rule Against Hearsay:
- The Indian Evidence Act generally follows the common law rule against hearsay evidence. Section 60 of the Act states that oral evidence must be direct and not hearsay.
However, there are conditions in which hearsay may be deemed admissible primarily based on positive exceptions or identified situations.
Here are a few issues that have an effect on the admissibility of hearsay evidence:
1. Hearsay Rule: The fundamental precept is that hearsay proof is inadmissible. The rumour rule exists to ensure that the evidence offered in court is reliable, credible, and subject to pass-examination. This rule promotes equity and accuracy in legal lawsuits.
2. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule: Certain exceptions permit for the admission of rumour evidence in precise circumstances wherein reliability is presumed. Examples of exceptions encompass death declarations, excited utterances, admissions by means of a party-opponent, and business statistics. These exceptions vary by using jurisdiction and legal systems.
3. Reliability and Trustworthiness: Courts verify the reliability and trustworthiness of hearsay proof before figuring out its admissibility. Factors which includes the declarant’s credibility, the occasions below which the assertion become made, and whether there are indicia of reliability impact the court docket’s choice.
4. Confrontation Clause: In some legal systems, the right to confront witnesses against the accused is protected by constitutional provisions or statutes. The Confrontation Clause ensures that a defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The admissibility of hearsay may be scrutinized in light of these constitutional principles.
5. Business and Public Records: Hearsay contained in business records or public records may be admitted if certain foundational requirements are met. For example, business records are often admissible if they are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and if the custodian or qualified witness testifies to their authenticity.
6. Residual Exception: Some criminal structures have a residual or catch-all exception that allows for the admission of hearsay evidence no longer blanketed by specific exceptions. This generally requires a displaying of precise guarantees of trustworthiness and necessity.
7. Unavailability of the Declarant: In some situations, hearsay evidence can be admitted if the declarant is unavailable to testify. Unavailability can be due to demise, illness, refusal to testify, or different prison impediments. The proper of the accused to confront witnesses may additionally nevertheless be a consideration.
8. Statutory Provisions: Some jurisdictions have unique statutes that govern the admissibility of hearsay proof. These statutes may additionally outline permissible exceptions and criteria for the admission of hearsay.
9. Judicial Discretion: In certain instances, despite the fact that hearsay evidence does not fall within a identified exception, the court docket might also exercise discretion to confess it primarily based on considerations of fairness and justice.
Exception of Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay Evidence is typically considered inadmissible in court due to concerns approximately its reliability and the inability to subject the declarant to pass-examination. However, there are several exceptions and conditions wherein hearsay evidence can be admitted. These exceptions are set up to address precise occasions where the reliability of the hearsay declaration is deemed better or where equity and justice require its admission. Here are a few not unusual exceptions to the hearsay rule:
- Res Gestae: Res Gestae refers to statements made spontaneously as part of the event itself. These statements are considered trustworthy because they are made during or immediately after an occurrence, without the opportunity for reflection or fabrication.
Example: A person exclaims, “I’ve been shot!” right after being shot. The statement is part of the event (shooting) and is admissible as Res Gestae.
- Admission: An admission is a statement by a party to the case, either directly or through an authorized representative, acknowledging certain facts. Admissions are admissible because they are considered against the party’s interest.
Example: In a contract dispute, if one party admits in writing that they breached the contract, that admission is admissible in court.
- Confessions: Confessions made by a person, whether oral or written, are exceptions to hearsay because they are considered highly reliable. A confession is an acknowledgment of guilt or involvement in a crime.
Example: A suspect voluntarily admits to a crime during police questioning. The confession may be admissible in court.
- Dying Declaration: Statements made by a person who believes they are facing imminent death and narrates the cause or circumstances of their impending death. Dying declarations are admitted due to the belief that individuals in this situation are unlikely to lie.
Example: A person, on their deathbed after a stabbing, identifies the assailant. This statement may be admissible as a dying declaration.
- Evidence Given in Former Proceedings: Statements made by a witness in a prior legal proceeding (such as a deposition or sworn testimony) may be admitted in a subsequent trial. This is based on the assumption that the previous statement was given under oath and subjected to cross-examination.
Example: A witness provides testimony in a pre-trial deposition. If that witness is unavailable during the trial, their deposition testimony may be admitted.
These exceptions recognize that, in certain circumstances, hearsay statements can be reliable and serve the interest of justice. However, courts carefully evaluate the context and reliability of each statement before admitting it as an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence.
The Supreme Court recently in the case of Dinesh B.S V. State of Karnataka held a newspaper report is hearsay evidence and it can only be treated as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence.
The bench stated “….an extrajudicial confession cannot be given greater credibility only because it is published in a newspaper and is available to the public at large. It is well-established in law that newspaper reports can at best be treated as secondary evidence.”
In the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, the issue of hearsay evidence was addressed. Hearsay refers to information obtained by a third person regarding an incident between two parties, where the third party lacks firsthand experience. The Supreme Court deliberated on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, emphasizing its unreliability in providing credible statements.
The Supreme Court held that hearsay testimony is not admissible in a court of law due to its lack of legal certainty and reliability. The court outlined reasons why hearsay evidence is not considered reliable, including:
- Contradiction with Evidence Legislation: Hearsay evidence contradicts the purpose of evidence legislation, which requires responsible and knowledgeable submission of evidence. Allowing hearsay evidence would undermine this legislative intent.
- Perjury Risks: Admitting hearsay evidence could lead to accusations of perjury against the defendant, causing unnecessary delays and diverting the court’s attention.
- Waste of Time: Hearsay evidence dilutes the truth that needs to be presented in court, wasting the court’s time and impeding the pursuit of justice.
- Unfairness to the Individual: Accepting hearsay evidence is unfair to the individual against whom it is presented, as it may lead to fraud, deceit, or undue influence.
In the case of Sukhar v. State of U.P., the court discussed Section 6 of the Evidence Act, specifically addressing the doctrine of res gestae. The court’s approach raised concerns as it seemed to deviate from the scheme of the Evidence Act, particularly the principle of “relevancy” outlined by Stephen.
The court applied the doctrine of res gestae, which is an exception to the general rule of inadmissibility of hearsay evidence. Section 6 of the Evidence Act deals with “relevancy,” and any information meeting the criteria of this section is deemed relevant. However, the court delved into matters of “admissibility” and “evidence,” which are not the primary concerns of Section 6.
The court recognized that the doctrine of res gestae allows for the admission of statements or facts based on their convenience and immediacy to the facts in dispute, deviating from the conventional rules of hearsay evidence.
The Bombay High Court in the case of President / Secretary, Uttar Bhartiya Education Society & Anr. vs Naresh Tejan Thakur & Anr. has declared that even hearsay evidence is admissible in domestic inquiries, as strict rules of evidence do not apply in such proceedings.
Conclusion
Hearsay evidence, while posing challenges to the legal system’s pursuit of truth, holds multifaceted significance. Its practicality, efficiency, and role in providing historical context are essential considerations. The admissibility of hearsay evidence, governed by the Indian Evidence Act, involves evaluating exceptions.While courts remain cautious due to concerns about reliability, recognized exceptions acknowledge the potential value of hearsay evidence in specific circumstances. As legal systems evolve, the delicate balance between excluding unreliable evidence and ensuring justice will continue to shape the treatment of hearsay evidence in the courtroom.
Edited by: Bharti Verma, Associate Editor at Law Insider