TyroCity: Evidence Law Notes

Burden of Proof : Definition

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The expression burden of proof means “obligation to proof a fact.” Every party of the case has to establish facts which go in his/her favor or against his/her opponent. In other words, the general rule with regard to burden of proof is:” He/she who asserts must prove.” The reason is “one who drags another into the court must hear the burden of proving the facts which he/she asserts”.

The word ‘proof’ signifies a state of mental certainty as to existence or non-existence of some fact and the phrase’ burden of probabilities which has to be compulsive or overwhelming in the case of a choice in favor of a conviction as to remove all reasonable doubt. Burden of and presumption may become decisive only where evidence from both sides is equally balanced or there is paucity of evidence on either side.

Rebuttal of Presumption:

Section 29 of the Evidence Act 2031 states that there are certain facts, which are presumed by the court in favor of either party to the litigation. Presumption of law are those situations in which the law directs the court to presume certain facts on proof of some other facts. The court is obliged to presume as per the direction of law if such situation does not exist. Such situation are listed at the Section 6 of the Evidence Act 2031.The court acts as per the presumption until it is rebutted by the other party.

Similarly, presumption of facts are those situations in which the court acts on option whether to presume certain fact or not. If it does presume , the other party must bear burden of proof to rebut it. Section 7 of the Evidence Act 2031 has laid down such situations.

Presumption of Ownership:

Section 33 of the Evidence Act 2031 says that any person who is in possession of property is presumed to be owner of that property. The person rebutting it must bear burden of proof to the same effect. Similarly Section 110 of Evidence Act 1872 of India lays down that a person in possession of a property is presumed to be the owner . If anybody denies that the possessor is not owner, the burden of proof lies on him/her.

Definition of Expert Reports and Opinions

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Generally an expert means a person who has special knowledge and skill in a special field either by the study or by the experience. Some experts are being expert through their study and some are being expert through their experience. In the western or developed country ,these people are recognized as an expert. Who did special courses like Doctor, Engineer and other specialized people. But in context of Nepal those people are recognized as an expert who have long time experience about such matter of handwriting, a person who observed someone handwriting from long time before. Section 23 of Evidence Act 2031, states “An expert as a person who has gained special knowledge through special studies , training and experience”.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “An expert is a person who through education or experience has developed skill or knowledge in a particular subject , so that she/he may opinions that will assist the fact finders.

Similarly, according to Ballentine’s Dictionary, “An expert means , one who is qualified either by actual experience or by careful study , as to enable him/her to form a definite opinion of his/her own respecting a division of science, branch of art or department of trade about which persons having no particular training or special study are incapable of forming accurate opinions or deducing correct conclusions.

Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 states that “when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or science, or art or as to identify of handwriting or finger print expression , the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art , or in question as to identify of handwriting or fingerprint impression are relevant facts. Such person is called an expert.

In short, we can say an expert is that person who has knowledge on particular field by the study training or by the experience.

Documents prepared at the time of investigation

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Documents prepared by the authorities during the time of investigation of any crime are relevant. As per the Section 18 of Evidence Act 2031, documents prepared in the course of investigation are relevant only if the witness making such statement come to the court to testify himself/herself. However, in the following two situation the court may take recognize of such statement without coming the witness as its preliminary hearing whether to grant bail on the accused or not.

It is Postmortem Report and the opinion of the expert has conformity with other circumstance evidence. The same holds good if the opponent party does not challenge the opinion of the doctors.
If it is Syracuse Report , the witness need not to come to testify at preliminary hearing in the court.

Evidentiary value of Expert Witness

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Normally witnesses are not entitled to give their opinion in any proceedings. They should tell whatever they see or observe but Section 23 of Evidence Act 2031 provides for admission of opinions of different types of Experts in court, and the value to be given on such opinions as follows;

