Evidence Act 1872 Section 23

Evidence Act Section 23 deals with the relevance of oral evidence in legal proceedings. It states that oral evidence must relate to facts in issue or relevant facts to be admissible. This section is crucial because it guides courts on what oral testimony can be considered during trials, ensuring that irrelevant or immaterial statements are excluded.

Understanding this section helps lawyers and judges focus on meaningful oral evidence that directly impacts the case's outcome. It plays a vital role in both civil and criminal trials by maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the evidence presented.

Evidence Act Section 23 – Exact Provision

This section emphasizes that oral evidence should be based on direct knowledge of facts that are central or relevant to the case. It excludes hearsay or statements about facts not connected to the matter under trial. The rule ensures that only testimony with a direct bearing on the dispute is admitted, which aids in fair adjudication.

• Oral evidence must be about facts in issue or relevant facts.

• It must be direct, based on actual knowledge.

• Hearsay or irrelevant oral statements are excluded.

• Ensures focus on material and probative testimony.

Explanation of Evidence Act Section 23

This section specifies the conditions under which oral evidence is relevant and admissible in court.

• Oral evidence must relate to facts in issue or relevant facts only.

• Affects witnesses who provide testimony based on personal knowledge.

• Litigants rely on this to present or challenge oral testimony.

• Police and courts use this to assess the value of witness statements.

• Triggering event: when oral testimony is offered during trial or inquiry.

• Admissible: direct oral evidence on material facts.

• Inadmissible: hearsay or statements about irrelevant matters.

Purpose and Rationale of Evidence Act Section 23

The section ensures that oral evidence contributes meaningfully to establishing facts in dispute. It promotes judicial efficiency by filtering out irrelevant or unreliable testimony, thus supporting fair trials.

• Ensures reliability by requiring direct knowledge.

• Promotes fairness by excluding irrelevant evidence.

• Prevents misuse of hearsay or speculative statements.

• Strengthens truth-finding by focusing on material facts.

When Evidence Act Section 23 Applies

This section applies whenever oral evidence is presented in legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal. It is invoked by parties or courts to determine admissibility.

• Applicable during trial, inquiry, or examination stages.

• Invoked by parties challenging or offering oral testimony.

• Relevant in both criminal and civil cases.

• Scope limited to oral evidence, not documentary.

• Exceptions include statements admitted under other provisions.

Burden and Standard of Proof under Evidence Act Section 23

Section 23 itself does not assign burden of proof but governs admissibility of oral evidence. The burden depends on the nature of the case—beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases and preponderance of probabilities in civil cases. It works alongside Sections 101–114, which deal with presumptions and burden shifting.

• Burden lies on the party asserting a fact.

• Standard varies: criminal (beyond reasonable doubt), civil (preponderance).

• Section 23 ensures only relevant oral evidence is considered for proof.

Nature of Evidence under Evidence Act Section 23

This section focuses on the relevance and admissibility of oral evidence. It excludes hearsay and emphasizes direct testimony. Procedural rules require witnesses to testify based on personal knowledge, limiting speculative or secondhand statements.

• Deals with oral evidence relevance and admissibility.

• Excludes hearsay and irrelevant testimony.

• Requires direct knowledge from witnesses.

• Supports procedural fairness during examination.

Stage of Proceedings Where Evidence Act Section 23 Applies

Section 23 applies primarily at the trial stage when oral evidence is presented. It also governs evidence during inquiries and appeals if admissibility is questioned. Cross-examination tests the credibility of oral evidence under this section.

• Trial stage: main application.

• Inquiry stage: applies to witness statements.

• Appeal stage: admissibility challenges.

• Cross-examination: tests oral evidence validity.

Appeal and Challenge Options under Evidence Act Section 23

Rulings on oral evidence admissibility under Section 23 can be challenged through appeals or revisions. Higher courts review such decisions for legal correctness and procedural fairness, intervening only if there is a clear error or miscarriage of justice.

• Appeals challenge trial court rulings.

• Revisions address procedural errors.

• Higher courts defer to trial court’s discretion unless misapplied.

• Timelines for appeal depend on case type.

