Law of Evidence- Internal Assignment

Law of Evidence - Internal Assignment

Assignment Questions

1) Attempt briefly any four following

a) Fact and Fact in issue

b) Witness and Hostile witness

c) Oral & documentary evidence

d) Factum probandum and factum probans

e) Adversarial and Inquisitorial system

Q1.
Q. 1) Attempt briefly any four following
a) Fact and Fact in issue

b) Witness and Hostile witness

c) Oral & documentary evidence

d) Factum probandum & factum probans

e) Adversarial & Inquisitorial system

Q. 1) A) Fact and Fact in issue

Answer:

Fact:

A legal dispute arises between the parties to a litigation when one of the parties asserts
some right and the other party denies it. The aggrieved party, i.e., the party whose rights
are denied approaches a Court having jurisdiction by presenting his pleadings. In the
pleadings submitted by him, the party instituting the case pleads facts and claims relief
based on certain grounds.
The Court issues summons to the opposite party. Along with the summons a copy of the
pleadings presented by the party instituting the case is supplied to the opposite party. The
opposite party appears before the Court and presents its pleadings in reply to the pleadings
submitted by the party instituting the case.
In the pleadings submitted by the opposite party, he pleads his version of facts, and seeks
dismissal of the case against him. The Court compares the two pleadings, one submitted by
the party instituting the case and the other submitted by the opposite party. By doing so,
the Court separates two sets of facts. 1. Facts pleaded by the party instituting the case and
admitted by the opposite party. These set of facts are called ‘admitted facts’.
2. Facts pleaded by the party instituting the case and denied by the opposite party. These
facts are called the ‘disputed facts’.
As there is a consensus among the parties in respect of the admitted facts, they form the
facts of the case. In respect of disputed facts, the versions of the parties differ, and the
Court has to decide which facts of these two different sets should be treated as the facts of
the case. In this regard, the Court frames issues. Issues so framed are the questions of fact
involved in the case.
These issues specify the exact controversy between the parties. The Court answers these
questions of fact based on the evidence on record, which is produced by the parties.
An analysis of the above discussion leads to the conclusion that in a case there can be four
sets of facts.
1. the actual facts, or the real facts;
2. the facts pleaded by the party instituting the proceedings;
3. the facts pleaded by the opposite party; and
4. the Court’s findings.
The Court’s findings should be based on the ‘material before it’, which includes pleadings of
the parties, evidence on record and material objects. The judge cannot apply his personal
knowledge in finding the fact of the case. The decision of the Court is based on the facts
admitted by both the parties and the facts found by the Court.