If court has to form an opinion of foreign law, science, art, handwriting or finer impressions, it may take the opinions of experts of such subject as evidence.
If court has form an opinion on handwriting of a person, it may take opinion of a person who has had opportunity to see handwriting and is in a situation to identify handwriting as evidence.
If court has to form an opinion as to relationship between persons, it may take as evidence the opinions of people who have special knowledge of relationship.
If court has to form an opinion as to meaning of certain words placed in certain places , it may take the opinion of person having special knowledge of same as evidence.
Such opinions are however to be admitted as evidence only if an expert comes and testifies in the court.The expert’s opinion is only piece of evidence and cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence since it is to be judged along with other evidence. In other words, expert’s opinion must be corroborating with the other evidence. As for instance, report of handwriting expert is not admissible in evidence in the absence of formal proof. In the case of Mubark Ali vs.State of Bombay, the Indian Supreme Court laid down that a witness must confine himself to the facts and not to state of his opinion. But according to Section 23(7) of Evidence Act 2031, author of an article or book need not be present in the court in person for the article or book to be admitted as evidence. And also , if the Post Mortem Report does not contradict with other facts collected during the course of investigation or if the opponent does not challenge matter in court, the Expert need not come to the court.

Examination of Expert Witness

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Any expert who has provided their opinion, should come to the court and he/she has to face various type of examinations as follows;

1. Direct examination:

The Evidence Act 2031, Section 50(1) provides for the direct examination or examination in–chief. It is the first stage of examination where the party or attorney of the party as usually is the case in modern litigation, who calls upon the Expert Witness, examines him/her. So in cases, where the State is party, the Public Prosecutor first examines the Expert Witness.

Further, the reason for any party to call an Expert Witness is to furnish support for his/her arguments. But the asking of questions by any party or the lawyer of the party to his/her witness that will lead to the answer desired by him/her.

2. Cross – examination of Expert Witness:
According to Oxford Dictionary of Law, ”When the first examination is finished, the first Advocate sits down and the Advocate of other side, be it defense or prosecution, rises to cross-examine the witness. This examination of witness by the Advocate for adverse party is popularly known as cross – examination.

Cross- examination helps the judge to determine the evidentiary value of an opinion. The main objective is to test the accuracy of the statement made by an expert. Dr. Reddy observed that,” In doing this, the lawyer may try to weaken the evidence by showing that the evidence given is inconsistent, in accurate, ill- founded, contradictory and untrustworthy. The cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified in his examination- in-chief.

In cross-examination, an expert giving opinion must appear before court as witness. The opponent party subjects him/her cross-examination .The court must be convinced with the reliability of such opinion. The court does not follow all types of opinion blindly.

3. Re-examination:

Re-examination is the third stage of examination. The Evidence Act 2031,Section 50(2) states about re-examination of witness. First party of case or who asked questions first with the expert can ask or clarify certain question under the permission of Bench.

Historical Development of Evidence Law in Nepal

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Earlier, the principles relating to law of evidence were not clear both under English and Nepali as well as Hindu and Muslim legal system. In the early English Law, ordeals, compurgation or wager of law and trial by battle were used as modes of proof. Under Hindu system of jurisprudence, sometimes divine test were used. The modern law of evidence owes its origin from English Common Law. Certain parts of law of evidence may be traced back to the period Middle Ages. However, the real beginning for the main outstanding features of evidence was made in 16th and 17th centuries, when jury started deciding cases on the evidence of witness. For the first time, a book on evidence, was written by Chief Baron Gilbert, who died in 1726.The book was published in 1756 after his death.

Historical Development of evidence law of Nepal

Nepal does not have long legal history. The country remained divided into different principalities until 1825(Bs).Late Prithvi Narayan Shah, the great, united the country in one nation and king Rana Bahadur Shah brought the country in present shape. The country remained under the Rana regime in between 1903 to 2007(Bs).The country was subject to autocratic rule during this period with concentration of power in the hand of Rana Prime minister and the king being only titular head of the country.

Rana regime was overthrown with popular movement in 2007(Bs).Until then we adopted inquisitor system of prosecution .After 2007 (Bs) the got democratization with the growth of the notion of rule of law. Thereafter we adopted adversary model of justice system. Many old provisions, traditions and practices still lurk over head even though they do not confirm with modern philosophy.

We have first codification of law in 1437(Bs) during the reign of King Jayasthiti Malla under the title “Manab Nyaya Sastra”before the unification of the country. It was basically religious code rather than code of law.Prime minister Janga Bahadur Rana, during the regime of King Surendra Birbikram Shah implemented a new code name “Muluki Ain “in 1910(Bs).Until 2007(Bs) the sources of law were command of the sovereign, custom, religious text, equity, justice and good conscience .

