SEM VI Law of Evidence – Unit V Class Notes

Table of Contents

Section 118: Every person is competent to testify unless disqualified by law. A person who is unable to understand the questions put to them or cannot give rational answers is not competent to testify.
- Example: A child who cannot understand the nature of the questions may be deemed incompetent to testify.
Section 119: A witness who is incapable of giving rational answers due to age, mental condition, or other reasons may still be competent if they can understand and give a satisfactory account of the facts.
- Example: A mentally challenged person may be competent if they can understand and respond to questions about specific events they witnessed.
Section 120: A witness who is interested in the outcome of the case may still be competent, but their interest may affect their credibility.
- Example: A party to a contract dispute may testify, but their interest in the outcome may be considered when assessing the weight of their testimony.

Section 121: Confidential communications between a lawyer and client are privileged and not subject to disclosure without the client’s consent.
- Example: Conversations between a lawyer and their client about a case are confidential and cannot be used in court without permission.
Section 122: Communications between a husband and wife are generally privileged and not subject to disclosure in court.
- Example: Private conversations between spouses cannot be compelled to be disclosed in court.
Sections 123-128: Deal with other forms of privileged communications, including those involving state secrets, official information, and professional confidences.
- Example: Information given in confidence to a medical professional about a patient’s health is protected from disclosure.

Section 135: The party calling a witness may examine them first (direct examination). The opposing party may cross-examine the witness to challenge their testimony.
- Example: In a trial, the plaintiff’s lawyer first examines a witness about their observations, and the defendant’s lawyer then cross-examines to test the witness’s reliability.
Sections 136-137: Deal with the admissibility of evidence and the procedure for examining and cross-examining witnesses.
- Example: Evidence presented by the witness must be relevant and admissible.
Sections 138-166: Cover rules for conducting examinations, including leading questions, and rules for handling hostile witnesses.
- Example: Leading questions suggest the answer within the question and are typically not allowed during direct examination but may be used during cross-examination.

Section 141: Leading questions are those that suggest the answer within the question. Generally, they are not permitted during direct examination.
- Example: “Did you see the defendant at the scene of the crime?” is a leading question.
Section 142: Leading questions are allowed during cross-examination to test the witness’s knowledge and credibility.
- Example: During cross-examination, a lawyer may ask, “Isn’t it true that you were at the scene of the crime?”
Section 143-145: Govern when leading questions may be used and the manner in which they can be posed.
- Example: Leading questions are permissible when a witness is hostile or evasive.

Section 133: The testimony of an approver (an accomplice who turns state’s witness) is admissible, but it must be corroborated by other evidence.
- Example: An accomplice who provides evidence in exchange for immunity must be corroborated by other witnesses or evidence.

Section 154: If a witness proves hostile or unwilling to testify truthfully, the party that called them may cross-examine them and introduce prior statements to impeach their credibility.
- Example: If a witness changes their testimony and becomes uncooperative, the lawyer may use their previous statements to challenge their current testimony.

Section 147: Witnesses cannot refuse to answer questions on the grounds that it may incriminate them. They may, however, refuse to answer questions that might self-incriminate.
- Example: A witness may refuse to answer questions that could lead to self-incrimination.
Section 153: Provisions related to the protection of witnesses from self-incrimination.
- Example: A witness cannot be forced to give testimony that might expose them to criminal charges.

Section 156: Deals with the necessity of corroboration in certain cases, such as those involving the testimony of accomplices.
- Example: An accomplice’s testimony must be supported by additional evidence to be credible.
Section 157: Addresses the role of corroborative evidence in strengthening the credibility of a witness’s testimony.
- Example: Corroborative evidence may include witness testimony or physical evidence that supports the primary witness’s account.

Definition: Evidence that is improperly admitted or that does not comply with legal standards of admissibility.
Consequences: May result in the exclusion of such evidence from consideration or a retrial if it prejudiced the case.Example: If a court wrongly admits hearsay evidence, this could lead to an appeal or retrial if it affects the fairness of the proceedings.