Section 60 aims at rejection of evidence which is not direct, i.e., what is known as hearsay evidence. It is a fundamental rule of the law of evidence that hearsay is not admissible. The word ‘hearsay’ is capable of various meanings and is ambiguous in the extreme. It has at least 3 distinct meanings:
Image Source: islamforwest.files.wordpress.com
(i) Firstly, the word ‘hearsay’ may mean whatever a person is heard to say.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(ii) Secondly, it may mean whatever a person declares on information given by someone else.
(iii) Thirdly, it is sometimes regarded as being synonymous with the word “irrelevant”.
In the Evidence Act, to avoid this confusion, the word ‘hearsay’ is not used. On this point, the Law Commission has observed: “We have abstained from making use of the word ‘hearsay’ from the uncertainty and vagueness of the meaning attributed to that word.” A statement, oral or written, by a person not called as a witness comes under the general rule of hearsay.
Section 60 of the Act is directed against avoiding hearsay evidence in the second sense of the term as given above. The gist of section 60 of the Act is that statements made out of Court cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter contained in such statements. But this rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible must be accepted with great caution.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The test to distinguish between direct evidence and hearsay evidence is as follows: It is direct evidence if the Court, to act upon it, has to rely only upon the witness, whereas it is hearsay, if it has to rely not only upon the witness, but some other person also.
Thus, a statement made by the widow of the deceased that she had heard from her husband that a bicycle had been given to him by his employer, so that he may not be late in attending the factory, was held to be hearsay.
Likewise, on a charge that no tickets were issued to the passengers, evidence of an inspector and a constable that when they had demanded the tickets, they were informed by the passengers that none had been issued to them, is hearsay.
Thus, if X is charged with the murder of Y, and if Z, in his evidence, states that “I saw X stabbing Y with a knife”, it would be a case of direct evidence. Instances of hearsay evidence would be the evidence of A that “Z told me that he had seen X stabbing Y” or that “Z wrote a letter to me stating that he had seen X stabbing Y” or that “I read in the newspaper that X had murdered Y”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Problem:
The question is whether A was driving a bus at a particular time. There are no eye-witnesses, but the witnesses tell the Court what others told them. Can such evidence be allowed?
Ans:
No, such evidence is not admissible, as it is hearsay. (Jaddoo Singh v. Malti Devi, A.I.R. 1983 All. 87)
Hearsay Evidence Not Admissible Even if Consented to:
It may be noted that hearsay evidence is not admissible even if not objected to or even if consented to. The language of S. 60, which prescribes that oral evidence, in all cases, must be direct, leads to the conclusion that the Court has no discretion in the matter, except in the cases which fall under the exceptions discussed below. Thus, it is not open to a Judge to admit hearsay evidence which is not admissible by the statute, just because it appears to him that such evidence would throw some light on the issue.
Problem:
A sues В for inducing С to break a contract of service made by him with A. С on leaving A’s service says to A “I am leaving you because В has made me a better offer”. Is the statement of С relevant and admissible in evidence?
Ans:
This statement of С made to A is inadmissible inasmuch as it is hearsay.