Role of Evidence in Trial: The Backbone of Judicial Determination

 Role of Evidence in Trial: The Backbone of Judicial Determination

Introduction

In the pursuit of justice, evidence acts as the cornerstone of all judicial proceedings. It is the vital instrument that bridges the gap between accusation and truth, ensuring that no judgment is based on mere suspicion or conjecture. In both civil and criminal trials, the role of evidence is pivotal—it determines guilt, innocence, rights, and liabilities. Codified under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, evidence ensures that trials are anchored in verifiable facts and legal reasoning. The trial process, regardless of complexity, is rendered just and effective only when supported by reliable, admissible, and credible evidence.

Background

The Indian legal system, influenced by common law traditions, places immense value on evidence as the backbone of the trial process. Historically, trials under colonial rule were often arbitrary and lacked procedural safeguards. Post-independence, the framers of Indian jurisprudence emphasized fairness and due process. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, introduced by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, revolutionized the approach to justice by standardizing what constitutes legal proof.

Evidence serves multiple objectives: it prevents wrongful convictions, upholds the rights of the accused, strengthens the claims of the aggrieved, and maintains faith in the judiciary. It includes everything from witness testimony and documents to digital footprints, reflecting the dynamic evolution of what courts can consider as proof.

Types of Evidence in Law

1. Oral Evidence

• Testimony given by witnesses in court.

• Governed by Sections 59–60 of the Indian Evidence Act.

• Must be direct unless otherwise provided by law.

2. Documentary Evidence

• Includes contracts, letters, deeds, emails, etc.

• Primary and secondary documentary evidence covered under Sections 61–73.

3. Electronic Evidence

• Recognized under Section 65A and 65B.

• Includes CCTV footage, call records, emails, chats, and metadata.

4. Real Evidence (Material Evidence)

• Tangible objects like weapons, fingerprints, or blood samples.

5. Circumstantial Evidence

• Indirect evidence which leads to a logical inference of fact.

• Must form an unbroken chain of events to be admissible in criminal cases.

6. Expert Evidence

• Provided by experts like forensic scientists or medical professionals under Section 45.

Evidentiary Process in a Trial

• Collection and Preservation: Police and investigating agencies collect evidence during the investigation.

• Submission: The prosecution and defense submit evidence to the court.

• Admissibility: The judge decides what evidence is admissible based on relevance and legality.

• Examination of Witnesses: Witnesses undergo examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination.

• Appreciation of Evidence: The judge evaluates evidence for its credibility, consistency, and relevance.

Case Studies and Judicial Interpretation

1. Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015)
   The Supreme Court held that failure to produce CCTV footage can cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version and could result in acquittal due to the principle of best evidence.

2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
   The Court clarified that for electronic evidence to be admissible, a certificate under Section 65B is mandatory, ensuring authenticity.

3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
   The apex court laid down the "five golden principles" or "panchsheel" to govern the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.

4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
   It was ruled that narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping without consent violate Article 20(3) and are inadmissible.

5. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000)
   The Supreme Court reiterated that every piece of circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

Contemporary Relevance and Challenges

Evidence in trials today extends beyond paper and verbal testimonies. As crime evolves, so must the means of proving it. However, the use and evaluation of evidence face contemporary challenges:

• Digital Vulnerabilities: Digital evidence is prone to manipulation and requires technical scrutiny.

• Forensic Lapses: Poor forensic practices can jeopardize the fairness of trials.

• Witness Hostility: Delay and pressure often turn witnesses hostile, affecting the truth-seeking process.

• Access to Justice: In remote and underprivileged areas, proper collection and submission of evidence is a systemic issue.

• Delays in Chain of Custody: Mishandling or contamination of evidence can lead to acquittals even in grave cases.

Reasonable Restrictions and Safeguards

While the right to present and challenge evidence is fundamental to fair trial rights under Article 21, certain restrictions apply to safeguard privacy, national security, or privileged communication:

• Section 123 & 124: Bar disclosure of state secrets.

• Section 126: Bars advocates from disclosing client communication.

• Section 132: Witnesses compelled to testify are protected from prosecution under certain conditions.

The courts also exercise discretion in excluding prejudicial evidence and protecting witnesses under schemes like the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Intersection with Constitutional Values

Evidence law intersects with Fundamental Rights in multiple ways:

• Article 21: Ensures that the collection and use of evidence do not violate personal liberty or privacy.

• Article 20(3): Protects an accused from self-incrimination, thereby influencing how confessions are recorded.

• Article 14: Demands equality in the treatment of parties, including equal opportunity to present evidence.

The challenge lies in balancing justice delivery with constitutional protections in a rapidly evolving legal ecosystem.

Conclusion

Evidence is not just a procedural element in trials—it is the core of justice itself. It determines the fate of litigants, protects the innocent, and punishes the guilty. Indian courts have consistently evolved the doctrine of evidence to align with constitutional values and technological advancements. In an era of surveillance, cybercrime, and AI, the sanctity of evidence must be preserved with greater scrutiny and legal reform.

To ensure justice is not only done but seen to be done, evidence must remain credible, admissible, and above all, justly treated.

References

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178

• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116

• Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263

• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471

• Witness Protection Scheme, 2018

• Article 20(3), 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India

Closing Credits

Author: Ayushi Raj
Affiliation: Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla
“In the courtroom of justice, evidence is the silent voice that speaks the loudest. This article is a tribute to that indispensable voice in our legal journey.”

"The views expressed are personal. This article is intended for educational purposes

and public discourse. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome!"