Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated
Full Text
Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine and the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation.—A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.
Plain English Summary
Permits reuse of previous judicial evidence when the original witness is unavailable.
Key Legal Elements
- Witness unavailable (dead/missing/etc.)
- Previous judicial proceeding evidence
- Same parties/representatives
- Right to cross-examine provided
- Substantially same issues
Practical Note
This is a crucial rule for trials that last for decades. It ensures that if a witness was already cross-examined and subsequently dies or goes missing, their testimony is not lost to the court.
हिंदी पाठ
किसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही में गवाह द्वारा दिया गया साक्ष्य बाद की कार्यवाही में सुसंगत है यदि गवाह मर गया है, मिल नहीं सकता या असमर्थ है।
परंतु यह कि कार्यवाही उन्हीं पक्षकारों के बीच थी, विरोधी पक्षकार को प्रतिपरीक्षा (cross-examine) का अवसर मिला था और विवाद्य प्रश्न सारतः वही थे।
स्पष्टीकरण.—दंडिक विचारण को अभियोजक और अभियुक्त के बीच की कार्यवाही माना जाएगा।