Here are some key questions on evidence law in Bangladesh, along with well-researched answers based on the Evidence Act, 1872:
1. What is the importance of the burden of proof in the Evidence Act of Bangladesh?
Answer: The burden of proof is a foundational principle of the Evidence Act, 1872, and is covered under Sections 101 to 114. It refers to the obligation placed on a party in a legal proceeding to prove or disprove a fact.
Section 101 states that whoever asserts a fact must prove it. In criminal cases, this means that the prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Section 102 places the burden of proof on the person who would fail if no evidence were provided. For example, in civil disputes, the plaintiff must establish the facts supporting their claim.
Section 103 mentions that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence.
In summary, the burden of proof ensures fairness in legal proceedings by clearly defining which party must prove their assertions, thereby safeguarding the rights of both the plaintiff and defendant.
---
2. What is the significance of 'res gestae' under Section 6 of the Evidence Act?
Answer: 'Res gestae,' a Latin term meaning "things done," is a principle that allows certain facts connected with the event in question to be admissible as evidence. Under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872, facts that are part of the same transaction are considered relevant, even if they do not form part of the direct issue.
For instance, in a case of assault, statements made by the victim immediately after the incident (while still under the stress of the event) may be admissible as part of the res gestae. These statements are deemed reliable because they are spontaneous and unplanned, and therefore less likely to be fabricated.
This provision is important because it allows the court to consider the entire context of an event, not just isolated facts, thereby ensuring a fuller understanding of the case.
---
3. How is the admissibility of documentary evidence regulated under the Evidence Act?
Answer: The admissibility of documentary evidence is covered extensively under Sections 61 to 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Act distinguishes between primary and secondary evidence, and each type has specific rules for admissibility.
Primary Evidence: Defined under Section 62, primary evidence refers to the original document itself. In most cases, only the original document is admissible in court unless exceptions apply.
Secondary Evidence: If the original document is unavailable, Section 63 permits the use of secondary evidence, such as certified copies, oral accounts of the document's contents, or duplicates. However, secondary evidence is only admissible under certain conditions, such as when the original has been lost or destroyed without the applicant's fault (Section 65).
To ensure authenticity, Sections 67 to 73 require that signatures and handwriting on the document be proven to be genuine, which often necessitates expert testimony or other supporting evidence.
---
4. What is the role of expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act?
Answer: Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the court can rely on expert opinions in areas requiring specialized knowledge, such as science, art, handwriting, and foreign law. Expert opinion is considered when the facts in issue are outside the common knowledge of the judge or jury.
For example, in a case involving a forged document, a handwriting expert's testimony may be critical to determine the authenticity of the signature. Similarly, in criminal cases involving forensic evidence, expert testimony may be needed to interpret DNA test results or ballistic reports.
However, it is important to note that while expert opinions are admissible, they are not binding on the court. The judge has the discretion to weigh the credibility of expert testimony against other evidence presented during the trial.
---
5. What is the doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act?
Answer: The doctrine of estoppel, explained under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872, prevents a person from asserting something contrary to what they previously stated if another party has relied upon that previous assertion to their detriment.
For example, if a landlord tells a tenant that they can stay in the property for a certain period without rent and the tenant acts based on this promise (by not paying rent), the landlord cannot later claim the rent for that period. This doctrine is crucial for maintaining fairness and consistency in legal dealings, as it prevents parties from benefiting from contradictory statements.
Estoppel ensures that parties adhere to the representations they have made, thereby promoting honesty and good faith in legal relationships.
---
6. What is the rule on confessions under the Evidence Act, and how is it applied in criminal cases?
Answer: Confessions are governed by Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and they play a significant role in criminal cases. A confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting guilt, either wholly or partially.
However, not all confessions are admissible in court. Section 24 states that a confession is inadmissible if it appears to have been made under inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority. Additionally, Section 25 declares that confessions made to a police officer are not admissible in criminal trials, a safeguard against coercion.
Further, under Section 26, a confession made while in police custody is not admissible unless made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. This provision ensures that confessions are voluntarily made and not extracted through improper means.
Confessions, when admissible, are powerful evidence, but the law has built-in safeguards to protect individuals from self-incrimination due to coercion or undue pressure.
---
7. How does the Evidence Act address the issue of presumptions under Section 114?
Answer: Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, deals with presumptions, allowing the court to infer the existence of certain facts from established facts, unless there is evidence to the contrary. These presumptions are not mandatory but discretionary, meaning that the court may decide whether to apply them based on the circumstances.
For instance, under Illustration (a) of Section 114, if a person is found in possession of stolen property shortly after a theft, the court may presume that they are the thief unless they can provide a satisfactory explanation. Similarly, under Illustration (g), the court may presume that evidence which could be produced by a party and is not produced would be unfavorable to that party.
These presumptions are important in both civil and criminal cases as they help in shifting the burden of proof and in drawing logical conclusions when direct evidence is lacking. However, these presumptions can be rebutted by contrary evidence.
---
These questions and answers provide an in-depth understanding of key areas of evidence law in Bangladesh, as outlined by the Evidence Act, 1872. Researchers and law students can explore these sections further to understand how evidentiary principles are applied in practice.
Comments
Post a Comment