LoE -(1) 1. Relevaney of Facts: Understanding the concept of relevancy is fundamental in evidence law. It encompasses facts connected with the issue, including those of the same transaction, motive, preparation, conduct, and facts necessary to explain relevant evidence. 2, Admissions and Confessions: Admissions and confessions are significant in evidence law. Admissions are voluntary acknowledgments of facts by parties to a case, while confessions are voluntary acknowledgments of guilt by a party. Statements by Persons Unavailable as Witnesses: Statements made by individuals who cannot be called as, witnesses, such as dying declarations, statements in the ordinary course of business, and statements against the interest of the maker, hold evidentiary value under certain circumstances. 4, Judgments of Courts of Justice: Judgments of courts of justice are relevant evidence and can be admissible to prove the existence of certain facts decided therein. Opinion of Third Persons: Opinions of third persons can be relevant in evidence law, especially in matters concerning foreign law, science, handwriting, right, custom, and relationship. Exclusion of Oral by Documentary Evidence: Documentary evidence often takes precedence over oral evidence. However, there are exceptions, such as when extrinsic evidence is needed to explain ambiguity in a document. 7. Burden of Proof: Understanding the burden of proof is crucial. It determines which party in a case must prove the facts alleged and to what standard of proot. Presumptions as Regards Offences: Certain presumptions exist in evidence law, such as those regarding offences in disturbed areas, legitimacy of birth during marriage, and cession of territory. 9, Estoppel: Estoppel prevents a party from asserting something contrary to what is implied by @ previous action or statement of that party. 10. Competency of Witnesses: Determining the competency of witnesses involves assessing their ability to provide reliable testimony. This includes considerations of who can be 2 witness, the law regarding accomplice evidence, compellability of witnesses, and privileged communications. 11, Presumptions of Existence of Certain Facts: Certain facts are presumed to exist under specific circumstances, such as the presumption of consideration in certain contracts or the presumption of ownership in the case of possession of stolen property. 12, Presumption in Rape Cases: In rape cases, there exists @ presumption that the absence of consentiis presumed it sexual intercourse is proved and the victim states that it was without consent. 13. Estoppel: Estoppel prevents a party from denying or asserting anything contrary to what has been established asthe truth in a legal proceeding. 14. Competency of Witnesses: Witness competency refers to the legal ability of individuals to testify in court. Factors such as age, mental capacity, and relationship to the case may affect witness competency. 15. Privileged Communications: Certain communications are protected by privilege and cannot be disclosed in ‘court, such as those between attorney and olient, doctor and patient, or priest and penitent. 16. Order of Production and Examination of Witnesses: The order in which witnesses are produced and examined in court is determined by procedural rules, ensuring a fair and orderty presentation of evidence. 17. Judge's Role in Admissibility of Evidence: It is the judge's responsibility to determine the admissibility of evidence, considering factors such as relevance, reliability, and compliance with legal standards. 18. Best Evidence Rule: The best evidence rule requires the original document to be presented in court it its contents are in question, rather than a copy or secondary evidence. 19, Hearsay Evidence: Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court, as itis second-hand information and lacks the reliability of firsthand testimony. 20. Presumption of Innocence: In criminal cases, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 21. Proof of Signature or Handwriting: The authenticity of signatures or handwriting in documents can be proven through various methods, such as expert testimony, comparison with known samples, or acknowledgment by the signer. 22. Proof of Execution of Attested Documents: Documents that are required by law to be attested must have their ‘execution proved by either the attesting witness or other evidence if the attesting witness is unavailable, 23, Public Documents: Public documents, such as those issued by government authorities or official bodies, enjoy presumption of authenticity and require less stringent proof compared to private documents. 24, Presumptions as to Documents: Certain presumptions exist regarding documents, such as the presumption of validity for registered documents and the presumption of truthfulness for official seals and stamps 25. Presumption as Regards Electronic Agreements: In the case of electronic agreements, the authenticity and integrity of electronic records are presumed if certain conditions specified in the law are met. © scanned wih oxen cane26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 42. 43. aa, 46. 47. 49. 50. 31 52. LoE -(2) Ancient Documents: Ancient documents, defined as documents more than 30 years old, are presumed to be genuine if they are produced from proper custody and appear to be in good condition. Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence: When there is a written document that constitutes the terms of a contract or grant, oral evidence cannot be admitted to contradict, vary, or add to its terms. Extrinsic Evidence to Explain Ambiguity in Documents: Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to explain any ambiguity or uncertainty present in a document, provided the document is first admitted into evidence. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies an the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue and must be discharged by a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the nature of the case. Conclusive Proof: Certain facts are deemed to be conclusively proved under the law, meaning they cannot be challenged or rebutted by evidence to the contrary, such as judgments in probate proceedings or birth during marriage, Presumptions in Cases of Suicide and Dowry Deaths: In cases of suicide and dowry deaths, certain presumptions may arise regarding the culpability of the accused, shifting the burden of proof to the defense to rebut these presumptions. Presumption of Existence of Certain Facts: The law presumes the existence of certain facts under specific circumstances, such as the presumption of regularity in official acts and the presumption of sanity in criminal cases. Presumption in Rape Gases: In cases of rape, the law presumes the absence of consent if sexual intercourse is proved and the victim is shown to be mentally or physically incapable of giving consent. Presumption of Legitimacy: A child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate, with the husband being deemed the father unless proven otherwise. Presumption of Ownership: Possession of property is presumed to be accompanied by ownership unless rebutted by evidence to the contrary. Presumption of Innocence: The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal law, requiring the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Presumption of Regularity: Official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed, and official documents are presumed to be genuine and accurate unless proven otherwise. Presumption of Authenticity of Electronic Records: Electronic records are presumed to be authentic it they are produced in the usual course of business and are accurately maintained. Presumption as to Relationship: Statements made by individuals regarding their relationship with others are admissible as evidence of that relationship unless rebutted. Presumption of Continuance of Certain Relationships: Certain relationships, such as those of husband and wife, master and servant, and principal and agent, are presumed to continue in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Presumption of Regularity in Public Officials’ Acts: Acts performed by public officials in the course of their duties are presumed to have been done regularly and in accordance with the law, unless proven otherwise. Presumption of Sanity: Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and sane until proven otherwise, particularly in criminal cases where mental capacity is at issue. Presumption of Adherence to Legal Formalities: Legal documents are presumed to have been executed in compliance with all necessary formalities unless evidence is presented to the contrary. Presumption of Custody and Integrity of Evidence: Evidence is presumed to have been in the custody of responsible persons and maintained with integrity until the contrary is proven. Presumption of Death: A person who has been unheard of tor @ considerable period is presumed to be dead unless evidence suggests otherwise. Presumption of Knowledge of the Law: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and individuals are presumed to know the law unless they can prove otherwise. Presumption of Truthfulness of Witnesses: Witnesses are presumed to testify truthfully unless their credibility is impeached through cross-examination or other evidence. Presumption of Maturity of Judgment: Courts presume that individuals exercise due care and judgment in their actions unless evidence suggests otherwise. Presumption of Continuance of Conditions: Conditions existing at a particular time are presumed to continue in the absence of evidence of change. Presumption of Regularity in Business Practices: Business transactions and practices are presumed to have been conducted regularly and in the ordinary course of business unless proven otherwise. Admissibility of Character Evidence: Evidence of @ person's character is generally not admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion, except in cases where character is directly in issue or relevant. Principle of Res Gestae: Res gestae refers to spontaneous statements made by a person while under the influence of an exciting event, and such statements are considered admissible as part of the event. © scanned wih oxen cane53. 