CONCEPT OF FACT
Jurisprudentially, ‘fact’ may be viewed in two different ways:
1. First, fact may be viewed as distinguished from law.
Law is something which may be ascertained from the books of law. Anything which may not
be ascertained from the books of law is a fact.
2. Second, fact is something which may be perceived.
In this sense, a fact is something which may be seen, heard, tasted, smelt or felt.
DEFINITION OF FACT, RELEVANT FACT and FACT IN ISSUE
Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines Fact as:
“Fact” means and includes--
(1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived
by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or
fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time
conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
The definition of “fact” includes two parts. The first part deals with what may be called the
“physical facts”, while the second part deals with what may be called “psychological facts”.
2) “Relevant Fact” -
One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any
of the ways referred to in the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, relating to the relevancy of
facts.
The word 'relevant' has two meanings. in one sense, it means "connected" and another
sense "admissible". One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected
with the other, in any of the way referred to in the provisions of the Evidence Act relating to
the relevancy of facts as under Section 5 to 55.
(i) Logical Relevancy - A fact is said to be logically relevant to another when by
application of our logic if it appears that one fact has a bearing upon another .
(ii) Legal Relevancy - A fact is said to be legally relevant when it is expressed as relevant
under Section 5 to 55 (Relevancy of Fact).
A fact may either be logically relevant or legally relevant. Where a fact bears such casual
relation to the other that it renders probable its existence or non-existence, it is said to be a
logically relevant fact. For instance, where it is to be determined where it is to be
determined whether A has placed the murder weapon in the field or not, the fact that B saw
A walking towards the field with the murder weapon is relevant.
The Evidence Act recognizes some of the kinds of causal relations. Thus, those kinds of
causal relations which are recognized by law are known as legally relevant fact. Therefore,
while all legally relevant facts are logically relevant, all logically relevant facts may not be
legally relevant.
..
3) Fact in Issue:
According to Section 3 the expression “facts in issue” means and includes — any fact from
which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence,
nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or
proceeding, necessarily follows.
Explanation -
Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil
Procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the
answer to such issue, is a fact in issue.
llustrations -
A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial, the following facts may be in issue —
That A caused B’s death;
That A intended to cause B’s death;
That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B
That A at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, was, by reason of unsoundness
of mind, incapable of knowing its nature he expression “Facts in issue” refers to facts out of
which a legal right, liability or disability arises and such legal right, liability, or disability is
involved in the inquiry and upon which the Court has to give the decision. The question as to
what to what facts may be “facts in issue” must be determined by substantive law or the
branch of procedural law which deals with pleadings. Generally, in criminal cases the charge
constitutes the facts in issue whereas in civil cases the facts in issue are determined by the
process of framing issues.
PROOF
Normally “proof” and “evidence” are mistaken to be synonymous. “Proof” of a fact is
showing the existence of the fact. Thus, a fact may be “proved”, “disproved” or “not
proved”.
Proved
A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either
believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under
the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
Disproved
A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either
believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent
man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that
it does not exist.
Not Proved
A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.
Thus, where neither party can produce evidence in its favour, the fact is said to be not
proved.
In normal parlance, expression “proof” included “dis-proof” also. Thus “burden of proof” is
burden not only of proving but also disproving depending upon circumstances.
EVIDENCE
Evidence is something which is used to prove or disprove a fact. Evidence, is itself a fact.
Evidence is classified as under
1. Oral Evidence
2. Documentary Evidence
However, under some legal systems there is a third type of evidence which is called as Real
Evidence, which is not recognized under Indian Evidence Act. Real Evidence is in the form of
objects which are covered under documentary evidence
.

Q. 1) B) Witness and Hostile witness

Answer:
Witness and Hostile witness

WITNESS UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

A witness is a person who gives evidence or testimony before any tribunal. Section 118 of
Indian Evidence Act lays down who may testify. Section 118 states that all persons shall be
competent to testify unless court considers that they are prevented from understanding
questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or of mind, or any
other cause of same kind.

Section 118 to 121 and Section 133 of the Act deals with competency of the witnesses
whereas Section 121 and Section 132 provides for compellability of witnesses. Section 134
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that no particular number of witnesses is required
for proof of any fact. Section 134 lays down the well-recognized maxim that Evidence should
be weighed and not counted.

A witness maybe compellable to give evidence but at the same time he may be privileged or
protected from answering certain questions.

witness who plays a significant role in helping the court in dispensing justice. Witness is eyes
and ears of justice. It is through witnesses and documents that evidences are places before
the court. A witness is a person who gives evidence or testimony before any tribunal.
Section 118 of Indian Evidence Act lays down all person are competent to testify unless
court considers that they are prevented from understanding of question.
Hostile witness:
Hostile witness is a witness who testifies for the opposing party or a witness who offers
adverse testimony to the calling party during direct examination. So a hostile witness is one
who from manner in which he gives evidence shows that he is not desirous of telling the
truth to the court. The hostile witness is also called ‘adverse witness’ as he weakens the
case of the side he was supporting. It is the attorney who urges the Judge to declare the
witness as a hostile witness. It is the court and no other than the court who has the
authority to declare a witness hostile. It has to be kept in mind that the court itself cannot
declare a witness hostile but it can only be done on the request made the prosecution
attorney.

FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR WITNESS TURNING HOSTILE

Some of the elements responsible for witness turning hostile can be following
1. Disinclination to get involved with court proceedings.
2. Fear of criminals or anti-social elements like goons. A witness turning hostile is either
due to allurement or threats to witnesses. Commonly threat plays a prominent part in
forcing a witness in retracting from his statements.
3. Sympathetic attitude towards accused.
4. Lack of civilized sense in public.
5. High rate of bribe and corruption.
6. Non implementation of penal laws.
7. Delhi High Court has observed that lot of witness are turning hostile due to
intimidation and threats.
8. Political pressure, fear of police and legal system, absence of fear of perjury, an
unsympathetic law enforcement machinery being some other factors.
Thakur. J (2001) is of the opinion that earlier an eye witness used to be summoned only
once and he would be examined on the same day. Hostile witness is also ‘stock’ witness or
‘pocket’ witness with police and they are planned to go hostile only.
Hostile Witness [Sec.154]
A witness who readily gives answers desired by the advocate examining him is called a
‘favourable witness’, because his answers are favourable to the party calling him to
give evidence.
A witness who is reluctant or refuses to give such answers is called a ‘hostile witness’,
because of his hostile attitude towards the advocate examining him.
Normally the same witness is favourable and hostile: favourable during examinationin-
chief and re-examination, and hostile during cross-examination. However, at times,
especially in criminal case, a witness may turn hostile during examination-in-chief
itself.
In such cases, the advocate for the party calling him, may, with the permission of Court
under sec. 154, ask questions which are permissible in cross-examination.
Refreshing Memory[Sec.159]
A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any
writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is
questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the
transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read
by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be
correct.
Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may,
with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document.
Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production
of the original.
Proviso to sec. 159 permits an expert to refresh his memory by reference to
professional treatises.
Sec. 160 provides that a witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such
document as is mentioned in sec. 159, although he has no specific recollection of the
facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the
document.
Illustration:
A book-keeper may testify to facts recorded by him in books regularly kept in the
course of business, if he knows that the books were correctly kept, although he has
forgotten the particular transactions entered.
Right of Adverse Party
Where a party uses any writing to refresh its memory while giving evidence, sec. 161
gives a right to the adverse party to inspect that writing. Any writing referred to
under the provisions secs. 159 and 150 must be produced and shown to the adverse
party as if he requires it. Such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness
thereupon.

------------- ---------------- -----------

Q. 1) C) Oral & documentary evidence
Answer:
Oral & documentary evidence

Oral Evidence
The “evidence” word is used in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in different phrases, i.e. best
evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, documentary evidence, substantive
evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence,
oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, real evidence, primary evidence and
secondary evidence.
Oral and documentary evidence are the two main kinds of evidence.
Oral evidence includes direct evidence and also substantive and corroborative evidence,
whereas, documentary evidence only includes substantive and corroborative evidence.
Section 59 and 60 of the Act deals with oral evidence.
Oral evidence of a witness is generally admissible evidence if he has direct and personal
knowledge of the fact deposed by him.
Whereas, in the case of documentary evidence, the Act classifies documents into two types:
one is a ‘public document’ in terms of Section 74 of the Act, and the other are certified
copies as contained in Section 77 of the Act.
Section 59: Proof of facts by oral evidence:
All the facts and circumstances may be proved by oral evidence by expressing or speaking
except the contents of documents and electronic records. The contents of documents and
electronic records cannot be proved by oral evidence.
Section 60 – Oral Evidence must be Direct
This is the cardinal principle of any evidence to be admissible in the court.
If any oral evidence needs to be admissible, all the conditions under Section 60 of the Indian
Evidence Act must be fulfilled.
Oral evidence and section 60 is a proportional equation. For acting out one, the other needs
to be fulfilled.
The base principle on which section 60 is placed is that the evidence which is taken into
regards must be direct.
The word direct does not include any category of hearsay as its main element is vested in
the word “must”.
Every statement under oral evidence must be direct.
Meaning of hearsay Evidence
All of us are aware of what hearsay is; hearsay is any information which is received by any
person from any other source.
Hearsay means when a person does not have a personal knowledge about a particular
matter or incident and he has been informed about that particular matter by any other
person.
Rationale behind the exclusion of Hearsay Evidence
We know that Hearsay Evidence is second-hand knowledge.
For oral evidence to be admissible it only accepts the rule of first-hand knowledge.
It only includes what is directly seen, heard and perceived by a person.
There is no room for second-hand knowledge.
A conviction passed on hearsay may be truly unjustified as there is no reliability as to
whether the person who has passed on the following information is credible enough or not.

