The development of evidence law has evolved significantly over time, shaped by various legal traditions, cultures, and practices. Today, two basic principles form the foundation of the rules of evidence:

(1) only the facts relevant to the matter being heard should be considered by the court, and

(2) all facts that can help the court reach a decision are admissible unless excluded by law (e.g., communications between a client and their legal counsel).

Ancient Hindu Period:

In ancient Hindu law, the great sage Vasistha recognized three kinds of evidence:

• Lekhya (Documentary Evidence)

• Sakshi (Witnesses)

• Bukhti (Possession)

• Divya (Ordeals)

Ordeals, such as walking over hot coals or putting one’s hand into boiling water, were used as methods of proving innocence or guilt. It was believed that divine forces would protect the innocent and punish the guilty. These practices were eventually abolished, but they reflect a period in history where divine intervention was considered part of the judicial process.

Islamic Law:

In Islamic jurisprudence, evidence is considered to be a divine disposition. The Mohammedan legal tradition also deals with evidence in various forms:

• Oral Evidence – including direct and hearsay evidence.

• Documentary Evidence – though less preferred than oral testimony, it still holds weight in Islamic law.

Medieval European Practices:

In medieval Europe, the law of evidence was shaped by practices that are now seen as cruel and barbaric. Trial by ordeal, such as walking over hot coals or sinking a person in water to test for witchcraft, were common practices. If a person survived these ordeals, it was assumed they were innocent, but if they suffered harm, they were considered guilty.

One infamous example is the witch trials, where suspected witches were subjected to the “dunking test.” A woman would be thrown into a pond or river, and if she floated, she was deemed guilty of witchcraft and burned at the stake. If she sank and drowned, she was considered innocent, though tragically, dead. These practices were deeply rooted in superstition and religion and were not based on rational or factual evidence.

Similarly, confessions extracted under torture were commonly accepted as evidence during this time. Many of these practices have long since been outlawed, as they were considered violations of human rights and fairness in the judicial process.

Evolution in Modern Law:

With the development of more rational systems of law, particularly during the Enlightenment, the modern rules of evidence began to take shape. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is largely based on English law, introduced a more structured and scientific approach to evidence law in India. It recognized the importance of relevance and admissibility of evidence, moving away from the arbitrary and often brutal practices of earlier times.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, is a modern and comprehensive statute that replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and reflects the contemporary needs of India's legal system. It provides clear and detailed guidelines on the admissibility of evidence, including the use of electronic evidence, the rules surrounding witness testimony, expert opinions, and judicial notice, among others.

The BSA modernizes the approach to evidence law, incorporating international best practices while aligning with the constitutional principles of justice, fairness, and transparency. It aims to streamline the process of adjudication by establishing a uniform system for determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence in a variety of legal contexts.