84, 88. 56. 87. 58. 59. 60. 61 62. 63. 64, 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. n 72. 73. 74, 78. 76. 77. LoE -(3) Corroboration of Testimony: Corroboration refers to additional evidence that supports and strengthens the credibility of a witness's testimony, particularly in cases involving accomplice or interested witness testimony. Doctrine of Privitege: Privilege protects certain communications trom disclosure in court proceedings, such es those between spouses, attorneys and clients, or doctors and patients. Authentication of Electronic Evidence: Electronic evidence must be properly authenticated to establish its relevance and reliability, often through methods such as metadata analysis or digital signatures. Cross-Examination: Cross-examination is the questioning of a witness by the opposing party to test the accuracy and credibility of the witness's testimony and to elicit additional information. Impeachment of Witnesses: Witnesses can be impeached through various methods, including showing bias, prior inconsistent statements, or lack of capacity to perceive, remember, or narrate events accurately. Residuary Rule of Relevance: The residuary rule allows for the admission of evidence that is relevant to the case but does not fall under any specific category of relevance outlined in the law. Hearsay Exceptions: Certain exceptions exist to the hearsay rule, allowing hearsay statements to be admitted as evidence under specific circumstances, such as statements made for medical diagnosis or excited utterances. Burden of Production vs. Burden of Persuasion: The burden of production requires a party to present evidence on @ particular issue, while the burden of persuasion requires that party to convince the fact-finder of the truth of the evidence presented. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: This doctrine holds that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal or unconstitutional action by taw enforcement is inadmissible in court. Authentication of Photographic Evidence: Photographic evidence must be properly authenticated to ensure its accuracy and reliability, often through testimony from the photographer or other witnesses. Character Evidence in Criminal Cases: in criminal cases, evidence of a defendant's character is generally not admissible unless the defendant first introduces evidence of their own good character. Authentication of Social Media Evidence: Social media evidence must be properly authenticated to ensure its admissibility, often through methods such as screenshots accompanied by testimony from the person who captured them. Impeachment by Prior Conviction: A witness's credibility can be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction, especially ifthe conviction involved dishonesty or false statement. Best Evidence Rule in Relation to Electronic Records: The best evidence rule requires the original electronic record to be produced if its contents are in question, rather than a printout ar copy. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice or Confusion: Relevant evidence may be excluded it its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misteading the jury. Authentication of Video Recordings: Video recordings must be properly authenticated to ensure their admissibility, often through testimony from the person who recorded the video or other witnesses familiar with its contents. Similar Fact Evidence: Similar fact evidence involves the admission of evidence of past conduct to prove the likelihood of similar conduct on a tater occasion, subject to strict scrutiny by the court. The Parol Evidence Rule: The parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence to contradict, vary, or add to the terms of a fully integrated written contract. Chain of Custody: Chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation of the seizure, custody, control, transter, analysis, and disposition of physical and electronic evidence. It ensures the integrity and admissibility ofthe evidence in court. Authentication of Audio Recordings: Audio recordings must be properly authenticated to ensure their admissibility, often through testimony from the person who made the recording or other witnesses familiar with its contents. Judicial Notice of Facts: Judicial notice allows @ court to accept the truth of certain facts without reqi formal proof. These facts are commonly known or easily verifiable and do not require dispute. Cross-Admissibility of Evidence: Cross-admissibility allows evidence admitted for one purpose to be considered for another relevant purpose, as long as it meets the rules of admissibility for each purpose. Presumption Against Self-Incrimination: The presumption against self-incrimination protects individuals from being compelted to testify against themselves in criminal proceedings. It is a fundamental right enshrined in many legal systems. Exclusion of Evidence Obtained Illegally: Evidence obtained through illegal means, such as unlawful searches or coerced confessions, is generally excluded from being admitted in court under the exclusionary rule. Authentication of Business Records: Business records must be properly authenticated to ensure their admissibility, often through testimony ftom the custodian of records or other qualified witnesses. ing © scanned wih oxen caneLoE -(4) 78, Authentication of Email Correspondence: Email correspondence must be properly authenticatedto ensure its admissibility, often through metadata analysis or testimony trom the sender or recipient. 79. Presumption of Regularity in Official Communication: Official communications, such as letters or notices trom government agencies, are presumed to have been sent and received regularly in the ordinary course of business. 80. Limitations on Expert Testimony: Expert testimony must meet certain criteria to be admissible, including relevance, reliability, and the expert's qualifications. Courts may exclude expert testimony thet does not meet, these standards. 81. Presumption of Regularity in Financial Transactions: Financial transactions conducted in the ordinary course of business are presumed to have been carried out regularly and accurately, unless proven otherwise. £2, Authentication of Digital Signatures: Digital signatures must be property authenticated to ensure their validity and admissibility as evidence, often through verification by a trusted third party or certification authority. 83. Authentication of Forensic Evidence: Forensic evidence, such as DNA samples or fingerprint analysis, must be properly collected, analyzed, and authenticated to ensure its admissibility in court. 84, Presumption of Regularity in Public Elections: Public elections are presumed to have been conducted regularly and in accordance with electorel laws, unless evidence of irregularities is presented 85. Authentication of Surveillance Footage: Surveillance footage must be properly authenticated to ensure its admissibility, often through testimony from the person who operated the surveillance system or other witnesses familiar with the recording. 86. Presumption of Regularity in Notarial Acts: Notarial acts, such as the authentication of signatures or certification of documents, are presumed to have been performed regularly and in compliance with notarial taws. 87. Authentication of Text Messages: Text messages must be properly authenticated to ensure their admissibility, often through metadata analysis, testimony from the sender or recipient, or comparison with known samples. 88, Presumption of Delivery of Mailed Documents: Mailed documents are presumed to have been delivered tothe intended recipient in the ordinary course of mail delivery, unless evidence suggests otherwise. 89, Authentication of Expert Reports: Expert reports must be properly authenticated to ensure their reliability and admissibility, often through certification by the expert or testimony regarding the methods used in preparing the report. 