Historically the country was ruled by Kirat dynasty, Lichhavi dynasty, Malla Dynasty and shah dynasty in different period of time .Historically development of law has to be researched and evaluated in these perspectives.

1. Ancient notion of law and justice:

Hindu philosophy held Dharma as a composite feature of law, other philosophy with the implementation of written law in the country.

2. Trial by Ordeal:

Where there was no reliable evidence trial by ordeal and deposition thereafter used to be another method of adjudication in absence of evidence.

3. Representation in the litigation:

Until 2007(Bs) legal education was very limited. So litigants were not represented by any lawyer. They however, could appoint any person of their choice to represent their case. Within the court room bench assistant (Taharir) could give dissent opinion against the verdict of the Judge. Thus, both being subject matter of consideration in appellate court .Thus unique method got subside with the growth of the legal education and with the concern of legal aid in litigation.

4. Sarjamin[spot investigation]:

Inquisition by public authority upon information of any crime is the usual practice that prevailed since the long time. This practice was popularly known as "Sarjamin or Dor".It’s job was to investigate the case by calling persons residing at the vicinity of the scene of crime .It played vital role throughout the history in the adjudication on the case .It was finally decided by Supreme Court in Bir Bahadur Tamang v. Krishna Maya Tamang that sarjamin is not substitute of a witness. In sarjamin the person giving a statement do not take oath before their deposition, nor can they be cross examined by the opponent .So they can not be held liable for perjury, if the statement proved false later on. Recentaly investigator have adopted new method of investigation the case known as “Bastusthiti Muchulka”.Under this provision they invite local people at police station to relate information known to them as to the incidence.Such documentation is not per se evidence. These documents may be relevant in pre-trial proceeding to adjudicate whether the accused be released on bail or not pending the trial[Sec.18 of the Evidence Act 2031]

5. Witness, examination of witness:

Religious text like Manusmriti, Yagyabalk Smriti, Bhanu Smriti, Narad Smriti etc. have given elaborate description of competency of witness and their method of examination. There is no uniformity in their approach . But we can draw some common ground as an essence of their direction. These texts emphasized that witness should a person of high moral values, honest in nature, free from greed and external influence. Person like convict, dishonest, saint, person having law moral profile etc. are disregarded to be a competent witness. Witness were supposed to give deposition before the sun or the fire or the god with intimatios with his soul or inner conscience. He used to be penalized if his statement proved false. Women were excluded to be a competent witness unless it is case relating to women. The first code of 1910(Bs)has incorporated some provisions as to evidence but it does not relate elaborately with examination of witness. In grave offences court officer himself was supposed to visit to the resident of witness to take deposition if he is unable to come to the court because of his agedness, or in case of woman because of her high social status and non exposure before the public. This provision still prevails in law though obsolete in practice. The law had made mandatory provision to appear before the court compulsorily to a witness who has seen the incident by own his eye. Witness living at distant places could be examined through local authority with directions of questions to be asked with the witness in written form. This was termed as “Banda Sawal” which is still prevailing in the existing law. Witnesses were required to take oath by holding copper and Tulsi Plant before the deposition. This provision was discarded after 2020 (Bs) with reformulation of New Muluki Ain, it has written only oath provision on the face of his conscience. This law had further made provision that if there were more than one witness, all of them must be examined wherever possible on the same day. The opponent had right to cross-examine him. At the end of examination he was asked whether he had to say anything more and get recorded his response .If anything was to be taken after the process of examination he could be asked on such point only with the permission of the court .This process is know as “Tatimba’ The following persons were listed as incompetent witness.

a. Who is blind before the time of incidence

b. Who is dumb

c. Who is convicted up to 3 times or more for giving perjury.

After 2020(Bs) lawyers were made immune from giving evidence on matters which are related to him by his client .There were no provisions of privileges other than this. But Evidence Act 2031, has made a good progress over the old law in the sense that now all types of persons can be witness if he/she had perceived the incidence or fact by his/her own sense. It made further provision of privilege of witness in more extensive way. The Act has made further provision that on points of technicalities or on any other subjects of complexity the court may pursue opinion of experts in the course of the proceeding.

