The Indian Evidence Act doesn’t provide a specific definition for ‘ Hearsay Evidence’. Stephen explains that the term ‘ Hearsay’ is used in different contexts, at times referring to something a person directly says, and at other times indicating a statement made based on information from another individual.
- Example :– When a witness states that they didn’t witness an event personally but were informed by another person, the credibility of observing the event doesn’t belong to the witness but rather to the other individual.
INADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE :-
The inadmissibility of Hearsay Evidence is established through Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, which enforces the requirement for direct oral evidence. This means the testimony must come from individuals who personally observed, heard, perceived, or formed opinions about a fact based on specific grounds. Hearsay Evidence, being indirect and secondary, lacks the strength to convincingly demonstrate the existence of a fact. Its inherent vulnerabilities and potential for deceit underline the comprehensive exclusion of hearsay evidence.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE :-
- Res Gestae (Section 6)
- Admission and Confession (Section 17-30)
- Statement of persons who are dead,etc. (Section 32)
- Evidence given in former proceedings.(Section 33)
- Statements in books of accounts,etc. (Section 34-38)
- Proviso to Section 60
In conclusion, while the Act allows for certain exceptions, Hearsay Evidence is generally considered less reliable due to its potential for distortion and misrepresentation. The courts aim to balance the need for justice with the necessity of ensuring reliable and accurate testimony, highlighting the significance of evaluating hearsay evidence carefully and within the framework of established legal principles.
