Roll No. 2013100

Proof of facts by Oral Evidence

PROJECT FOR THE SUBJECT

Evidence Law

SUBMITTED BY

Saniya Rizvi

Semester – IV

B.A.LL.B. (Hons)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Dr Nandini C.P

Submitted to

DAMODARAM SANJIVYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY,VISAKHAPATNAM

ACADEMIC YEAR (2014-2015)

1

Contents

D E C L A R A T I O N...................................................................................................................3

LIST OF CASES…………………………………………………………………4

INTRODUCTION AND REASERCH METHEDOLOGY............................................................5

Synopsis:............................................................................................................................................................ 5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 7

Aims and objectives:................................................................................................................7

Scope and limitations:..............................................................................................................7

Hypothesis:..............................................................................................................................8

Research questions:.................................................................................................................9

Mode of Writing......................................................................................................................9

Mode of Citation......................................................................................................................9

Literature Review……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10

NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE..............................................................10

MODES OF PROOF........................................................................................................................12

Oral evidence.................................................................................................................................................12

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................23

BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................24

2

LIST OF CASES

R.V.ABDULLAH Ugar Ahir V. State of Bihar Bhagwan Tana Patil V. The State of Maharastra Arjun V. State of Rajasthan State of U.P v. Farid Khan Kishore Shinde V. State of M.H State of Karnataka v. R .Raju Abdul Karim v. State of Maharashtra Mallikarjun Ningappa Ragati v. state of Karnataka In Kashi Nath v. Emperor Nanuram v State R v. Gibson

ASHOK KUMAR ROUT & ETC V/S STATE OF BIHAR

3

D E C L A R A T I O N

I Saniya Rizvi declare the work entitled “Proof of facts by Oral Evidence”

being submitted to Damodaram Sanjivvya National Law University for the project in the

subject of “Evidence Law” is original and where the text is taken from the authenticated

books, articles or web articles, appropriate reference is given. It is true in my best of

knowledge.

Saniya Rizvi

Roll No 2013100

IV Semester

4

INTRODUCTION AND REASERCH METHEDOLOGY

Synopsis:

The rules regarding evidence in the administration of justice are of high importance. No

substantive law can be enforced without the help of rules of law of evidence. The law of

evidence can be stated to be the foundation on which the entire structure of judiciary is based. If

the foundation is weak the structure is bound to collapse. Similarly, if the rules of law of

evidence are not sound the administration of justice is bound to go astray.

The evidence which is given must be through prescribed ways as per the Act. This analytical

study is about those Facts to be pros, Oral Evidence and Documentary. Both play very important

role and have equal importance as in a case of a murder an eyewitness can give a oral evidence

by what he has seen on the place where the incident occurred. And the same is with documentary

evidence, but as what has been seen through the deep study is that documentary evidence play

and more important role than oral evidence. As at many places and in most we need documents

to prove and to be something in written.

The facts judicially noticeable and facts admitted are need not to be proved. Oral and

documentary evidence are not only media of proof. This chapter deals with the oral evidence

only. It enacts two broad rules regard to oral evidence: firstly, that all facts except contents of

documents may be proved by oral evidence, and secondly, that oral evidence in all cases must be

direct and not hearsay

5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Aims and objectives:

The aim of this project is to look at the meaning of oral evidence under Indian Evidence Act

1872 and thereby analyzing their usage and advancements.

To understand the term oral evidence as given under Indian Evidence Act 1872.

To analyze the legislative definitions of oral evidence.

To see the process of usage of oral evidences.

To see the status of which evidence is more implicit.

To differentiate the usage of the evidences.

The applicability of the oral evidence.

Scope and limitations:

The project limits itself to studying of several important cases and judgments delivered under the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .

The researcher’s study was even limited by her understanding as there could be some basic

observations whichs she might have failed to put forward in the project due to limited

understanding of the subject.

6

Hypothesis:

The historical background as per the facts and establishments shows the genesis of law of

evidence was different periods namely, (a) the Ancient Hindu Period, (b) the Ancient Muslim

Periods, (c) and the British Period.