For example: if A has received information through B that he saw C hitting D. This will be
hearsay because A himself has not administered the incident. For this reason, Hearsay has
been excluded from Oral Evidence.

Documentary evidence
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines documentary evidence – All documents
presented before the court for inspection, to demonstrate or show a reality are called
documentary evidence. This definition also includes electronic records produced before the
court. Chapter 5 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with documentary evidence. Section 61 to
90A falls under this chapter. Sections 61 to 73A deal with the general rules for proving
documentary evidence in various cases, specifically Sections 61-66 of the Act, which gives
answers to the questions that how the contents of a document are to be proved. The
content of documentary evidence can be separated into three sections that are:

How can the subject matter of a document be demonstrated?

How the record is to be proved to be authentic?
How far and in what instance oral evidence is excluded by documentary evidence?
Sections 74 to 78 deal with public documents and Section 79 to 90-A deal with
presumptions as to documents.

There is an ancient Roman proverb that is “Vox Audita Perit, Littera Scripta Manet” which
means that Spoken Word will Vanish, but the Written Word Remains.
Hence the law of evidence recognises the superiority and credibility of documentary
evidence as against oral evidence.
There are two kinds of documentary evidence:

Public Documents (Section 74)

A public document is a reproduction of an entry contained in some kind of public register,
book or record relating to relevant facts or a certified copy issued by an authority.
Documents such as a birth certificate, marriage certificate, a bill of a public water utility, an
FIR filed before the police station etc are some examples of public documents.

Private Documents (Section 75)

Documents like letters, agreements, emails, etc. which are exchanged between contesting
parties to a litigation are private documents.

Courts generally lean in favour of accepting public documents more readily than private
documents as the presumption is that the risk of tampering with public documents is far
less. Additionally, public documents have genesis to some reliable source that can be traced
back to for verification if necessary.

Section 61 provides that the contents in documentary evidence can be proved by

a) Primary Evidence (Section 62)

These are the “original documents” that are produced in the court for inspection. There are
2 special circumstances explained under this section:

When a document is executed in parts. In such cases, each part is the primary evidence of
the document.
Where several documents are made by one uniform process such as printing, lithography or
photography, each is the primary evidence for the contents of the rest.
b) Secondary Evidence (Section 63)

Section 63 of the Act provides Secondary Evidence.

Secondary evidence means and includes:

Certified copies.
Copies made from the original using a mechanical process while ensuring the accuracy of
the copy.
Copies made from and compared with the original.
Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has seen it.
When the contents of a document are to be verified by oral evidence then such document
becomes secondary evidence.

------------- ---------------- -----------

Q. 1) D) Factum probandum & factum probans

Answer:
Factum probandum & factum probans

The state of person's health is a fact. The psychological facts can only be proved by
circumstantial evidence. The fact sought to be proved (factum probandum) is called
"principal facts", the facts which lead to establish it are called 'evidentiary facts' (factum
probans).

