Vol. 12 · pages 616–620

595LAW OF EVIDENCE Two things are to be noted. 1. What is included in the term character ? Sec. 55. The word Character includes both reputation and disposition. This is a departure from English law under which character is confined to reputation only. There is a distinction between reputation and disposition. Reputation means what is thought of a person by others, and is constituted by public opinion. It is the general credit which a man has obtained in that opinion. Disposition comprehends the springs and motives of action, is permanent and settled and has regard to the whole frame and texture of the mind. 2. How to prove Character ? There are two ways of proving the character of a man. One way is to give evidence of general reputation and general disposition. The other way is to give evidence of particular acts which may then become the basis of inference for reputation and disposition. 55 Expl. The Evidence Act permits evidence to be given only of general reputation and general disposition. 55 Expl. There is only one exception to this under which evidence of previous conviction may be given as evidence of bad character. Sec. 45-51. § Proof of opinions. 1. The use of witnesses is to inform the Court of the facts of the case. It is the duty of the Court to form its own opinion. 2. To show what the witness thought or believed would be objectionable on two grounds (I) It can show nothing at all and (2) it would be entrenching upon the province of the Judge.

596 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 3. The rule is that witness must state facts and not opinions. A strict application would create two difficulties. (1) What a third person (i.e., some one who is neither a plaintiff, a defendant nor a prisoner) thinks or believes about any matter in question is not material. If such a third person be called as a witness, he must, as a rule, only state facts; his personal opinion is not evidence. But what a party thinks or believes at the time he does a material act is often a matter in issue both in Criminal and Civil proceedings. Illus.—Carter -vs. - Boehin. Cockle p. Question was whether a policy of insurance was vitiated by the concealment of facts which had not been communicated to the under writers. A broker gave evidence of the materiality of the facts. He was asked whether he would have entered into the contract if these facts were disclosed. His answer that he would not have was held to be inadmissible as it was matter of opinion. But if the question had been asked to the party then his opinion would have been admissible. (2) A strict application of the rule is bound to create difficulties. In cases where the Court is required to form an opinion, the Court may not be competent to form an opinion cases occur in which special experience or special training is necessary before a true opinion can be formed. In such cases therefore the opinion of those who have had special experience or special training must be laid before the tribunal to enable it to arrive at a correct decision. (3) There are certain cases where it is naturally impossible for any witness to speak positively, cases where he must speak if at all, as to his opinion or belief, the matters to which he deposes being so essentially matters of opinion or else to complex or indefinite that the Court is compelled to accept his opinion for what it is worth. The former are cases involving questions of science, art, or skill which necessarily require the opinion of the expert. The latter class of cases are cases involving question of impressions which may be those of non-experts.

597LAW OF EVIDENCE (5) The Evidence Act therefore makes the following exceptions to the general rule that the opinion of a witness is not admissible. Sec. 45. (1) The opinions of skilled or scientific witnesses (Experts) are admissible evidence to elucidate matters which are strictly of a professional or scientific character. For instance. (i) Question of foreign law. (ii) Question of Science or Art (working of a gun machine). (iii) Question of as to identity of handwriting or finger impression. Sec. 47. (2) On questions of identification of a person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of the person acquainted with the handwriting of the person is relevant. Sec. 48. (3) Where the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right, the opinion of persons likely to know of its existence is relevant. Sec. 49. (4) When the Court has to form an opinion as to : 1. The usages and tenets of anybody of men or family. 2. The constitution and government of any religions or charitable foundation. 3. The meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or particular classes of people. The opinions of persons having special means of knowledge thereon are relevant facts. Sec. 50. (5) When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship between two persons, the opinion of persons based on the conduct of parties and having special means of knowledge on the subject.

598 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Illus—(a) (b) Proviso. Such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove marriage under Indian Divorce Act or the prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497, 498 of the I. P. C.

Nature of Evidence Required for Proof Summary of the Law I. THE RULE OF BEST EVIDENCE. II. REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULE OF BEST EVIDENCE. (i) The rule of Best Evidence requires. (a) That if the Evidence is oral then it must be direct. (b) Exceptions. (ii) The rule of Best Evidence requires that if the Evidence is documentary then. (i) It must be original, (a) Exceptions, (ii) it be exclusive, (a) Exceptions. § The Rule of Best Evidence : 1. It is an incontrovertible proposition of law that the party who is to prove any fact must do it by the best evidence of which the nature of the case is capable. 2. This rule, really speaking, underlies the whole law of Evidence. (i) It is because of this rule that the law requires as a condition precedent to the admissibility of Evidence that there should be an open and visible connection between the principal and evidentiary facts. (ii) It is because of this rule that the law requires that Evidence in order to be receivable should come through proper instruments. (iii) It is because of this rule that the law requires that the evidence to be admissible should be original and not derivative. 3. At one time the rule of Best Evidence was very strictly applied. But its application is now greatly relaxed and what were once objections to admissibility now went merely to sufficiency on weight. 4. But the rule still survives and is illustrated by the requirements of the law of evidence in respect of oral Evidence and documentary evidence.