(a) Law of Evidence in Ancient Hindu Period1

The sources of information relating to the law of evidence prevailing in Hindu India emanate

from the Hindu Dharma Shastras. The historical background of the law of evidence and its later

development has been elaborately discussed in radha kumud mukherjee’s endowment lectures on

Hindu Judicial System, delivered by Sir S. Vardhachariar.

In Hindu Law there were three kinds of evidence. They are: (1) Lekhya (Documents) (2) Sakshi

(Witnesses); (3) Bukhthi (Possession).

(b) Law of Evidence in Ancient Muslim Period

The Mohammedan Law givers deal with evidence under the heads of oral and documentary. Oral

evidence is further sub classified into direct and hearsay evidence as in the present day, although

documents properly executed and books kept in the course of business were accepted as

evidence, oral evidence appears to have been preferred to documentary evidence. When

documents are produced the courts insisted upon examining the party, which produced them. In

regard to oral evidence the Holy Quran enjoins truthfulness. Its translated version is: “O” True

Believers: Observe Justice, when you appear as witness before God and let not hatred towards

any induce you to do wrong, but act justly. This will approach nearer to piety. And fear God for

God is fully acquainted with what you do.”

1 Law of Evidence by Dr. Krishnam Achari, 7th Ed., 2009.

7

(c) Law of Evidence In British India

In British India the Presidency Courts by virtue of Royal Charter established in Bombay, Madras

and Calcutta were following English rules of the Law of Evidence. In Mofussil Courts, outside

the Presidency Towns, there were no definite rules relating of Law of Evidence. The courts

enjoyed unfettered liberty in the matter of admission of Law of Evidence. The entire

administration of justice in the Mofussil Courts in the absence of any definite rules of Law of

Evidence was in total chaos. There was a dire necessity for the codification of the rules of law of

evidence. In the 1835 the first attempt was made to codify the rules of evidence by passing the

Act of 1835. Between 1835 and 1853 about eleven enactments were passed dealing with the law

of evidence. But all these enactments were found inadequate. In the year 1868 a commission was

set up under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Mayne. He submitted the draft but it was entrusted to

Sir James Fitz James Stephen. Stephen submitted his draft and it was referred to the select

committee and also to the High Courts and Members of the Bar to elicit the opinion, and, after

gathering the opinion, the draft was placed before the legislature and it was enacted2.

The Evidence Act came into force on 1st September, 1872.

Prior to Independence there were many as 600 Princely States in India. Which were not within

the jurisdiction of the British system of justice. Each of these states had its own rules of law of

evidence but by and large they followed the Indian Evidence Act 1872. After independence there

was merger of Princely States into the Indian Union. Both the substantive laws as well as the

procedural laws have since been made uniformly applicable to all the states, whether British

province or the native states. So much so, the Law of Evidence is now applicable to all the states

constituting the Union of India.

Research questions:

2 Role of Evidence.

8

1. What is oral evidence evidence?

2. What are the provisions under the act by which they are recognized?

3. What is the scope of Oral evidences?

4. Which of the evidence has more prevalence?

Mode of Writing

A descriptive and analytical method of writing has been followed.

Mode of Citation

A uniform mode of Citation has been followed.

9

LITERATURE REVIEW1.Secondary Evidence

Published : October 11, 2012 | Author : Akash Shah

Courts prefer original, or primary, evidence. They try to avoid using secondary evidence

wherever possible. This approach is called the best evidence rule. Nevertheless, a court may

allow a party to introduce secondary evidence in a number of situations.

After hearing arguments by the parties, the court decides whether to admit secondary evidence

after determining whether the evidence is in fact authentic or whether it would be unfair to admit

the duplicate. However, when a party questions whether an asserted writing ever existed, or

whether a writing, recording, or photograph is the original, the trier of fact makes the ultimate

determination. The trier of fact is the judge if it is a bench trial; in a jury trial, the trier of fact is

the jury.