90. Presumption of Regularity in Court Proceedings: Court proceedings are presumed to have been conducted regularly and in accordance with procedural laws, unless evidence of irregularities or misconductis presented ‘SHORT NOTES Admissions vs. Confessions: « Admissions are statements made by a party to the case against their own interest. They can be verbal, written, or even implied by conduct. Admissions can be used as evidence against the party who made them. «Confessions, on the other hand, are voluntary acknowledgments of guilt or involvement in a crime. They are explicit declarations of culpability made by @ defendant. Confessions are considered to be strong evidence ageinst the individual who made them. ‘Understanding the distinction between admissions and confessions is important in determining their admissibility in court and their weight as evidence in a legal proceeding, Presumptions: + Presumptions are legal assumptions or conclusions thet the law draws from certain facts or circumstances. They help to simplify legal proceedings by establishing certain facts without requiring direct evidence, + Examples of presumptions include conclusive proot, which means that a fact is deemed to be true beyond any doubt once certain conditions are met, and rebuttable presumptions, which can be overturned by presenting contrary evidence. + It's important to understand the different types of presumptions, their rationale, and how they apply in specific cases, such as in cases of suicide, dowry deaths, legitimacy, cession of territory, and rape. Competency of Witnesses: « Competency refers to the legal ability of a person to testify as a witness in court. Not everyone is competent to bea witness, and there are certain criteria that must be met for a person to be deemed competent. + Factors affecting competency include age, mental capacity, and relationship to the case. For example, minors or individuals with severe mental impairments may not be considered competent witnesses. + Additionally, there are rules regarding accomplice evidence, which pertains to testimony given by someone who participated in the same crime as the defendant, as well as rules regarding the compellability of witnesses and privileged communications, such as those between spouses or attorney-client communications. © scanned wih oxen caneLoE -(5) 4. Examination of Witnesses: «The examination of witnesses follows a specific order and procedure in legal proceedings. The party calling the witness typically questions them first in a process known as direct exemination, followed by cross-examination by the opposing party. «The judge plays a crucial role in determining the admissibility of evidence, including witness testimony. The judge assesses the relevance, reliability, and legality of evidence presented and may rule on objections raised by ‘opposing parties. ‘+ Understanding the rules and procedures governing the examination of witnesses is essential for effectively presenting evidence and challenging the evidence presented by the opposing party. 5. Burden of Proof: + The burden of proof refers to the obligation to prove the truth of @ disputed fact or allegation in a legal proceeding. Ittypically rests on the party makingtthe assertion, + In civil cases, the burden of proof is usually on the plaintiff, who must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, who must prove the defendant's guilt beyonda reasonable doubt. «The burden of proot can shift between parties depending on the circumstances, such as when a defendant raises an affirmative defense or when presumptions come into play. Understanding the burden of proof is essential tor both presenting and challenging evidence in court. 6. Relevancy of Facts: Relevancy of factsis @ fundamental principle in the Law of Evidence. It deals with the question of whether a particular piece of evidence is related to the matters in dispute in a case and therefore admissible, ‘+ Understand the various categories of relevant facts, such as facts necessary to explain a relevant fact, facts showing the existence of state of mind, and facts relevant to the issue as admissions and confessions. + Know the criteria for determining relevancy, including whether the tact tends to prove or disprove a matter in question, whether it makes the existence of a fact in issue more or less probable, and whether it has probative value. 7. Documentary Evidence: Documentary evidence refers to any evidence presented in written form, such as contracts, letters, records, and certificates. It plays @ crucial role in many legal proceedings. ‘+ Understand the distinction between primary and secondary evidence, with primary evidence being the original document itself and secondary evidence being a copy or reproduction. ‘+ Learn the rules governing the proof of signature or handwriting of a document, as well as the admissibility of electronic records and agreements under special provisions. 8. Presumptions as to Documents: ‘« Presumptions as to documents are legal assumptions that the law makes regarding the authenticity, validity, or truthfulness of certain types of documents. + Examples include the presumption that a document duly stamped and executed is valid until proven otherwise, the presumption that an official act or signature is valid, and the presumption of regularity in the conduct of business. + Understand when these presumptions apply and how they can affect the burden of proof in a case involving documentary evidence. 9. Exclusion of Oral by Documentary Evidence: « This principle deals with situations where the contents of a document are sought to be proved in court, and oral evidence is sought to be excluded. + Learn the rules regarding when oral evidence can be used to prove the tetms of a contract, grant, or other legal document, and when extrinsic evidence can be used to explain an ambiguity in a document. 10. Estoppel: Estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from asserting a claim or right that is contrary to their prior actions or statements if those actions or statements have induced another person to rely on them. « Understand the different types of estoppel, such as promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel, and how they apply in verious legal contexts. * Know the elements required to establish estoppel, including @ representation or conduct that is inconsistent with allater claim, reliance on that representation or conduct, and detriment suffered as a result of the reliance. 11. Judgments of Courts of Justice, when relevant: + Understand he circumstances under which judgments and decisions of other courts can be considered relevent evidence in a legal proceeding. + Know the criteria for determining the relevancy of judgments, including whether they are final and conclusive, Whether they relate to the same or similar issues, and whether they were made by a court of competent jurisdiction. + Learn about the different purposes for which judgments of courts of justice may be relevant, such as establishing precedent, proving facts in issue, or impeaching the credibility of witnesses. © scanned wih oxen cane12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 7. LoE -(6) Opinion of Third Persons, when relevant: + Explore the rules regarding the admissibility of opinions from third parties in legal proceedings. « Understand the circumstances under which expert opinions may be admitted as evidence, such as opinions on foreign law, scientific principles, handwriting, or customs, «Know the requirements for qualifying as an expert witness and the procedures for presenting expert opinions in court. Facts which need not be proved: + Learn about the concept of judicial notice, which allows certain well-known facts to be accepted by the court without requiring formal proof. ‘+ Understand the types of facts that fall under judicial notice, such as facts of common knowledge, facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination, and facts that are established by law. ‘* Know the procedures for requesting judicial notice and the consequences of judicially noticed facts in legal proceedings. Character Evidence: «Character evidence refers to evidence regarding a person's general moral character or disposition. It's typically Not admissible to prove that a person acted in accordance with their character on a specific occasion, as it can lead to untair prejudice or confusion of the issues. « However, character evidence may be admissible in certain circumstances: ‘In criminal cases, the accused may introduce evidence of their own good character to show that they are less likely to have committed the alleged offense. + In defamation cases, evidence of the plaintiff's reputation for truthfulness may be relevant. ‘+ In cases involving self-defense, evidence of the victim's violent character may be admissible to show the defendant's reasonable apprehension of harm. + Understanding the nuances of when character evidence is admissible and how it can be used strategically is important for effective advocacy, Hearsay Evidenci + Hearsay evidence is an out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The general rule is that hearsay is inadmissible because it lacks the reliability and trustworthiness of ‘irsthand testimony. + There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, including: « Present sense impression: Statements made contemporaneously with the perception of an event. « Excited utterance: Statements made under the stress of a startling event. « Dying declaration: Statements made by a declarant who believes their death is imminent and concerning the ‘cause oF circumstances of their impending death. ‘+ Understanding the various exceptions to the hearsay rule and their requirements is crucial for assessing the admissibility of evidence. Privileged Communications: + Privileged communications are those protected from disclosure in legal proceedings to preserve certain relationships or promote open communication. These privileges encourage candor and trust between individuals and professionals. ‘« Common types of privileged communications include: « Attorney-client privilege: Protects communications between an attorney and client made for the purpose of seeking legal advice or representation. + Doctor-patient privilege: Protects confidential communications between a patient and their healthcare provider made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment, « Spousal privilege: Protects communications between spouses made during the marriage. «It's important to understand the scope and limitations of each privilege and the circumstances under which they apply or may be waived. Electronic Evidence: Electronic evidence encompasses any information stored or transmitted electronically, including emails, text messages, social media posts, and digital documents. + Admissibility of electronic evidence depends on authentication, integrity, and relevance. Parties must establish the authenticity of electronic records and ensure they have not been tampered with. + Special provisions exist for electronic signatures, agreements, and records, including requirements tor certification and timestamping. « Understanding the rules and procedures for admitting electronic evidence, including authentication methods and preservation requirements, is essential in modern litigation. © scanned wih oxen cane18. 