Fact (Sec.3)
"Fact" means and includes -
(1) Anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by senses,
(2) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations
(a) That there are certain things arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, act in good faith, or
fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time
conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation is a fact.
Law has not merely to deal with things physically but also with things which are so hidden as
to be beyond physical observation, such as, a state or condition of a person's mind. Thus,
intention, fraud, good faith, negligence, etc. are facts. It has been said that "a state of man's
mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion". The state of person's health is a fact.
The psychological facts can only be proved by circumstantial evidence.
The fact sought to be proved (factum probandum) is called "principal facts", the facts which
lead to establish it are called 'evidentiary facts' (factum probans).
Facts in Issue (Sec.3)
"Facts in issue" means and includes –
(1) any act from which either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-
existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability, asserted or denied in any suit
or proceeding, necessarily follows,
(2) any fact asserted or denied in answer to an issue of fact recorded under the Civil
Procedure Code.
Facts which are in dispute are facts in issue. Evidence becomes necessary only in reference
to facts which are in controversy or dispute between the parties. Further, the fact should be
such that the question of liability should depend' upon it. The following illustration make
clear the point: -
“A is accused of the murder of B". At his trial the following facts may be in issue - that A
caused B's death; that A intended to cause B's death; that A had received grave and sudden
provocation from B; that A at the time of doing-that act which caused B's death, was, by
reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing its nature.”
Thus, every fact which a plaintiff must prove in order to get an adjudication in his favour, or
which a defendant may prove to defeat the suit, becomes a fact in issue. Facts in issue will
depend upon the provisions of the substantive law applicable to the offence. If, for example,
the action is for the tort of negligence, such of the ingredients of liability for negligence
which are in dispute shall be the facts in issue. If the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was
under duty of care towards him and the defendant denies the fact, this fact will be a fact in
issue between the parties. Thus, facts in issue depend upon the ingredients of the offence
and the state of the parties' pleadings. A fact in issue is called the 'principal' fact; or factum
probandum.
In criminal matters, the allegations in the charge-sheet constitute the facts in issue. In civil
matters, the process of ascertaining facts in issue is known as framing issues. Whatever be
the facts in issue, their existence has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court before the
court can be called upon to pronounce a judgement on the basis of those facts.
Relevant facts (Sec.3)
“One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any
of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts”, viz.
(i) facts logically connected with facts in issue (Ss. 5-16), (ii)admissions and confessions
(Ss.17-31), (iii) statements by non-witnesses(Ss. 32-33), (iv) statements under special
circumstances(Ss. 34-37), (v) judgement in other cases (Ss. 40-44), (vi) opinions of third
persons (Ss. 45-51),(vii) evidence as to character (Ss. 52-55). It is to be noted that the
section does not define the term "relevant". Rather, it simply indicates when one fact
becomes relevant to another. Normally, facts relevant to an issue are those facts which are
necessary for proof or disproof of a fact in issue. Thus, relevant facts (or evidentiary facts) or
factumprobans are those which are capable of affording a reasonable presumption as to
either the facts in issue or the principal patters in dispute. The word 'relevant' has been held
to be admissible (Lakhmi v Haider, 3 CWN 268). Relevant facts are not themselves in
admissible but are foundations of inferences regarding them.
For example, "when A is accused of the murder of B", the facts are - A had a motive and
opportunity to kill B, he had preparations by buying a knife, etc., or after the murder he was
running with blood-stained knife in hand.
------------- ---------------- -----------
Q. 1) E) Adversarial & Inquisitorial system

Answer:
Adversarial & Inquisitorial system

In an adversarial system, there is nothing like an independent examination, and the process
or method of cross-examination is just a portion of the trial. However, in inquisitorial
system, the examining judge is in charge of interrogating and scrutinizing the witnesses and
gathering the evidences of a respective case.
Trial Procedure Between Common and Civil law countries: Adversarial and Inquisitorial
systems

The Criminal Justice System is the process of arresting offenders, followed by stages of
inquiry to find proof. After that, charges are filed, a defence is formed, trials are held, and
sentences are bestowed if he is found guilty or acquitted if he is proven innocent. Offences
which are criminal in nature are often examined by exploring the facts and or situations,
circumstances, and contexts to show the individual's guilt.

