The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam outlines how courts handle evidence and facts. Section 2(j) defines a “proved” fact as one the court believes exists or considers probable enough to act upon. Section 2(c) states a fact is “disproved” if the court believes it doesn’t exist or its non-existence is highly probable. Section 2(i) defines a fact as “not proved” when it falls between these two categories.
Judges must carefully marshal and appreciate evidence to reach these conclusions. Marshalling involves grouping relevant witness statements for and against a point, without repetition. Appreciation requires analyzing this evidence in light of legal principles, personal experience, and observation.
What Makes a Fact?
The Act defines a “fact” broadly. Section 2(f) includes anything perceivable by the senses or any conscious mental state. Evidence, as per Section 2(e)(i), encompasses statements made by witnesses about these facts, including electronic statements.
The court admits evidence based on its relevance to the “fact in issue”. This means witness statements must directly relate to the disputed matter at hand. The Court takes relevant material on record subject to its admissibility. The relevancy of a statement is judged in connection with the ‘fact in issue’.
Read Also: RBI’s NBFC Listing Rule Hits Enforcement Hurdle
The Judge’s Perception
Judicial fact-finding isn’t purely mechanical. It requires meticulous analysis as the judge has to give reasons for their positive or negative belief regarding the existence or probability of a fact.
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy offers a lens to understand this. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant explores how human perception shapes our understanding of reality. A judge, in believing or disbelieving evidence, acts on reasons that conform with their knowledge, observation, experience, and settled principles of law.
The Quest for Truth
Though this exercise seems simple on the surface, it is not a mechanical task. The Act provides a framework for this process, but the ultimate determination of what is “proved,” “disproved,” or “not proved” rests with the judge’s reasoned judgment.
This judgment, while guided by law, is inevitably influenced by the judge’s individual perspective. Recognizing this subjective element is key for understanding the limitations and strengths of the legal system’s pursuit of truth.