19. 2. LoE -(7) Opinion Evidence: «Opinion evidence involves a witness expressing a belief, inference, or judgment about a matter at issue in the case. Unlike factual testimony, opinions are subjective and based on interpretation or analysis. + Expert opinion evidence is admissible when the witness has specialized knowledge, skill, experience, or training ina particular field relevant to the case. + Lay opinion evidence may be admissible if it is rationally based on the witness's perception, helpful to understanding the witness's testimony, and not based on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge. * Challenges to opinion evidence may involve questioning the witness's qualifications, the reliability of their methodology, or the relevance of their opinions to the issues in the case Judgments of Courts of Justice, when relevant: * Judgments of courts of justice may be relevant in legal proceedings under certain circumstances. These judgments can include decisions from previous cases, both from the same jurisdiction and from foreign jurisdictions. ‘= The relevancy of judgments depends on factors such as whether they are final and conclusive, whether they relate to the same or similar issues as the current case, and whether they were made bya court of competent jurisdiction. ‘Judgments may be relevant for various purposes, including establishing precedent, proving facts in issue, or impeaching the credibility of witnesses. * Understanding when and how judgments of courts of justice may be relevant can help in effectively presenting, arguments and evidence in legal proceedings. Opinion of Third Persons, when retevant: + The opinions of third persons, such as expert witnesses or lay witnesses, may be relevant in legal proceedings under certain circumstances. + Expert opinion evidence is admissible when the witness has specialized knowledge, skill, experience, or training ina particular field relevant to the case. Expert witnesses may offer opinions on matters within their expertise, + Lay opinion evidence may be admissible if itis based on the witness's own perceptions or common knowledge, and ifitis helpful to understanding the witness's testimony, + Understanding the admissibility and relevance of opinion evidence from third persons, as well as the procedures for presenting and challenging such evidence, is important for building a strong case. Facts which need not be prove «Certain facts may be judicially noticed and therefore do not need to be proved through formal evidence in legal proceedings. These facts are considered to be so well-known or readily verifiable that judicial notice is appropriate. # Types of facts that may be judicially noticed include facts of common knowledge, such as the days of the week or the existence of natural phenomena, and facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination, such as the contents of public records or official documents. + Parties may request that the court take judicial notice of a fact, and the court may do so ifthe fact is not subject to reasonable dispute. + Understanding when judicial notice may be appropriate and the types of facts that may be judicially noticed can streamline legal proceedings and simplify the presentation of evidence. Oral Evidene: « Oral evidence refers to testimony given by witnesses orally in court or during a legal deposition. It is an essential form of evidence in many legal proceedings. «The best evidence rule generally requires that the original document or primary evidence be presented whenever possible. However, there are exceptions that allowfor the admission of oral evidence when the original document is unavailable or lost. «Hearsay evidence, which is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is generally inadmissible. However, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow for the admission of certain types of oral evidence. + Understanding the rules and procedures governing oral evidence, including the best evidence rule and exceptions to the hearsay rule, is essential for effectively presenting and challenging evidence in court. Burden of Proof in Specific Circumstances: + The burden of proot refers to the obligation to prove the truth of a disputed fact or allegation in a legal proceeding. The burden of proof typically rests on the party making the assertion. «In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the burden of proot is typically on the plaintiff to prove their case by a preponderance of the, evidence. © scanned wih oxen caneLoE -(8) « There are special provisions regarding the burden of proof in specific circumstances, such as cases involving offenses in disturbed areas or cases where certain presumptions apply. « Understanding when and now the burden of proof may shift between parties, as well as the standards of proof required in different types of cases, is crucial for effectively presenting and defending against claims in legal proceedings. 24, Character, when relevant: + Character evidence pertains to the moral qualities or traits of an individual and whether they are admissible in courtto prove conduct. Generally, character evidence is not admissible to show that a person acted in conformity with their character on a particular occasion. + However, character evidence may become relevant and admissible under certain circumstances, such as when a person's cheracter is directly in issue, or when character evidence is used to impeach the credibility of a witness. ‘+ Understanding the nuances of when character evidence is relevant and admissible can significantly impact the ‘outcome of a case, particularly in criminal trials and defamation suits. 25. Presumptions as regards offences in disturbed areas: « Incertain jurisdictions, special presumptions may apply to offenses committed in disturbed areas, such as areas affected by civil unrest or confit. «These presumptions may shift the burden of proof to the accused, requiring them to prove their innocence or establish certain facts to rebut the presumption. ‘The application of presumptions as regards offenses in disturbed areas aims to address the unique challenges and circumstances of such situations, ensuring the effective administration of justice in challenging environments. -ged communications - Exceptions: ‘While privileged communications are generally protected from disclosure in legal proceedings, there are exceptions to this rule. + For example, the crime-fraud exception allows privileged communications to be disclosed if they were made in furtherance of a crime or fraud, ‘+ Additionally, certain privileges may be waived under specific circumstances, such as when a client voluntarily discloses privileged communications to a third party. ‘Understanding the exceptions to privileged communications is crucial tor determining when such ‘communications may be disclosed end how they may impact a legal case. 27. Electronic Evidence - Authentication: « Authentication is the process of establishing the genuineness and integrity of electronic evidence, ensuring that it accurately represents the information it purports to convey. «Methods of authentication may include testimony from a witness with personal knowledge, technological verification processes, or certification by a qualified expert. + The admissibility of electronic evidence often hinges on its authentication, as courts must be satisfied that the evidence is reliable and has not been tampered with. + Understanding the authentication requirements for electronic evidence is essential for ensuringits admissibility and reliability in egal proceedings. 