What is substantive evidence?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 February 2021
This query is : Resolved
What is substantive evidence?
ashok kumar singh
(Expert) 01 June 2021
Substantive evidence is the evidence on the basis of which a fact is. proved and which requires no corroboration. Substantive evidence is either. direct or circumstantial or both.
ashok kumar singh
(Expert) 01 June 2021
In layman language, substantive refers to something considerable, that is, to have a strong base. Whereas, corroborative refers to something that needs to be more considerable.
Substantive evidence is the evidence on the basis of which a fact is proved and which requires no corroboration. On the other hand, corroborative evidence is the evidence used to make substantive evidence more concrete. Both the evidence are either direct or circumstantial or both.
The significance of corroborative evidence depends on substantive evidence. In other words the existence of corroborative evidence depends on substantive evidence.
ashok kumar singh
(Expert) 01 June 2021
The decisions of this Court on the subject are legion. It is, therefore, unnecessary to refer to all such decisions. We remain content with a reference to the following observations made by this Court in Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. [(2003) 5 SCC 746]: (SCC pp. 751-52, para 7) "7. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration. (See Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn. [AIR 1958 SC 350], Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of A.P. [AIR 1960 SC 1340], Budhsen v. State of U.P. [(1970) 2 SCC 128 ] and Rameshwar Singh v.
ashok kumar singh
(Expert) 01 June 2021
In Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra [1980 Cr. L.J. 853.] it was also held that the post-mortem report even if admitted to be genuine by the accused cannot be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 Cr. P.C.