2.)Anup Jain in his article “Admissibility of Electronically Generated Evidence” stated that

the Indian courts and the world over should at least give liberal interpretation to the admissibility

of electronicevidence if the law is to be relevant and useful at this computer age of information

technology in order toenhance and strengthen judicial activism

3) Title :- The Law of Evidence, Author:- Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

About Book :- this book is the master work on law of Evidence. It contain the detail work on the

topic with much more cases and recent development on the topic by judicial decision. It contain

the detail study and it is made only for the purpose of getting much more knowledge on the

subject.

4) Title :- Indian Evidence Act., Author:- Justice A.K.Nandi

About Book :- This book is also having a great commentary on the subjectwith numbers of cases

in it

10

INTRODUCTION

The facts judicially noticeable and facts admitted are need not to be proved. Oral and

documentary evidence are not only media of proof. This chapter deals with the oral evidence

only. It enacts two broad rules regard to oral evidence: firstly, that all facts except contents of

documents may be proved by oral evidence, and secondly, that oral evidence in all cases must be

direct and not hearsay3.

Oral Evidence Section 59 4 :- All facts, except the [contents of documents or electronic records]

contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence.

Principle-this section lays down that all facts may be proved by oral evidence, except the

contents of a document. The section is rather loosely worded as it makes an unqualified

statement as regards the exclusion of oral evidence to prove the contents of a document. The true

position is that oral evidence can be led as evidence relating to documents under section 65.

In general the evidence of a witness is given orally, and this means oral evidence. The expression

oral evidence therefore includes the statement of witness before the court which the court either

permits or requires them to make. The statement may be made by any method by which the

witness is capable of making it. A witness who cannot speak may communicate of facts to the

court by signs or by writings and in either case it will be regarded as oral evidence. Thus where a

women was unable to speak because her throat was cut and she suggested the name of her

assailant by the signs of her hand that was held to be a verbal statement relevant as a dying

declaration

2)Where oral evidence is credible and cogent, medical evidence is to contrary is inconsequential.

Only when medical evidence totally improbable oral evidence, adverse inference can be drawn.

3) Evidentiary value of the oral testimony of an eye-witness cannot be diluted by reason of non-

production of any document in support of a claim contrary to the oral testimony.

3 Lawyersclubindia Article : Oral & Documentary Evidence4 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

11

Definition of oral evidence :- Sec 3

The meaning of expression

“Oral evidence” is given along with the definition of the term “evidence” in Sec 3. This first part

of the provision which defines evidence deal with oral evidence it says: - All the statements

which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witness in relation to the matter going

under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence.

In the care of R.V.ABDULLAH5,verbal statement was held to include signs and gestures.

Oral evidence is evidence which is confined to words spoken by the mouth. Any method of

Communicating thought which the circumstances of the case or physical condition of the witness

can be proved demand mayin the discretion of the Court,be employed.Thus a deaf may testify

by signs or by writting6

Words of the Section:- This section is not very happily worded contents of documentary may

be proved by oral evidence under certain circumstances , that is to say when such evidence of

their content is admissible as secondary evidence.

Difference between ‘Relevancy’ & ‘Admissibility’-: there are following three differences

between the relevancy and Admissibility -:

1) The first deals with the probative value of specific facts.

2) The second including artificial rules which do not profess to define probative value but

yetaim at increasing or safeguarding it.

5 (1885) ILR 7 (ALL.)385.6 Batuk lal the law of evidence 18th edition central law agency

12

3) The third covering all those rules which rest on extrinsic policies irrespective of probative

values.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE-: Oral evidence is a much less satisfactory medium of proof than

documentary proof. But justice can never be administered in the most important cases without

resorting to it. In all civilized systems of jurisprudence there is a presumption against perjury.

The correct rule is to judge the oral evidence with reference to the conduct of the parties, and the

presumptions and probabilities legitimately arising in the case.Another test is to see whether the

evidence is consistent with the common experience of mankind, with the usual course of nature

and of human conduct, and with well-known principles of human action.

.

FALUS IN UNO FALUS OMNIBUS7-: The maxim means false in one particular, false in all.

This principle is a somewhat dangerous maxim. There is always a fringe of embroidery to a

story, however true in the main and so where the falsehood in merely an embroidery, that would

not be enough to discredit the whole of the witness’s evidence; where , on the other hand the

falsehood relates to a major or material point that is enough to discredit the witness.