28. Opinion Evidence - Challenges: « While opinion evidence may be admissible under certain circumstances, it is subject to challenges regardingits relevance, reliability, and basis. # Challenges to opinion evidence may involve questioning the qualifications of the expert witness, the reliability of their methodology or reasoning, or the relevance of their opinions to the issues in the case. «Cross-examination is a crucial tool for challenging opinion evidence, allowing opposing parties to test the credibility and validity of the opinions presented. « Understanding how to effectively challenge opinion evidence is essential for advocating for your client's position and undermining the credibility of opposing expert witnesses. © scanned wih oxen caneLoE -(9) LONG ANS Whats the significance of the Law of Evidence in the legal system? The Law of Evidence holds immense significance in the legal system for several reasons: + Ensuring Fairness and Justice: Evidence serves as the foundation for establishing facts and truth in legal Proceedings. It ensures that judgments are based on reliable and verifiable information rather than assumptions or biases. + Protecting Rights and Liberties: Evidence rules safeguard incividuals’ rights and liberties by providing stendards for the admissibility and evaluation of evidence. This helps prevent wrongful convictions or miscarriages of justice. + Maintaining Order and Integrity: By setting guidelines for the collection, presentation, and assessment of evidence, the law maintains order and integrity in legal proceedings. It prevents the manipulation or distortion of facts, promoting the credibility of the justice system. + Facilitating Dispute Resolution: Evidence enables parties to support their claims and defenses effectively, facilitating the resolution of disputes through litigation or alternative methods like mediation or arbitration. + Promoting Efficiency and Consistency: Clear and consistent evidence rules streamline legal processes, reduce delays, and enhance the efficiency of judicial proceedings. They provide a framework for judges and legal practitioners to evaluate evidence consistently across different cases, + Preserving Public Confidence: A robust and transparent evidence regime enhances public trust and confidence in the legal system. It demonstrates that decisions are made based on objective criteria and reasoned analysis rather than arbitrary or unfair practices. In essence, the Law of Evidence plays a crucial role in upholding the principles of faimess, justice, and accountability within the legal system, ensuring thet disputes are resolved impartially and equitably. 2. Discuss the brief history of the Law of Evidence in India. The Law of Evidence in India has evolved over centuries, drawing from various sources and legal traditions. Here’sa brief overview: + Ancient Period: During ancient times, evidence in India was primarily oral and relied heavity on witnesses’ testimony. Legal principles were codified in texts like the Manusmriti and Arthashastra, which provided guidelines for resolving disputes. * Colonial Era: The British colonial rule introduced English common law principles, including evidence law, to India. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 was enacted, consolidating and coditying the rules of evidence applicable in courts throughout British India, + Post-Independence: After gaining independence in 1947, India retained the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with subsequent amendments and judicial interpretations shapingits application. Additionally, various specialized laws introduced provisions relating to evidence in specific contexts, such as the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the Code of Givil Procedure, 1908. + Judicial Developments: Indian courts have played @ significant role in interpreting and developing evidence law through their judgments. Landmark cases have clarified principles related to admissibility, burden of proof, and evaluation of evidence, contributing to the evolution of the legal framework. Overall, the history of evidence law in India reflects a blend of indigenous traditions, cotonial legacies, and contemporary legal developments, highlighting its dynamic nature and ongoing evolution to meet the demands of a changing society and legal landscape. Explain the concept of relevancy of facts in evidence law In evidence law, the concept of relevancy pertains to the admissibility of facts that have a logical connection to the ‘matterin dispute or the “facts in issue" Relevancy determines whether a particular piece of evidence is permissible in court proceedings based on its ability to make a disputed fact more or less probable. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, outlines rules regarding the relevancy of facts and their admissibility in court. Toestablish relevancy, evidence must fulfill one or more of the following criteria: 1, Direct Relevance: Evidence directly addresses or pertains to a fact in issue, making it more or less probable. This includes evidence that directly proves or disproves a disputed fact. 2, Circumstantial Relevance: Even i evidence does not directly address a tact in issue, it may be relevant it it establishes circumstances that logically lead to an inference about the disputed fact. 3. Consequential Relevance: Evidence may be relevant if it helps understand the context or consequences ot ‘the facts in issue, even if it does not directly address them. 4, Conditional Relevance: Evidence may become relevent based on certain conditions or in conjunction with other evidence. Overall, relevancy ensures that only evidence with a logical connection to the matter at hand is considered in court proceedings, promoting faimess and efficiency in the administration of justice. © scanned wih oxen caneLoE - (10) Describe the types of facts relevant as being connected with facts in issue or relevant facts, citing examples. The types of facts relevant as being connected with facts in issue or relevant facts encompass various scenarios, where certain facts are deemed relevant because of their connection to the main facts in dispute. Here are the types along with examples: 1, Same Transaction: Facts that are part of the same event or transaction as the main fact in issue. For example, in a case of theft, evidence of the accused's presence at the scene of the crime would be relevant as it is connected to the act of theft. 2. Occasion, Cause, Effect, State of Things, and Opportunity: Facts related to the occasion, cause, effect, state of things, or opportunity surrounding the main fact in issue. For instance, in a case of arson, evidence regarding ‘the motive behind the fire, the circumstances leading to it, and the effects of the fire would be relevant. 3. Motive and Preparation: Facts pertaining to the motive behind the commission of the act and any preparation made beforehand. For example, in a murder trial, evidence of the accused purchasing @ weapon prior to the crime would be relevant to establish preparation. 4, Conduct of the Parties: Facts concerning the behavior or conduct of the parties involved, which can shed light on the main fact in issue. For instance, in a contract dispute, evidence of one party consistently failing to fulfill their obligations under the contract would be relevant. 5. Necessary Facts to Explain, Introduce, Support, or Rebut Relevant Facts: Facts that are necessary to explain, introduce, support, or rebut other relevant facts. For example, in a case involving defamation, evidence of the plaintiff's reputation in the community would be relevant to support their claim. 6. Statements or Actions by Co-conspirators: Facts related to statements or actions made by co-conspirators in furtherance of @ common design or plan. For instance, in a conspiracy case, evidence of one conspirator discussing the details of the plan with another would be relevant to establish the conspiracy. 7. Inconsistent, Highly Probable, or Improbable Facts: Facts that are inconsistent with the main fact in issue, highly probable, or improbable, which can impact the credibility or likelinood of the main fact. For example, in a personal injury case, evidence of the plaintiff engaging in activities inconsistent with their claimed injuries ‘would be relevant to challenge their credibility. 8. Rights or Customs: Facts related to established rights or customs that ere relevant to the main fect in issue. For instance, in a property dispute, evidence of a longstanding family custom regarding land inheritance would be relevant to determine ownership rights. Explain the various statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses and th proceedings. ‘Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses refer to statements made by individuals who, for various reasons, are unable to testify in court. Despite not being able to appear in court, these statements can be relevant and admissible under certain circumstances. Here are some examples: 1. Dying Declaration: A statement made by @ person who is on the verge of death, regarding the cause of their death orthe circumstances leading to it. This is admissible as evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 2, Statements made in the ordinary course of business: Statements made by individuals in the regular course of business, such as entries in business records, are admissible as evidence under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. 3, Statements against the interest of the maker: Statements that are against the interest of the person making ‘them are admissible under Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. 