Example of Evidence Act Section 23 in Practical Use

In a theft case, witness X testifies that he saw the accused near the crime scene at the relevant time. The court admits this oral evidence under Section 23 because it relates directly to a fact in issue—the accused’s presence. However, if X had only heard from someone else about the accused’s whereabouts, that hearsay would be inadmissible.

• Direct witness testimony is admissible.

• Hearsay statements are excluded.

Historical Background of Evidence Act Section 23

Introduced in 1872, Section 23 was designed to clarify the admissibility of oral evidence, emphasizing direct knowledge. Historically, courts struggled with hearsay, and this section helped establish clear boundaries. Judicial interpretations have reinforced its focus on relevance and directness.

• Established to prevent hearsay evidence.

• Clarified relevance of oral testimony.

• Judicial evolution strengthened direct evidence rule.

Modern Relevance of Evidence Act Section 23

In 2026, Section 23 remains vital as courts handle diverse evidence forms, including electronic oral statements. It ensures that oral testimony, whether live or recorded, meets relevance and directness criteria. Digital evidence and e-courts have increased reliance on clear oral evidence rules.

• Applies to digital and recorded oral evidence.

• Supports judicial reforms for evidence handling.

• Ensures relevance in modern trial settings.

Related Evidence Act Sections

• Evidence Act Section 5 – Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts

  – Defines the scope of facts courts consider for evidence admissibility.

• Evidence Act Section 24 – Confession Caused by Inducement

  – Deals with admissibility of confessions influenced by threats or promises.

• Evidence Act Section 32 – Statements by Persons Who Cannot be Called as Witnesses

  – Allows certain statements as exceptions to hearsay rule.

• Evidence Act Section 65B – Electronic Records

  – Governs admissibility of electronic evidence, including oral recordings.

• CrPC Section 161 – Examination of Witnesses by Police

  – Relates to recording oral statements during investigation.

Case References under Evidence Act Section 23

1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996, 2 SCC 384)

   – Oral evidence must be direct and relate to facts in issue to be admissible.

2. K. Ramachandra Reddy v. K. Satyavati (1976, AIR 1976 SC 1740)

   – Emphasized the importance of direct oral evidence over hearsay.

3. R. v. Blastland (1986, AC 41)

   – Highlighted the exclusion of irrelevant oral testimony.

Key Facts Summary for Evidence Act Section 23

• Section:

  23

• Title:

  Oral Evidence Relevance

• Category:

  Relevance, Admissibility, Oral Evidence

• Applies To:

  Witnesses, Litigants, Courts

• Proceeding Type:

  Civil and Criminal Trials

• Interaction With:

  Sections 5, 24, 32, 65B, CrPC 161

• Key Use:

  Determines admissibility of oral evidence based on relevance and directness

Conclusion on Evidence Act Section 23

Evidence Act Section 23 plays a fundamental role in shaping the admissibility of oral evidence in Indian courts. By requiring that oral testimony be directly related to facts in issue or relevant facts, it ensures that trials focus on material and reliable evidence. This helps courts avoid distractions caused by irrelevant or hearsay statements.

Its application enhances fairness and accuracy in both civil and criminal proceedings. Understanding Section 23 is essential for legal practitioners to effectively present or challenge oral evidence, thereby strengthening the judicial process and promoting just outcomes.

FAQs on Evidence Act Section 23

What type of oral evidence is admissible under Section 23?

Only oral evidence that is direct and relates to facts in issue or relevant facts is admissible. Hearsay or irrelevant statements are excluded under this section.

Does Section 23 allow hearsay evidence?

No, Section 23 excludes hearsay evidence. Oral testimony must be based on the witness's personal knowledge of the facts.

Who decides if oral evidence is relevant under Section 23?

The court decides whether oral evidence is relevant and admissible, often based on objections raised by parties during trial.

Can Section 23 be applied in both civil and criminal cases?

Yes, Section 23 applies to both civil and criminal proceedings to determine the admissibility of oral evidence.

How does Section 23 interact with electronic oral evidence?

Section 23’s principles apply to electronic oral evidence, such as recorded statements, ensuring they are direct and relevant before admission.