Relevance And Admissibility Of Evidence: A Global Perspective

Evidence in legal and common parlance means proving a certain event/fact by production of documentary or oral deposition, that is to say by making of oral statements by persons who happened to have witnessed the occurrence of such events and/or by producing documents in support of facts and pleadings. Simply put, procuring evidence is the process of using everything that is helpful in arriving at a reasoned judgment.

Evidence is a fundamental foundation of any juridical system. The Indian Law of Evidence broadly describes evidence as (1) Relevant, which is concerned with facts in an issue, in any proceeding. (2) Admissible, which after being found relevant and also having passed the test of sufficiency, are capable of being admitted in a judicial forum.

However, any evidence which though not connected with the fact in issue but is otherwise relevant to prove the existence of something which is relevant to the fact in the issue has to be deemed as relevant which in legal language is known as circumstantial evidence. The aforesaid evidences can be further subdivided as (a) Lawful Evidence (law fully gathered evidence). (b) Unlawful Evidence which has been gathered by unlawful means for example breach of fundamental rights granted to its citizens by the Indian Constitution or by disobeying certain safeguards to be obeyed by law-enforcing agencies for collection of evidence such as has been described under the NDPS Act. Admissible Evidence, therefore, is evidence which considers all the above and which courts and judicial fora receive and consider for the purposes of deciding a particular case.

Indian Fundamentals of Evidence

In the Indian legal system the burden of proving a certain fact lies on a person who alleges the existence of such fact. One of the primary elements and considerations for burden of proof which exists in law is the degree of certitude proof must reach, depending on both the quantity and quality of evidence, and this differs in civil and criminal cases. As a principle in criminal cases, evidence has to be adduced so as to prove the facts in an issue beyond all reasonable doubts. It is the Court which has to decide whether the burden of proof has been fully discharged or not by the party who is supposed to do so.

This varies in strict liability matters and also absolute criminal liabilities specified in special enactments like the ones on direct and indirect taxes, labour enactments and drug protection enactments to name a few. Ultimately the success of proving evidence in a case depends on how the judicial forum weighs the preponderance of probability, mens rea (in simple terms, 'guilty mind') and actus reus (in simple terms, 'wrong doing'). The preponderance of probability in civil suits has different degrees of adherence than criminal matters.

The question of admissibility of evidence is frequently raised with regard to circumstantial evidences that looks irrelevant but otherwise relevant to facts in an issue, in which an inference is required to be drawn to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Circumstantial evidence is important where direct evidence is not available. And further, with regard to appreciation of unlawfully gathered evidences by the law enforcement agencies which is relevant to the fact in an issue, one has to consider whether such evidence should be admitted or declined. In Indian legal history, the apex court in State of Maharashtra V/s. R.M. Malakani has held that evidences gathered unlawfully by the State but otherwise relevant/admissible under The Evidence Act of the State should be enforced against the accused. This has become an' established law for other courts and courts in trial consider such unlawfully gathered evidences in deciding the matter.

However, the question to be considered here is that if the enforcement agencies themselves ignore the law and courts then, won't the faith of the common man be shaken in the legal system? In an attempt to reply to this question, in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Baldev Singh, the apex court held that "Indeed in every case the end result is important but the means to achieve it must remain above board.

The remedy cannot be worse than the disease itself. The legitimacy of judicial process may come under the cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search operations and may also undermine respect for law and may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration of justice which cannot be permitted" In the said case, the court has further observed that there is need to protect society from criminals.

The social intent in safety will suffer if persons who commit crimes are let off because the evidence against them is to be treated as if it does not exist. The answer, therefore, is that the investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and the failure to do so must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting action against the concerned official so that the laxity on the part of the investigating authority is curbed.

In every case, the end result is important but the means to achieve it must remain above board. The legitimacy of the judicial process may come under a cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search operations and may also undermine respect for law and may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration of justice.