4, Opinion as to public right, custom, or matters of general interest: Opinions on these matters by persons who are not available to testify are admissible under Section 32(5) of the Indian Evidence Act. 5, Statement as to the existence of a relationship: Statements made by individuals regarding their relationship with others are admissible under Section 32(6) of the Indian Evidence Act. 6, Statement in a will or deed relating to family affairs: Statements made in a will or deed regarding family affairs are admissible under Section 32(7) of the Indian Evidence Act. 7. Statements in a document relating to a transaction creating a right: Statements made in 2 document that creates a right are admissible under Section 32(8) of the Indian Evidence Act. These statements are considered reliable and are admitted as evidence in court because they are made under circumstances that suggest a high degree of trustworthiness. However, the court still evaluates the statements based on the facts and circumstances of each case to determine their reliability and relevance, relevance in court © scanned wih oxen caneLoE -(11) Discuss the different types of admissions and confessions as relevant facts Admissions and confessions are crucial aspects of evidence law, often serving as key pieces of evidence in legal proceedings. Here's a discussion of the different types: + Express Admissions: These are direct and explicit statements made by a party to the case acknowledging. certain facts. For example, if a defendant in a theft case admits to stealing the item in question, itis considered an express admission. * Implied Admissions: These are not directly stated but can be inferred from the conduct, actions, or silence of a party. For instance, it a person remains silent when accused of a crime and has the opportunity to deny ‘the accusation, the silence may be considered an implied admission. + Admissions by Agents: Statements made by a person who is authorized to speak on behalf of another party, such as an employee speaking for their employer, can be considered admissions by the represented party. © Admissions by Silence: In certain circumstances, silence can be construed as an admission if a reasonable person would have spoken up in denial of the allegation. 2. Confessions: * Voluntary Confessions: Contessions that are made willingly and without coercion are considered voluntary and are generally admissible in court. + Involuntary Confessions: Confessions obtained through coercion, duress, or inducement are considered involuntary and are typically not admissible in court. + Retracted Confessions: Confessions that are made but later retracted by the accused can still be admissible in court, but the reliability and circumstances of the retraction will be considered, What are the special circumstances under which statements made under special circumstances are considered relevant? ‘Statements made under special circumstances are considered relevant under certain conditions outlined in the Law of Evidence. These special circumstances include: 1, Regular entries in account books: Entries made regularly in account books maintained in the course of business are considered relevant. These entries can provide evidence of transactions, financial dealings, and other business-related activities. 2, Entries in public and official books: Entries made in public or official books maintained by government authorities or public servants in the discharge of their official duties are deemed relevant. Such entries can include records of births, deaths, property registrations, ete. 3, Statements in maps and charts: Statements contained in maps and charts, which are used to illustrate geographical or other relevant information, are considered relevant. These statements may include notations, descriptions, or explanations accompanying the maps or charts. 4, Statements in Acts of Parliament of England of India: Statements contained in Acts of Parliament, whether ‘from England or India, are considered relevant. These statements may include provisions, declarations, or legal interpretations found within legislative enactments. 5. Law of a foreign country: Statements regarding the law of a foreign country are relevant when the legal principles or provisions of that country's law are in question. This may include references to statutes, case law, of legal opinions trom foreign jurisdictions, ‘These special circumstances recognize the importance of certain types of statements or records in providing reliable evidence in legal proceedings. They help ensure that information from various sources, such as business records, official documents, maps, legislative enactments, and foreign legal principles, can be considered and evaluated in the administration of justice. 8. _Howare judgments of Courts of Justice relevant in evidence law? Judgments of Courts of Justice are relevant in evidence law for several reasons: 1. Admissibility as Evidence: Judgments of Courts of Justice, both domestic and foreign, are admissible as evidence under certain circumstances. They can be used to prove the existence of a particular fact that was decided in the judgment. 2, Proof of Facts in Issue: A judgment of a court can be used as evidence to prove the facts in issue in a subsequent case, provided that the issues are the same of substantially the same, and the judgment was delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction. 3. Judicial Notice: Courts may take judicial notice of their own judgments, which means that they accept the facts stated in the judgment as true without requiring further evidence. © scanned wih oxen caneLoE - (12) 4, Res Judicata: The principle of res judicata states thet once a matter has been adjudicated by a competent court, it cannot be re-litigated between the same parties. This principle is based on the relevance of judgments as conclusive proof of certain facts. 5. Precedent: Judgments of higher courts are binding on lower courts as precedent. Lower courts must follow the legal principles established by higher courts in similar cases. This use of judgments is more related to the development of the Law rather than their evidentiary value per se. Overall, judgments of Courts of Justice are relevant in evidence law because they provide authoritative statements on facts and legal principles that can assist in the resolution of disputes and the administration of justice. Explain the concept of judicial notice and its significance in evidence law Judicial notice is a rule in evidence law that allows a court to recognize certain facts as true without requiring format proot. These facts are considered “notorious” or “well-known,” such 2s natural laws, historical events, or geographical locations. By judicially noticing these facts, the court saves time and resources that would otherwise be spent on proving them through evidence. There are two types of judicial notice: 1, Mandatory Judicial Notice: In this type, the court is required to take notice of certain facts, such as federal or state laws, regulations, or the court's own previous decisions. The court has no discretion in this regard. 2, Discretionary Judicial Notice: Here, the court has the discretion to take notice of certain facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are generally known within the court's jurisdiction or can be accurately and readily determined from reliable sources. The party requesting judicial notice must provide the court with the necessary information to support the request. ‘The significance of judicial notice in evidence law is that it streamlines court proceedings by eliminating the need to prove facts that are widely accepted as true. This helps expedite trials and allows courts to focus on more contentious or substantive issues in the case. However, judicial notice is subject to certain limitations, such as ensuring that the facts are truly beyond dispute and that the parties have a fair opportunity to challenge the notice. Overall, judicial notice plays a crucial role in the efficient administration of justice by allowing courts to recognize certain facts without the need for formal proof, thereby saving time and resources, 10. Discuss the relevance and admissibility of opinions of third persons in court proceedings. In court proceedings, the opinions of third persons can be relevant and admissible under certain circumstances. These opinions are typically admitted to help the court understand complex issues that require specialized knowledge or expertise. Here are some key points regarding the relevance and admissibility of opinions of third persons: 1. Expert Opinion: Courts often admit expert opinions to help interpret technical, scientific, or specialized information beyond the common understanding. For example, in a case involving medical malpractice, a medical expert's opinion may be admitted to explain the standard of care. 2. Opinion as to Foreign Law: When a question of foreign law arises in a case, the court may admit the opinion of a person who is qualified to interpret that foreign law. 3, Opinion as to Handwriting: A person familiar with another's handwriting may provide an opinion about the authenticity of a signature or document. 4, Opinion as to Right or Custom: In cases where local customs or rights are in question, opinions of persons familiar with these customs or rights may be admitted. 5. Opinionas to Usages, Tenets, etc.: Opinions regarding customs, usages, or tenets of any body of persons may be relevantif they help explain the facts in issue. 6. Opinion as to Relationship: In matters where the relationship between individuals is relevant, opinions of persons familiar with that relationship may be admittes. 