A comprehensive investigation is carried out in a disciplined way, paying close attention to

details, evaluating and analysing material in order to reach a conclusion and prosecute the
individual who has committed the criminal act.

The trial before the honourable court is a judicial examination of the matters brought before
a jury or judge between the parties, whether they be of law or facts. Pieces of evidence are
evaluated by the judge in criminal trials to determine guilt. For the goal of determining the
outcome, the judge considers the law of the land, the facts brought before him, or the
legislation presented in the respective case.

Types Of Criminal Justice System

There are many various kinds of criminal justice systems throughout the world to protect
and sustain order and peace within their area of authority by developing a social uniform
policy, the law. Punishments can be either punitive or rehabilitative in character.

However, the most common and prevalent among all are:

Adversary system or Accusatory system:
Adversary system is the court system where a judge decides on a case argued by a
prosecutor who is suing the plaintiff and the defense attorney who defends their plaintiff. A
jury has also been used to decide such cases.[1]

Inquisitorial system:
Proof taking used in civil law, whereby the judge conducts the trial, determines what
questions to ask, and defines the scope and extent of the inquiry[2]

Adversary system
In this method, two adept advocates go toe to toe. respective advocates indulge to prepare
with the goal of persuading the court through compelling arguments. There really is no
equilibrium for this system; if one attorney is more competent, he may move the case in his
client's favour[4].

The adversarial system's dominant assumption is that a struggle between the counsels will
expose the truth or reality without the involvement of the judge, who only decides after
hearing he counsels and decides in the favour of strong of strong supporting arguments.
Because of the efficacy and persuasiveness of the councils, the destiny of the perpetrator is
jeopardised in the adversarial system. As evidences are provided by the advocate, they are
able to conceal negative facts, which is deceptive in nature.

Inquisitorial system
Judges evaluate and express concerns in this system unlike adversarial systems where the
major part carried out by the counsels upon which the judge gives his or her judgement on
the basis of the strength and credibility of the arguments and evidence. In common law
countries like France, there are two types of magistrates: examining or investigating
magistrates and chief magistrates.

The process's efficiency is tailored to the specific judge's capacity to be thorough and fair.
It's all upon the judge and its skill, the more skill the more prudent judgements unlike in
adversarial systems where the more skilful the lawyer the more chance of getting
judgements in his client's favour[5]. The inquisitorial system is designed to focus on truth
finding while minimising the danger.
Trial In India (A Common Law Country)
In case of India, it has a well-established legislative, regulatory, and administrative structure
for the trail of criminal cases.
The Indian Penal Code is largely controlled by three Acts.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
The Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC)
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)

Step 1
Framing Of The Charges
This is the very beginning of the whole procedure. When a case is brought before the court,
the court unveils significant allegations against the accused that have not been adequately
justified, and the court constructs the charge of accusation and begins with the trial.

Step 2
Recording Of The Evidences Of The Prosecution
As the accusations are framed, witnesses' testimonies are taken and then they are cross-
examined. This is referred to as examination in chief and cross-examination.

Step 3
The Statement Of The Accused
Here the accused person is given a fair chance to explain any compromising facts or
circumstances in the case which may become very much relevant and important in the
context of the trail.

Step 4
The Evidence Provided By The Defence
Here it's all up to the wish of the accused person, he may present documents and relevant
evidences that are admissible in accordance of the Indian evidence act 1872, and those will
be cross-examined by the prosecution. It is unnecessary since the prosecution has the
burden of proof and the producing of accused evidence is thus not a mandatory act.
Step 5
Closing And Final Arguments
This is the trial's last stage. The prosecutor will summarize the prosecution case and will give
closing arguments, and the accused is asked to respond.

Step 6
Judgement
It's the final and the last Step. Following the completion of the prosecutor's and defence's
final and concluding arguments, the judge renders his verdict or the judgement in the trial.

------------- ---------------- -----------

------------- ---------------- -----------