Meaning of Oral Evidence

Oral evidence is a statement given by a person for proving or disproving facts in the issue or the relevant facts. Proving or disproving of facts in issue and relevant facts leads to conviction or acquittal of the accused.

The cardinal principle of evidence act states that the primary evidence shall be first-hand in nature and shall prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and for this Documentary and oral evidence can be produced if they are in primary nature and are delivering first-hand information.

Table of Contents

• Meaning
• The law related to oral evidence
• Bhima tima dhotre v the pioneer chemical co. 1967 
• Chandmal v province of rajasthan 1975
• Conviction on oral evidence 
• Bexy michael v. A.j michael 2010
• Conclusion

The Indian Evidence Act 1872(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) prioritize the use of documentary evidence over the oral evidence and it has been quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the privy council that “a man may lie but a document will never lie” the statement shows the value of documentary evidence over oral evidence. 

Section 3 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act defines oral evidence under the interpretation clause as anything which is permitted by the court or which requires a witness, to state the fact through his statement, concerning facts in issue under inquiry are oral evidence, oral evidence also include statement given by a person through signs and written form.

THE LAW RELATED TO ORAL EVIDENCE

The court has to satisfy itself for the credibility of the oral evidence adduced by any of the parties. Section 59 & 60 of the Act stated circumstance where oral evidence can be accepted and Section establish the cardinal principle of admissibility of evidence and states that oral evidence must be direct evidence. Direct evidence is when the person deposing fact has first-hand knowledge, or he himself has seen, or himself has heard what was said. It is tangible, real, and evident of the happening of the fact which requires no other fact to exist to prove its probative value before the court.

Section 59 states that oral evidence can be given in any case except for the content of documents of an electronic record. The content of the documents has been reduced into writing or documented after considering all the material fact and hence oral evidence cannot be adduced to prove the facts of the case but can be adduced for the existence of the document or not. The same is applicable for electronic records, oral evidence for an electronic document cannot be adduced. In Bhima Tima Dhotre v The pioneer Chemical co. 1967 Hon’ble Bombay High Court stated that the value of Documentary evidence diminishes if in every case owner of the document has to come and produce the content of the document. It would be meaningless to accept documents if oral evidence has to be prioritized. Further, where the owner of the document has died or cannot be physically present, documentary evidence acts as the primary evidence.  

Section 60 of the Act states that the oral evidence must be direct, the test of direct evidence can be determined by looking into the following factors 

• The consistency of the facts- the facts stated by the witness are in relation to the fact issue of not.
• Test of cross-examination- whether the witness is able to answer the questions put to him during cross-examination?
• Relation with other circumstantial evidence- the relation of the facts stated by the witness to the facts.

In Chandmal v Province of Rajasthan 1975, the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that in circumstances where the case is completely in light of the circumstantial proof the three conditions must be satisfied:

• The conditions must be firmly established.
• The circumstances mentioned should be held the accused guilty beyond any doubt.
• The chain of incidences should be complete and it should be so complete that there are no leaks or escapes which can prove that crime was committed by the accused and no one else.

CONVICTION ON ORAL EVIDENCE 

The probative value of oral evidence depends upon the abovementioned condition and foremost on the satisfaction of the court. The court with its prudent mind and understand the nature of the oral evidence and further, the oral evidence is direct of is hearsay.

Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly perceived by the senses of the witness and is mere second-hand information received from other sources. Hearsay evidence is subjected to improvements and thus the exclusion of hearsay evidence is highlighted.

Conviction on the grounds of oral evidence depends upon the facts as follow;

• Direct Evidence
• Hearsay Evidence

In Bexy Michael v. A.J Michael 2010, it was observed by the Kerala High Court that the court cannot swallow the contention of the witness giving an oral statement without being convinced. There must be a rigorous test and must be evaluated before concluding any observation. Even though the oral evidence may be direct yet there is a chance of improvement of statement with time and need and thus unlike documentary evidence, oral evidence must carefully be examined.

The conviction can be made on the ground of oral evidence if they are sufficiently forming part of the chain which can leave no gap for the accused to shed of liability. The merit of oral evidence cannot be discarded, the existence of direct oral evidence when no other prominent evidence is present can also be the ground of conviction. 

CONCLUSION

Oral evidence is supported by Section 59 and Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, though there is a condition where oral evidence are completely excluded. Section 91 & 92 excludes oral evidence where the transaction has been documented or where it is prohibited by law. The ultimate objective of the legislation and the judiciary is to impart justice. Excluding oral evidence which is relevant can break the chain of circumstances that can create a lacuna for the guilty person to escape. The absence of documentary evidence is general and not every act is documented, relying upon oral evidence can lead to a meaningful and complete conclusion. Further, even in law, the probative value of oral evidence is high, though not as that of documentary evidence.