7. Requirements for Admissibility: Generally, for an opinion to be admissible, the witness must be competent to give it, and the opinion must be based on facts known to the witness or presented as evidence in the case. 8, Weight of Opinion: While opinions of third persons can be admitted, their weight is ultimately determined by ‘the court, The court may consider the qualifications of the person giving the opinion, the basis of their opinion, and any other relevant factors. Inconclusion, opinions of third persons can be relevant and admissible in court proceedings when they help clarity or explain complex issues beyond the common understanding, However, the admissibility and weight of such opinions are subject to the discretion of the court. © scanned wih oxen caneLoE - (13) 11. Whats oral evidence, and how does it differ from documentary evidence? Oral evidence and documentary evidence are two primary forms of evidence used in legal proceedings, each with its characteristics and requirements: 1. Oral Evidence: * Oral evidence is testimony given by witnesses orally in court or during a legal deposition. + Itprimarity consists of statements made by witnesses based on their personal knowledge of the events or facts in question, + Oral evidence is typically presented through witness testimony, where witnesses are questioned by attorneys or examined by the court. + It'can include statements made by witnesses regarding what they saw, heard, experienced, or otherwise perceived relevant to the case. «The credibility of oral evidence often depends on factors such as the demeanor of the witness, consistency intheir testimony, and corroborating evidence. 2. Documentary Evidence: + Documentary evidence refers to any material evidence presented in the form of documents, records, or writings. + Itincludes physical documents such as contracts, letters, reports, emails, photographs, maps, and any other written or recorded materials. + Documentary evidence is typically presented by submitting the documients themselves or copies of them to the court. + Unlike oral evidence, which relies on witness testimony, documentary evidence stands on its own as a tangible record of information + The authenticity and reliability of documentary evidence can be crucial, and methods such as authentication, certification, and verification may be used to establish their validity. Differences between Oral and Documentary Evidence: 1. Form: Oral evidence is presented verbally through witness testimony, while documentary evidence is presented through physical or electronic documents. 2. Nature: Oral evidence relies on human memory and perception, whereas documentary evidence provides a concrete record of information. 3. Subjectivity: Oral evidence may be subjective and influenced by factors like bias or interpretation, whereas documentary evidence is typically more objective and less subject to interpretation. 4, Presentation: Oral evidence involves live testimony and questioning of witnesses, while documentary evidence is presented through the submission of documents. 5. Verification: Oral evidence may require corroboration or cross-examination to establish credibility, white documentary evidence may require authentication or verification of its origin and integrity 12._ Explain the best evidence rule and hi Best Evidence Rule: ‘The Best Evidence Rule is a principle of evidence law that stipulates the requirement for the original form of evidence, typically a document or recording, to be presented in court if available. This rule ensures that the most reliable and accurate evidence is provided to the court. Example: Suppose in a contract dispute case, Party A claims that Party B breached the contract by failing to deliver goods according to the terms. To prove this, Party A seeks to introduce a written contract as evidence. According to the Best Evidence Rule, Party A must present the original contract document in court rather than a copy or averbal description of its contents. Key Points: ‘© The rule applies when the content of ¢ document is at issue. + Copies or descriptions of documents are generally considered secondary evidence and are admissible only ifthe original cannot be produced. Hearsay Evidence: Hearsay evidence refers to statements made outside of court by someone other than the witness testifying and offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally not admissible in court due to concems about its reliability and the inability to cross-examine the original declarant. Example: In a criminal trial for robbery, a witness testifies that they heard someone else say they saw the defendant committing the crime. This statement would be considered hearsay because itis offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i., that the defendant committed the crime) and is based on the out-of-court statement of another person. yy evidence with examples. © scanned wih oxen caneLoE - (14) Key Points: Hearsay can be an oral or written statement, gesture, or nonverbal conduct. + There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as statements made under certain circumstances like dying declarations, excited utterances, statements against interest, etc. + Statements made by witnesses while testifying in court are not hearsay because they are made under oath and subject to cross-examination. 13,_Discuss the different types of documentary evidence and their admissibility in court In court proceedings, documentary evidence plays a crucial role in establishing facts and proving or disprovinga case. Here are the different types of documentary evidence and their admissibility in court: 1. Primary Evidence: This refers to the original document itself, such as the original contract, will, or deed. Primary evidence is generally preferred and is admissible in court without further proot, 2, Secondary Evidence: When the original document is not available, secondary evidence may be used. This includes copies of the original document, oral accounts of the document's contents, or other evidence used to prove the content of the original document. 3. Certified Copies: Copies of documents that are certified by the appropriate authority as being true copies of the original are admissible as secondary evidence. For example, certified copies of birth certificates or land records. 4, Public Documents: Documents such as government records, official publications, and certified copies of public records are considered public documents. They are admissible as evidence without further proof of their authenticity, 5. Private Documents: Documents that are not public documents, such as private letters, diaries, or contracts, are considered private documents. They are admissible as evidence, but their authenticity must be proven. 6, Business Records: Documents created and maintained in the ordinary course of business, such as invoices, receipts, and ledgers, are admissible as evidence of the facts they contain. 7. Electronic Records: With the advancement of technology, electronic records, includingemails, text messages, and digital documents, are also admissible as evidence. Special provisions may apply to the admissibility of electronic records. 8 Ancient Documents: Documents that are more than 30 years old and are produced from proper custody are considered ancient documents. They ere admissible as evidence of the facts they purport to prove, without further proof of their execution or authenticity. 9. Opinions Expressed in Documents: Opinions expressed in documents, such as expert opinions or legal opinions, may be admissible as evidence, but the weight given to such opinions depends on the expertise of ‘the author and the context in which the opinion was expressed. 14._Explain the concept of burden of proof and the circumstances under which it lies on different parties. The concept of burden of proof is a fundamental principle in the law of evidence that determines which party is responsible for presenting evidence to prove a particular fact or issue in a legal proceeding. It essentially defines ‘who has the obligation to convince the court of the truth of a certain claim or defense. The burden of proof can shift depending on the nature of the claim, the type of case, and the legal standards involved. 1. Definition: The burden of proof refers to the obligation to establish the truth of a disputed fact or issue by presenting evidence in court. I's about who must provide sufficient evidence to persuade the court or jury of the validity of their position. 2, Civil Cases: In civil cases, the burden of proof typically rests on the party bringing the claim, known as the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove their case by @ preponderance of the evidence, meaning they must show that itis more likely than not thet their version of the facts is true. 3. Criminal Gases: In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, representing the state or government. The prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher stendard of proof compared to civil cases. 4, Presumptions: Sometimes, the law creates presumptions that shift the burden of proof to the opposing party. For example, in some cases, the law presumes innocence until proven guilty, placing the burden on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt. 5. Shifting Burden: In certain circumstances, the burden of proof can shift from one party to another during the course of a trial. For instance, if the defendant raises an affirmative defense, such as self-defense in a criminal case, they may have the burden of proving that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 6. Conclusive Proof: In rare cases, the law provides for conclusive proof, where a particular fact is deemed to be conclusively established once certain evidence is presented. This relieves the party from further burden of proof on that issue, © scanned wih oxen caneLoE - (15) 7. Presumptions against Certain Parties: In some situations, the law presumes certain facts against a particular party, effectively placing the burden of rebuttingthe presumption on that party. For example, there may be legal presumptions regarding the validity of certain documents or the capacity of certein individuals. 