Documentary evidence:
Documentary evidence is regarded as vital evidence throughout the history. Kagaj janch ko Mahal has laid down certain format for certain type of transactions. Documents not complying with these provisions do not create any liability. There are certain documents which are to be required registered if the transactions to be valied. These are some safeguards to hold the transaction free from collusion fraud or other forms of mis-representation. Any document which is in one’s own handwriting may be given in evidence against such person even though he has not fixed this signature on it. The usual practice is that the document given in evidence is shown to the other party for his reaction on it. If he describes it as fraud , the court pursues other method of proving it[3].The Evidence Act 2031 has made elaborate provision as to the method of proving documentary evidence. It also specifics the conditions in which secondary evidence can be adduced in the proceeding.

7.Admission and confession:

Admission and confession played dominating role throughout the history of Nepalese Justice system. Dirrect examinations of the accused or the litigant prevailed until 2007(Bs). Jawan Bandi, Thado Bujhnu, Kayalnama, Sabiti were such terms which have relevance with admission and confession of the litigant. Any accused against whom there is prima facei evidence, he was supposed to confess his guilt before the police. If he does not do so the police was entitled to administer torture against him [Chori ko No.1,Muluki Ain 1910 Bs].This practice still pervades among the police even though The Evidence 2031 has prohibited it. The present court practice is that confession before the police is taken as evidence only if the court finds it free from torture, influence or pressure of any kind or it must be corroborated by some other independent evidence.

8. Character evidence:

Character evidence used to one of the evidences against the accused in the past. Accused having criminal record used to suffer in various ways in the process of confession from them. Evidence Act 2031 has dispensed this practice by making clear cut provision that character can not be given as evidence unless the character is itself in issue. Though the law has made such explicit provision the older practice of stating the past conviction of the accuse in the charge sheet still prevails. This contradictory with the sprit of evidence Act 2031,and it awaiting reform on it.

9. New Introduction made by Evidence Act 2031:

The Evidence Act 2031, has introduce some new and progressive provisions that what existed in the past. They may be listed as follows

Judicial Notice
Presumption of law and presumption of fact
Hearsay and exception to hearsay rule
Expert opinion
Burden of proof
Estoppels
Privileges of witness

The present Evidence Act 2031 is obviously a progressive over the past practice. But we can not say that it is perfect one. It has not yet been fully implemented in practice because of our traditional style of working and inadequacy in training. The following points are worthy of consideration for future reform.

Even accuse may be invited as a witness of his /her case and be subjected to cross-examination by the opponent unless and until he/she refuses to do so.
The defense of alibi has become of general phenomenon in our system, when an accused confesses his/her guilt before the police and denies it before the court. A mechanism is to be evolved to discourage such practice which encourages manufacturing of evidence.
Confession has to be made reliable and useful evidence by encouraging guilty party to plead guilty with an attraction of lesser amount of punishment on such plea.
The method of adducing evidence at the beginning of the trail is to be reviewed. Instead of disclosing each and every evidence at the outset the proceeding whether civil or criminal, the prosecution or the plaintiff must be allowed to establish their case by prima facie evidence. The burden of proof goes on changing as per the progress of the case.
Conviction and sentencing proceeding has to be separated from betterment .Evidence Act 2031, has relevance only with conviction proceeding .Every other thing such as character of the accused, his/her family status, his/her earning, his/her possibility of reformation, his/her is relevant in sentencing. Sentencing considering all these matter may be regard as reformative approach of punishment.

[1] Sen.Priya Nath:General Principles of Hindu Jurisprudence, p.371

[2] NKP 2019,P.240

[3] Section 78 of Court Management of Muluki Ain 2020

[4] Sec.5 of the Evidence Act 2031

[5] Sec.6 and 7 of the Evidence Act 2031]

[6] Sec.10,11,12 of the Evidence Act 2031]

[7] Sec.23 of the Evidence Act 2031

[8] Sec. 25 to 33 of the Evidence Act 2031

[9] Sec.34 of the Evidence Act 2031

[10] Sec.40 to 45 of the Evidence Act 2031]

Leading question for Examination of Witness

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Leading Question means “a question, which by itself suggests the answer as expected by the person, asked / put the same.

Bentham says “leading question as a question is a leading one, when it indicates to the witness, the real or supposed fact, which is the examiner, expects and desires to have confirmed by the answer.

