What is direct evidence and what is circumstantial evidence.
Evidence”.—“Evidence” means and includes—
such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) 6[all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court],
such documents are called documentary evidence.
Sec.3 of the Indian Evidence act defines what is the evidence.
Here two words ” Permits or Requires “
By recording ,the court permits the palani to say some things about the matter of FACT under inquiry.
What is the FACT
“Fact”.—“Fact” means and includes—
(1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
“Relevant”.—One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is
connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.
“Facts in issue”.—The expression “facts in issue” means and includes—
any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the
existence, non-existence, nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.
Explanation.—Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure,3any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue, is a fact in issue.
A is accused of the murder of B.
At his trial the following facts may be in issue:—
That A caused B’s death;
That A intended to cause B’s death;
That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B;
That A at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its nature.
in our case palani said that
he heard a sound. he saw all the accused standing besides the deceased. all the accused threaten him and he ran away.
yes all these things are within the parameter of the above said definition . But their Lordships acquit the accused why .
Whether the above said Fact said by palani is a proved fact , disproved fact, not proved fact.
What is proved Fact
Proved”.—A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstanecs of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
“Disproved”.—A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either not believes it to exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exists.
“Not proved”.—A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.
What palani stated is the evidence. Whether that evidence , can court believe that it exists on that day.
if really it exists on that day, he ought to have stated the same before the police while recording sec.161 statement.
if really threat was there how long the threat works when it seized from his mind . all these things PALANI failed to explain properly. it is a disproved fact. its existence not believable and it can be consider as non-existence and even any ordinary prudent man suppose to act upon that it does not exists. Hence the Apex court Acquit the accused.
Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct; that is to say;
If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
If it refers to an opinions or to the grounds in which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds –
Provided that the opinion of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatise if the author is dead or cannot be found or has become incapable of giving evidence or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.
Circumstantial Evidence means what can not be proved directly, it can be proved circumstantial evidence.
all of a sudden a circumstantial evidence can not be converted in to direct evidence as deposed by Our Palani in this case.
- Our basic concept of Jurisprudence that the 100 culprits may let go free but no innocent should be punished. (nayayamargalu.wordpress.com)
- Tasmanian murderer compared to Chamberlain (news.theage.com.au)
- Tasmanian murderer compared to Chamberlain (news.smh.com.au)
- Bench acquits two accused of murder (thehindu.com)
- Texas judge faces inquiry on wrongful conviction (newsok.com)
- Closing arguments delivered in LA detective trial (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- There is No Connection Between Joseph of Arimathea and Talpiot (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Adnan Patrawala murder: Four accused acquitted (ibnlive.in.com)
- Trial By Jury (charioteers.org)
- House Fraud Granny Collapses In Court (news.sky.com)