The Supreme Court in Ugar Ahir V. State of Bihar8,has held that maxim is neither sound rule of

law nor a rule of practice for the reason that hardly one come across a witness whose evidence

doesn’t contain a grain of untruth,or at any rate ,exaggeration,embroidery or embellishment.It is

the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence very carefully and separate the grain from the

chaff.

In Bhagwan Tana Patil V. The State of Maharastra9 four accused were tried on on charges

framed under Sections 307,323 and 325 read with 34 of the IPC .Some of the accused were

acquitted on the ground that evidence of the main prosecution witness had not been corroborated

in the materials particulars and as such that portion of the testimony of the main prosecution

witness was rejected as untrustworthy ,his entire evidence against the appellant should also be

7 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/print_this_page.asp?article_id=1955 2/42 Last visited 25/03/2015

8 AIR 1965 SC 277:1965(1) Cr.LJ 256.9 AIR 1947 SC 21:1974 Cr.LJ 145

13

rejected.The SC while rejecting the plea of “Falsus in uno Falsus in omnibus” observed :The

mere fact that the evidence of the prosecution witness is not firm and safe enough to be relied

upon with regard to the part assigned to the acquitted accused in the occurance ,is no ground to

reject it mechanically against the other accused also ,In the case ofof the acquitted accused the

requiste confirmation of the evidence of the witnesses from the independent sorces may be

lacking .this may not be so in the case of other accused.”

Arjun V. State of Rajasthan 10four appellants namely Arjun,Rampal,Bhagwan Singh and

Mukhoram were tried along with four other accused for the murder of one Jyothiram.On the

appraisal of the evidence ,the High Court acquitted four accused giving the benefit of doubt

while uploading the sentence of trial court against the four appellants.It was urged on behalf of

the appellants that since the same eye –witnesses were disbelieved with regard to the

participation of the four acquitted accused ,therefore their evidence ought not to have been acted

upon to sustain the conviction of the four appellants .

The Supreme Court held that merely because the evidence of eye witness was not accepted

against the four accused ,it does not mean that consistent evidence of five eye witnesses is liable

be rejected against the appellants and the maxim Falsus in uno,flasus in omnibus cannot be

invoked since it is neither a sound rule of law nor arule of practice.In such circumstances the

court has to analyse the prosecution evidence is found to be consistent and reliable the court can

accept the same with the regards to the accused persons and hold them guilty ,even though the

court is unable to rely fully on the prosecution evidence with regard to some of the accused.

APPRECIATION-: oral evidence should be approached with caution. The court must shift the

evidence, separate the grain from the chaff and accept what it finds to be true and reject the rest .

The credibility of the witness should be decided on the following important points:

(a) Whether the witness have the means of gaining correct information,

(b) Whether they have any interest in concealing the truth,

10 1995 Cr.LJ 410 (SC):AIR 1994 SC 2506:1994(3) Crimes 383 .See also Dalsinger v.State of U.P.’1995 Cr.L.J 275 (All)

14

(c) Whether they agree in their testimony11.

Though a chance witness is not necessarily being a false witness, it proverbially rash to rely

upon such evidence. The real tests for accepting or rejecting evidence are; how consistent is the

story in itself, how does it stands of cross- examination and how far does it fit it with the rest of

the evidence and circumstances of the case. Non-consideration of oral evidence by the lower

appellate court, it is a non observance of the mandatory provision of Order 41, Rule 31 which

brings in the sessions infirmity in the judgment. The judgment in such a cases stands vitiated and

is not binding on the high court in the second appeal. When a girl states that a particular person

used to conduct himself as her father, she says so from his personal knowledge and it is not

hearsay.

State of U.P v. Farid Khan12

,There is no harm in accepting the evidence of an eyewitness who has a criminal background

when such evidence is sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses .

Kishore Shinde V. State of M.H13

The contention of the defece that that there are inconsistency in the evidence of eye witness in

connection with the case of the murder ,the objection of the defence on that ground is is not

tenable since two eye witness cannot give identical version of witness.