As for example:

At time of commission of crime you were on the spot?
Did you she Mr. A on the spot?
Have you been friend of Mr. A since long time?
On the spot you did not say anything to accused?
Accused was attacking victims by Khukuri?

When leading question must not be asked:

Generally leading question must not be asked in Examination in Chief or in Re-examination except with permission of the court. The court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed or which have in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved.

Objection to leading question:

Adverse party can oppose to ask leading question during the Examination in Chief or Re-examination. Objection to the leading question is not that they are illegal but only that they are unfair. The rule excluding leading questions is intended to prevent unfairness in the conduct of the enquiry. The court has absolute discretion to allow or not leading question.

Meaning and Purpose of Examination and Cross Examination

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Examination means testified to the witness about relevancy to find out witness knowledge, confidence , so no for the subject matter. Interrogative of witness by the opposition party is called cross examination. Cross examination is also said to be ‘ the greatest engine even invented for the discovery of earth.

Cross examination is’ the questioning of a witness at a trial or hearing by the party opposed to the party who called the witness to testify.

Cross-examination ‘the most effective art of the skilled trial lawyer; the interrogative of a witness for the opposing party by questions formed to test the accuracy and truthfulness of his/her testimony on direct examination and to bring out the truth of matter in issue; an absolute rights in action and proceeding.

According to Taylor, cross-examination is ‘the motives to prevent truth are so much numerous in judicial investigation than in the ordinary affairs of life that the danger of injustice arising from this cause’

Cross-examination of the witness is the process of purity the fact from the witness of the opposite party. It does not protect the rights of the party, must have both the right and opportunity of cross-examination. Cross-examination is one of the greatest weapon of the testing the veracity of a statement made by a person. It is both, sword of attack and a side of defense.

Purpose:

Cross-examination is designed to serve one or more of the following purposes as

To damage or destroy the opponent,
To substantially discredit the witness,
To support one’s own the case

According to Cross and Wilkins, the objective of cross-examination on conducted or on behalf of the opposite party are

to elicit evidence directly relevant to the issued which is favorable to the cross-examiners case and
To discredit the witness.

The very purpose of the cross-examination is to ask the question regarding to what the witness has stated in the examination in –chief are in the case of that witness and particularly when the witness is a party to the proceeding of that party.The entire questions which are asked with a new challenge the evidence-in – chief are permissible .The motives to prevent truth are so much more numerous in judicial investigation than in the ordinary affairs of life and the danger of injustice arising from this cause.

Plea of Alibi : Definition and Principle

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Alibi is the Latin term , which means ‘elsewhere’. Alibi is a piece of evidence that one was elsewhere and alleged act took place, an excuse.

As per Oxford Dictionary Alibi means that a claim or the evidence supporting it , that when an alleged an act took place one was elsewhere or an excuse of any kind , a pretext or justification.

According to Ballentines Dictionary Alibi means that a rebuttal of evidence of the prosecution by evidence that the accused was elsewhere that the alleged scene of the offence at the time of offence.

Section 28 of the Evidence Act 1031 lays down that ,if any law has laid down any such provision specifying that certain facts are to be proved by the certain party in the given situation, the same hold good if such situation does arise.

A defense that places the defendant at the relevant time of crime in different place than the scene involved and so removed there from as render it impossible for him/her to be guilty party.

These all definitions have lay down that Alibi means at the time of occurrence of crime he/she was not there. Plea of Alibi is the mode of defense taken by the accused that he/she was physically not present at a time of scene of offense by the reason of presence at another place. Alibi is different from all kinds of evidence; it is based on the premise that defendant is truly innocent. Thus Alibi is based on the theory that presence of else where is essentially is inconsistent of presence of accused at the place and the time of alleged occurrence and the participant in it.

Plea of Alibi is view as self defense or provocation. Basically legal burden lies on prosecution in criminal case and plaintiff in civil case. It does not means that defendant has no any burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the party concerned as per the situation of the case .Usually the defendant does not legal burden in criminal case however they often have evidential burden. If defendant wishes to do more than merely deny the prosecution case and wishes to raise an affirmative defense that he/she will bear the evidential burden. Thus, in certain situation burden of proving a particular fact in issue may be laid by the law on the accused. Therefore, plea of Alibi is one of situation on which defendant has evidential burden to justify defense being consider seriously by the court. Once there is any evidence to support such ‘explanation’ than legal burden of disproving such explanation rest upon the prosecution.