That cannot be permitted. An accused is entitled to a fair trial. A conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of justice. The use of evidence collected in breach of the safeguards provided by law, would render the trial unfair. In our legal system today, with the advancement of technology, introduction of new electronic media and changes in our social conditions, some amendments have been made in the existing legal provisions.

One of them being amendment to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by incorporating admissibility of electronic records. The definition of the evidence has also been amended to include all documents, including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court. The term 'electronic document' was assigned the same meaning as that under the Information Technology Act.

However the acceptance of tape recorded or other electronic evidence in the court of law depends solely on the establishment of its integrity. Surprisingly, apex court had again upheld the decision taken in R.M. Malkani case in State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu. In Navjot Sandhu case, an appeal against conviction was made following the attack on Parliament on December 13 2001. This case dealt with the proof and admissibility of mobile telephone call records.

While considering the appeal against the accused for attacking Parliament, a submission was made on behalf of the accused that no reliance could be placed on the mobile telephone call records, because the prosecution had failed to produce the relevant certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act as well as they had not been intercepted lawfully.

The Supreme Court concluded that an examination of the competent witness acquainted with the functioning of the computer during the relevant time and the manner in which the printouts of the call records were taken was sufficient to prove the call records. As our company is in the health care field, here is a global perspective of evolution of the use of evidence in this most happening spectrum.

For centuries, medical practice has been based mostly on clinical experience and judgement. Several recent developments have increased the promise and imperative of evidence-based decision making: tremendous growth in biomedical science and innovation; development of the evaluative clinical sciences; advances in communication and IT; and growing recognition that evidence-based decision making provides a framework for addressing health care policy challenges.

First, medical studies have undergone explosive growth: More than 11,000 publicly funded trials are under way in the United States alone. This has increased our ability to link decisions to evidence. Rapid growth of medical studies has also sharpened the need for tools that clinicians, patients, and policymakers can use to sort through the confusing and sometimes conflicting array of evidence. Second, the growth and maturation of methods and expertise for conducting and using systematic reviews have increased the reliability of evidence for use in health care decisions. Consistent and transparent methods have been developed for weighing evidence and synthesizing the results of multiple studies. This has resulted in a broad array of reliable and objective sources that can be consulted to augment expert opinion.

Third, the emerging health information technology revolution makes it possible to push evidence to the point of care and to identify where (and why) practice and evidence diverge. Fourth, reliable evidence can address the dual imperatives of controlling costs and improving quality. In recent decades, much attention has been focused on research and specific applications that promote the use of evidence in clinical decision making to reduce unwanted or inappropriate practice variations (variation that is not the result of patient preference or clinical severity).

The existence of practice variations and unabated increases in health spending have sharpened policy interest in identifying strategies that can demonstrate a clearer relationship between health care inputs and outputs. Increasing the relevance of scientific evidence to clinical and a policy decision relies on both a transparent approach to evaluating the quality of scientific studies and a broad debate about the interpretation of scientific findings and their optimal application.

Research at Home and Abroad.

The conduct of research as well as the development of strategies to assess and synthesize its outputs in the form of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is an enterprise that transcends national borders. A growing proportion of clinical research sponsored by the drug industry is multinational and has relevance to regulators and clinicians across borders. Applications that support the consumer's role in decision making will be a strong focus in the United States.

Clinicians must tailor scientific information derived from population-based studies to individual patients' needs and preferences, and policymakers must identify which approaches are most likely to succeed for their programmes. Policy interventions, such as the use of formularies, coverage, cost-sharing, and financial and other incentives, have an important, albeit indirect impact on clinical decisions.

Proponents of evidence-based decision making have always recognized that evidence is never the sole determinant of clinical or policy decisions. Decisions for individual patients must integrate evidence with information on clinical circumstances and patients' preferences, while policy decisions need to consider values and resources along with evidence. The importance of scientific evidence in various decisions is thus also a function of available evidence, the number of competing considerations, and the culture and context of the decision makers. Evidence seldom discussed is thus finding itself as most sought-after and wanted to perfect justice.

Disclaimer–The views in this article are the authors' views on existing laws and regimes based on their research and it does not reflect the views of the Company.