State of Karnataka v. R .Raju14

Where there are minor contradiction in the testimony of eyewitnesses which do not go to the root

of the matter,cannot affect the credibility ,when the witnesses although related to the deceased

family consistently spoke with regard to the entire incident of assault .

Abdul Karim v. State of Maharashtra 15

Where the eye witness in his testimony failed to mention about the presence of other eye

witnesses it cannot be a ground to discard his evidence ,as the eye witness had to testify about 11 FIield’s Evidence,8th Edition.12 2004 Cr.LJ 4970 (SC)13 2006 Cr.LJ 2618(Bom).14 2007 Cr.LJ 920 (Karn).15 2006 Cr LJ 3658 (Bom)

15

the incident witnessed by them ,but are not supposed to take notice of the presence of each

other.

Mallikarjun Ningappa Ragati v. state of Karnataka 16

The statement of prosecution witness to a sarpanch that his son informed him that the death of

the deceased occurred on the account of consuming pesticide amounts to hearsay evidence and

as such the prosecution cannot rely on this fact to prove that the accused had given a false

explanation as to the cause of the death of the deceased.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS-:

The section was amended by the Information Technology Act, 2000 so as to include within the

meaning of the term “document”, electronic records also. Hence, every other fact, except

contents of an electronic record or of any document, can be proved by oral evidence.

The majority of the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v.State of Punjab17,Held that tape

recordings are not admissible merely on the ground of possibility of their being tampered with

.Held that the tape recorded evidence can only be corroborative evidence ,but cannot be direct or

primary evidence that the third person stated what the other speaker had told .

In case of blackmail,bribery ,threats,inducement to commit a crime,and sedition there can not be

better evidence than the spoken words transcribed on the tape.

A tape recorded evidence provided the court is satisfied that there was no tampering,dubbing,and

imperfect recording.

Contents of document can not be proved by oral evidence :-

It is rule of evidence not one of technically but of substance that, where written documents exist

they shall be produced as being two best evidence of their own contents.

16 2006 Cr LJ 4298 (Kant)17 (1964)4 SCR 733:AIR 1964 SC 72

16

What fact may be proved by oral evidence: - Oral evidence may suffice to prove possession

oral evidence of credible would be sufficient to prove a little by prescription.

Oral evidence weigh and value: - where oral evidence is conflicting and where documentary

evidence does not help on in coming to a decisive conclusion the duly proper course is to see

what are the admitted fact in case and what case the circumstance deducible from the can be no

doubt this can be the true method of arising a correct conclusion.

SECTION 60._ Oral evidence must be direct 18

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 opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence

of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:

Provided that the opinions 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 treatises

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:

182 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

17

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.

PRINCIPLE:- The first degree of moral evidence and that which is most satisfactory to the

mind is afforded by our own sense, this being the direct evidence of the highest nature. Where

this can not be had as is generally the case in the proof of fact by oral testimony. that it must in

all cases be direct and not hearsay. The section sets out the scope of the expression ‘direct

evidence’. It is true that hearsay evidence is excluded by this section. However, this is subject to

well- recognized exceptions (e.g., sections 17 to 39).

Testimonial elements:- When a witness statement is offered as a basis of an evidence in

reference inference to the fact stated. Moreover in the function fulfilled by each these three

element or processes are to be found in general from the fundamental can not for assigning to

each its probative value. Thus the nation of perception that the external event has is some way or

other impressed itself on correspond to the witness, then should adequately respected or

correspond to the fact itself as it objectively existed or exist. The strength of the inference

depends on the probability of a fairly accurate on the part of witness19.

Stephen – “the word ‘hearsay’ is used in various senses. Sometimes it means whatever a person

is heard to say; sometimes it means whatever a person declares on information given by someone

else.”

HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND ITS EXCLUSION-: the term hearsay is ambiguous and

misleading as it is used in more than one scene. Stephen says “sometimes it means whatever a

person is heard to say; sometimes it means whatever a person declared on information given by

someone else; sometimes it is treated as nearly synonymous with irrelevant”20

19 Stephens Digest of Law of Evidence.20 Stephen’s evidence, introduction, p.4

18

In Kashi Nath v. Emperor21the accused was tried for the rape committed on a child of a child

three and a half years.The evidence of the father,mother and sister to whom the child complained

was sought to be proved against the accused ,since the child was not produced as a witness as she

was not competent .The evidence of the statements and conduct by the child given by the

father,mother and sister was inadmissible on the ground of hearsay .if the object of the evidence

is to prove the truth of the hearsay statements ,it is inadmissible but if it is intended to to prove

the fact that such syatement was made ,it is admissible

Nanuram v State 22

Where the statement of prosecution witness No.5 was that the wife of the deceased has disclosd

that her husband has been assaulted by the accuse cannot be relied upon ,since the wife of the

deceased died before she was examined,and as such statement amont to hearsay evidence.

REASONS FOR EXCLUSION OF HEARSAY23-:

(a) The irresponsibility of the original declerant

(b) The deprecation of truth in the process of repetition

(c) The opportunities for fraud its admission would open; to which are sometimes added these

grounds.

(d) The tendency of such evidence to protract legal inquires

(e) To encourage the substitution of weaker for stronger proof

R v. Gibson

The accused person was prosecuted for causing hurt by throwing a stone at prosecutor. So soon

he was hit by the stone a woman who saw a man throwing the stone drew his attention towards a

house and said: “the person who threw the stone went in there.” Very soon thereafter he was

caught and arrested in that house.

21 AIR 1942 Cal.214.22 2005 Cr.L.J 4586(MP).23 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/print_this_page.asp?article_id=1955 last visited on 25/03/15 at 1:00 pm

19

But the above statement was held to be not relevant. The prosecutor himself had not seen any

person throwing a stone at him and thereafter entering a particular house and, therefore, the

statement was not hearsay

EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY

1.Res Gestae [s.6]

2. Admissions and Confessions Statement relevant under section.32

3. Statements in Public Documents.

4.Evidence in Former Proceedings Statements of Experts in Treatises[s.60

CASE:-

ASHOK KUMAR ROUT & ETC V/S STATE OF BIHAR24

FACT: - Admissibility of oral evidence faction of statement and truth of statement of all hearsay

statement and truth of statement of all hearsay statement is not inadmissible. There is distinction

between proving the faction of statement and proving truth of statement.It is admissible if such

evidence proposes to establish only the faction of statement made by Other person and not the

truth of statement. Guidance of informant only proposed to establish Faction of statement which

was given to him by eye witness. Therefore, it is admissible and it Cannot be rejected.

CONCLUSION

After an exhaustive researcher, the researcher has a point of view that no doubt oral evidence is

much less satisfactory when compared to documentary evidence. We cannot deny the value of

them and relevancy of them even though they are considered unreliable and concocted,it cannot

be rejected outright unless the circumstances are found to exist for the purpose of impeaching

24 AIR 2000 MP 1920

20

and discrediting such oral evidence . The existence of penal provision against perjury also to

some extent deters the witnesses from speaking falsehood .The correcgt rule is to judge the oral

evidence with the reference to the conduct of parties ,presumptions and probability legitimately

arising in this case .another test is t see whether the evidence is consistent with the common

experience of mankind,with the usual course of nature and of human conduct .However before

relying on the oral evidence it is incumbent upon the court to examine the credulity of such oral

evidence both intrinsically and extrinsically.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.)Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the law of Evidence, 18th Ed. 2010, Central Law Publications,

Allahabad.

2.)Hanishi K. Thanawalla (1996) , “Development and Liberalisation of Hearsay doctrine”,

Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol 38.1

3.) Vepa P. Sarathi, Law of Evidence, 6th Ed. 2006, Eartern book company,

Lucknow.

4.). Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the Law of Evidence, 18th Ed. 2010, Central

Law Publications, Allahabad.

5). R.V.Kelkar, Lectures on Criminal Procedure, 4th Ed. 2006, Eastern Book Company,

Lukhnow.

6.) K.D.Gaur, Criminal Law : Cases and Materials, 6th Ed. , Lexis Nexis , Butterworths,

Wadhwa, Nagpur.

7.) Pillai PSA, Criminal Law, 10th Ed. 2008, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths, India.

21

22