Principle of Plea of Alibi:

Plea of Alibi is based on Roman principle ,”ei qui non negat incumbite probation”. It means who claims has to prove it not the party who negats.A person alleged too have done any act might introduce the fact that making it less possible that he/she was present at the time and place of the act and such facts are admissible even though they do not suffice to make his/her presence total impossible. Alibi if established is a complete defense to the charge of having committed the crime , the force of this defense is universally recognized. The principle of an alibi is that essential inconsistent with the presence at the place at the place and the time alleged, and therefore with personal participation in the fact. Thus the evidentiary fact is a new affirmative proposition consider as the factum probandum through it’s logical operator is negative one.

Principles of Physical Evidence

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Basically physical evidence is based on certain principles. These are follows;

Principle of individuality:
Every object , natural or human made , has an individuality, which is not duplicated in any other object. It is unique. Neither the nature has not duplicate itself nor human can

This principle is contrary to common belief and observation. The individuality has been varied in certain fields. The most extensive work has been carried out in finger print. Millions of fingerprints have been checked but on two fingerprints, even from two fingers of the same person have been ever found to be identical. The law of individuality is fundamental importance of physical evidence in forensic science. Anything and everything involved in a crime, has individuality. Thus the culprit is unique, scene of crime is unique , his/her modus operandi is unique, evidentiary clues left over or picked up by the culprit are unique. And this uniqueness in different person to person, through the physical evidence , the criminal can be arrest by linking the crime with criminal.

2. Principle of Exchange:

Whenever two entities came in contact, there is exchange of traces mutually. This principle says that, when a criminal or his/her instrument of crimes come in contact with the victim or the object surrounding him/her, they leaves traces. Thus, mutual exchange of traces takes place between criminal, the victim and the object involved in rime. The rationality behind this principle is the 3rd motion of Newton. Which states that “in every action, equal and opposite reaction”.[Ibid].According to this principle , when criminal attacks upon the victim by own self or by the help of object , the body or the victims any thing re-act in same motion and at the time the traces is exchanged between each other. The traces of victims go on the criminals and the traces of the offenders remains in the body of the victim. By that traces the offender can be find out easily.

3. Principle of Progressive Change:

Everything changes with the passage of time. Nothing in this world is unchangeable, permanent or invariable. But the rate of change varies with tremendously with different objects. The criminal undergo progressive change. If he/she is not apprehended in time , that becomes unrecognizable. But even in this , some evidences are those types which never changes in their lifetime. Such as fingerprints, bone fractures, or other characteristics of the permanent nature like body fluids, body cell, DNA profile never exchange. So this principle demands that prompt action in all aspect of criminal investigation.

4. Principle of Comparison:

Only the likes can be compare. This principle governs the physical evidence is comparison of the similar things. According to this principle , the evidence found in scene of crime is compared with the similar things before he/she had done. Generally it emphasizes the necessity of providing like sample and specimens for comparison with the question item. Under this principles the evidence found in scene of crime is compared with that’s previously done thing, and from this comparison that document is produced before the court as evidence. In this comparison the hand writing and printed document can compare to convict the criminal.

5. Fact do not lie:

Fact itself remain at any circumstances. Physical evidences are directly connected with the scene of crime and which is itself proving the fact that presence of criminal in that crime. So physical evidences can not lie the fact, and there is no room for error in proving or disproving the fact. The unique mark left by the offender remains only on him/her , so to prove the fact physical evidences are the best evidence.

When accused can take Plea of Alibi

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

If accused does not express about plea of alibi and directly express in front of the judge in the court ,in such situation court may not entertain. However, this kind of provision is not present in context of Nepal. So , it creates the high scope for accused to claiming plea of alibi and also manufacturing the false evidence to prove his/her defence. Therefore the plea of alibi evidence is observed by the court very often is highly suspicious and concocted. If alibi evidence established by inspected and unbiased testimony , it would be the best evidence to satisfy the court.

Facts recorded in public documents

Evidence Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Any document, which is prepared by the public officer in execution of his/her official duty is regarded as public document and it may be given in evidence to prove the court in such document.

As per the Section 13 of Evidence Act 2031, any books or judgment of the court published by the government is regarded as authentic document and they may be govern evidence in any court proceeding.