Hearsay Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act: Concept, Exceptions, and Examples

 Introduction to Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence refers to information that a person gathers or collects from someone else who has first-hand knowledge of that fact or information, making it second-hand information. According to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, hearsay evidence is generally not considered valid evidence and is inadmissible in courts.

The fundamental principle underlying this rule is that oral evidence must be direct, as mandated by Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section requires that if evidence refers to a fact that could be seen, heard, or perceived by any other sense, it must be the evidence of a witness who says they directly saw, heard, or perceived it.

Basic Concept and Definition

The rationale behind excluding hearsay evidence is to ensure that evidence presented in court is reliable, trustworthy, and subject to cross-examination.

The general rule against hearsay evidence is based on several considerations:

• The necessity of ensuring that evidence is reliable and can be subjected to cross-examination

• The lack of opportunity to test the credibility of the original source through cross-examination

• The increased risk of falsehood or misrepresentation in second-hand information.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

While the Indian Evidence Act largely excludes hearsay evidence, it recognizes certain exceptions where such evidence may be admitted based on the principle that hearsay evidence may be considered reliable in certain circumstances. The major exceptions are outlined primarily in Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. Dying Declarations (Section 32(1))

One of the most significant exceptions to the hearsay rule is the admission of dying declarations. A statement made by a person who is about to die, under the belief of impending death, is admissible as evidence. The legal maxim "Nemo Mariturus Presumuntur Mentri" supports this exception, meaning that a person who is about to die is presumed to speak the truth.

Requirements for admissibility:

• The person making the statement must believe his death is imminent

• The statement must relate to the cause of death or circumstances leading to death

• The person must be mentally sound when making the declaration

• The statement can be oral, written, or through actions

Example: In a murder case, if the victim makes a statement to a police officer or witness about who attacked them before dying, this statement would be admissible under Section 32(1) even though the victim cannot testify in court.

2. Res Gestae (Section 6 of Evidence Act)

The doctrine of res gestae, embodied in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, allows for the admission of statements that form part of the same transaction as the fact in issue. These are statements made contemporaneous with the event or immediately thereafter, without time for fabrication.

Example: In an assault case, if a witness heard the victim immediately after the attack say "John hit me with a stick," this statement would be admissible as part of res gestae, being a spontaneous utterance made immediately after the incident.

3. Admissions and Confessions (Sections 17, 30)

The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Kamal Ahmed held that admissions and confessions are exceptions to hearsay rules, as they are declarations against the interest of the person making them and are presumed to be true.

Example: If an accused person admits guilt to a friend, and the friend testifies about this admission, it can be admitted as evidence.

4.Statements of Deceased Persons (Section 32)

This section allows statements made by persons who are dead or cannot be found, when made in the ordinary course of business or against their pecuniary interest.

Example: A business record entry made by a deceased accountant in the regular course of business can be admitted as evidence.

5.Evidence in Former Proceedings (Section 33)

Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding can be proved in later proceedings if the witness is dead or cannot be found.

Example: If a witness testified in a previous trial but has since died, their previous testimony can be admitted in a related case.

6. Expert Opinion in Treatises (Proviso to Section 60)

The first proviso to Section 60 allows expert opinions from treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, provided the treatise is offered for sale.

Example: Medical opinions from established medical textbooks written by deceased experts can be cited as evidence in medical negligence cases.

7. Judicial Recognition

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized these exceptions. In Sukhar vs State of UP (1999) and Javed Alam vs State of Chhattisgarh (2009), the Court held that Section 6 creates an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence. Similarly, in State of U.P vs Ranvir Singh (2014), the Court confirmed that Section 32 is an exception to the general rule of Section 60.

These exceptions balance the need for reliable evidence with practical considerations, ensuring that relevant and trustworthy information is not excluded merely because of the technical hearsay rule.

Conclusion

The hearsay rule under the Indian Evidence Act represents a careful balance between ensuring the reliability of evidence and recognizing practical necessities where direct testimony is unavailable. The exceptions outlined in Section 32 and other provisions provide sufficient flexibility to admit reliable hearsay evidence in circumstances where it would be unfair or impractical to exclude it. These exceptions are based on principles of necessity and circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, ensuring that justice is not defeated by technical rules while maintaining the integrity of the evidence system.

Print Page