Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the persons whose statements are relied upon, into Court for examination in the regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be best brought to light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross-examination.
It can be said that hearsay evidence is no evidence at all, inter alia, for the following reasons.
Image Source: blog.conqueryourdebt.org
ADVERTISEMENTS:
1. It is not given on oath.
2. It cannot be tested by cross-examination.
3. In many cases, it suppresses some better testimony which, though available, is not adduced.
4. Its admission tends to prolong trials unduly by letting in statements, the probative value of which is very slight.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
5. Its admission tends to open the door for fraud, which might be practised with impunity.
6. It is second-hand evidence, not connected with personal responsibility, which exposes a witness to all the penalties of falsehood which may be inflicted by any of the sanctions of truth. The person giving such evidence does not have any sense of responsibility. If confronted with a contrary position, he always has a line of escape by pleading that this was not his personal knowledge and that he was so informed by somebody else.
7. There is a tendency that truth will be diluted and diminished with each repetition.
If the rule were otherwise, it would attach undue importance to a false rumour flying from one foul tongue to another.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
As rightly observed by Pope,—
“The flying rumour gathered as they rolled,
Scarce any tale was sooner heard than told,
And all who told it added something new,
All who heard it made enlargement too,
In every ear it spread, on every tongue it grew.”