15. Discuss various presumptions provided under the law, such as those regarding documents & certain facts. Presumptions are legal constructs that allow certain facts to be accepted as true unless proven otherwise. They serve to simplify legal proceedings by assuming the truth of certain facts in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Here are some common presumptions provided under the Law: 1. Presumption as to Documents: This presumption states that certain documents are presumed to be genuine and accurate unless proven otherwise. For example, public documents such as government records or official certificates are presumed to be authentic. 2. Presumption as to Facts: Certain facts are presumed to exist unless proven otherwise. For instance, the presumption of innocence in criminal cases means that a defendant is considered innacent until proven guilty. 3. Presumption as to Relationships: The law often presumes the existence of certain relationships based on specific criteria. For example, marriage is presumed to be valid unless proven otherwise. 4, Presumption as to Death: In cases where a person is missing for a considerable period, the law may presume them to be dead after a certain period, typically seven years. 5, Presumption of Regularity: This presumption applies to officiel acts and documents, assuming that public officials have performed their duties correctly and in accordance with the law. 6. Presumption of Delivery: In contract law, there is a presumption thatif a party has possession of a document, they have received its contents unless proven otherwise. ‘These presumptions vary in strength and may be rebutted by presenting evidence to the contrary. 16. Explain the exclusion of oral by documentary evidence and its implications. The exclusionary rule regarding oral evidence by documentary evidence refers to the principle that when parties to a transaction have reduced their agreement to writing, oral evidence cannot be used to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of that written document. This rule is based on the idea that written documents provide a more reliable record of the parties’ intentions and agreements. Implications of this rule include: 1. Enhanced Certainty: By prioritizing written documents, the legal system aims to provide greater certainty and stebility in contractual relationships. Parties can rely on the written terms without fear of contradictory oral evidence. 2. Prevention of Fraud: The rule helps prevent fraudulent claims or attempts to alter the terms of @ written agreement through oral testimony. It discourages parties trom attempting to manipulate the terms of a contract afterits execution. 3, Preservation of Integrity: By maintaining the integrity of written documents, the legal system upholds the sanctity of contracts and other formal agreements. This fosters trust and confidence in the legal system and promotes fair dealings between parties. 4, Efficiency in Dispute Resolution: Resolving disputes based on written evidence can often be more efficient and less subjective than relying on oral testimony, which may be prone to inconsistencies or misunderstandings. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as cases involving fraud, mistake, illegality, or where the written document is incomplete or ambiguous. In such instances, oral evidence may be admissible to clarity or supplement the terms of the written agreement. 17. Whatis estoppel, and how does it operate in the context of evidence law? Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from asserting or denying a fact or legal claim that contradicts what they have previously stated or implied. In the context of evidence law, estoppel operates to prevent a party from taking a position in court that is inconsistent with their previous statements or conduct. This principle aims to promote fairness, prevent injustice, and maintain the integrity of the legal process. ‘There are several types of estoppel, including: 1, Estoppelby record: This occurs when a judgment in a previous case prevents a party trom raising certain issues or making certain claims in a subsequent case. 2, Estoppel by deed: This arises when a party is prevented from denying the truth of statements contained in a deed or other written instrument. © scanned wih oxen caneLoE - (16) 3, Estoppel by representation: This occurs when a party makes a representation of fact to another party, who relies on that representation to their detriment. The party making the representation may be estopped from denying ‘the truth of the representation in court. 4, Estoppel by convention: This arises when parties to a transaction or relationship conduct themselves in a way that leads to certain expectations or understandings. They may be estopped from denying those expectations or understandings in court. 18. Discuss the competency of witnesses and the criteria for determining who is competent to be a witness. ‘Competency of witnesses, not everyone is qualified to testifyin court. The criteria for determining competency vary depending on the jurisdiction, but generally include the following: 1, Capacity: The witness must have the mental capacity to perceive, remember, and recount the events about which they are testifying, This means they must be of sound mind and able to understand the nature and consequences of taking an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. 2. Personal knowledge: The witness must have personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying about. They cannot testify about hearsay or speculation. 3, Oath or affirmation: The witness must be capable of taking an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. This typically fequires the witness to understand the solemnity and significance of the oath or affirmation. 4, Ability to communicate: The witness mustbe able to communicate their testimony effectively to the court. This includes being able to understand and respond to questions asked by the attorneys and the judge. In addition to these general criteria, there may be specific rules or requirements governing the competency of certain types of witnesses, such as expert witnesses or child witnesses. It is the responsibility of the judge to determine whether a witness is competent to testify in a particular case. 19._ Rules Governing the Examination of Witnesses in Court Proceedin; 1. Order of Production and Examination of Witnesses: The order in which witnesses are produced and examined is determined by the party calling them. Generally, witnesses are examined-in-chief by the party calling them, followed by cross-examination by the opposing party, and then re-examination by the original party. 2, Competency of Witnesses: Witnesses must meet certain criteria to be deemed competent to testify. They must have the capacity to perceive, remember, and communicate their perceptions truthfully. Additionally, they must understand the duty to speak the truth and the consequences of not daing so. 3. Compellability of Witnesses: Some witnesses may be compelled to testify while others may have privileges that exempt them from testifying, such as spousal privilege or privilege against selt-incrimination. 4, Privileged Communications: Certain communications between parties may be privileged and not subject to disclosure in court, such as attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege. 5. Gross-Examination: After a witness has been examined-in-chief by the party calling them, the opposing party has the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This allows the opposing party to challenge the witness's testimony, credibility, and reliability 6. Re-Examination: Following cross-exemination, the party that called the witness may conduct re-examination to clarify any points raised during cross-examination. 7. Leading Questions: Generally, leading questions (questions that suggest the desired answer) are not allowed during examination-in-chief but are permissible during cross-examination and re-examination. 20. How Does a Judge Decide on the Admissibility of Evidence? 1. Relevance: The judge assesses whether the evidence is relevant to the issues in the case. Evidence is relevant itit tends to prove or disprove a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the case. 2. Admissibility Rules: The judge applies the relevant rules of evidence to determine if the proffered evidence ‘meets the oriteria for admissibility. This includes rules regarding hearsay, authentication, privilege, and the best evidence rule, among others. 3, Objections: If a party objects to the admission of evidence, the judge considers the grounds for the objection and rules on its admissibility. 4, Discretion: Few cases, the judge has discretion to admit or exclude evidence, even if it technically meets the criteria tor admissibility. This may be based on considerations of fairness, prejudice, or other relevant factors. 5, Prejudicial Effect: The judge may exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. This ensures that the evidence admitted is fair and does not unduly influence the outcome of the case. 6. Legal Standards: The judge applies legal standards set forth in statutes, case law, and procedural rules to determine the admissibility of evidence, ensuring that the trial is conducted in accordance with the law. Overall, the judge's role in determining the admissibility ot evidence is crucial to ensuring afair and justtrial. They must carefully weigh the probative value of the evidence against any potential prejudicial effects and apply the relevant legal standards to reach a decision. © scanned wih oxen cane