Hearsay vs Secondary Evidence in Evidence Act
evidence general intermediate doubtYaar samajh nahi aaya (I don't understand) - secondary evidence aur hearsay ka kya farq hai? Sabhi toh secondary evidence ke lije hearsay ko include karte hain. Lekin secondary evidence mein witness ko presence of document ka proof dete huen, toh woh secondary evidence kaise hearsay? Example - witness ke paas document ki photocopy hai, lekin original document present nahi tha. Yah primary evidence ki absence hai, toh yahaan secondary evidence kama hai. Lekin yeh bhi hearsay ho sakta hai kyonki witness ko original document ka proof nahi hai. Meri brain deadlock hai (my brain is stuck). Please help.
2 comments
2 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Hearsay vs Secondary Evidence in Evidence Act - clarification needed! Hearsay is when someone repeats a statement made by someone else, without it being under oath. Secondary evidence, on the other hand, is a copy or replica of the original document. Secondary evidence is admissible only when the original is unavailable. Remember, hearsay is inadmissible as primary evidence, whereas secondary evidence can be used in its place, subject to certain conditions like proving the primary evidence's unavailability. It's all about understanding the distinction, mate!
"Bhai, secondary evidence ka concept bhi evidence act mai hai, lekin uska scope limited hai. Secondary evidence only usable hota hai if primary evidence kayi reasono se kayam nahi kar sakte, jaise ki ek document kayam hi nahi hai ya iska ek original copy milta hai. Hearsay to aapko to pata hi hoga, yeh ek type ki non-proof evidence hai, jo kisi shabde se banata hai.