MULLA’s COMMENTARY ON LAW OF EVIDENCE ( IN TWO VOLS)

In pursuance of providing better service to legal world and due to massive developments in Law of Evidence, we resolve ourself to illuminate the efforts of Mulla in limelight, and to acknowledge his erudite efforts in revamping C.D. Field’s Evidence, that’s why instant treatise goes to his credit as Mulla’s Law of Evidence.

‘Evidence’ is information which may be used to prove the existence: of a fact in issue or a collateral fact or to disprove a fact in issue or collateral fact. The requisite evidence must be relevant, must be admissible and the Court of fact must consider the evidence to have weight. Moreso, irrelevant evidence will never be admissible, However, just because evidence is relevant it does not mean that it is automatically admissible. So for so, admissibility is also a question of law for the Judge to determine.

Rules of evidence transcend all aspects of the trial stage of proceedings. They govern who has to prove what in a trial is burden of proof and the level to which those facts have to be proved i.e., standard of proof. The Law of Evidence also provides for what evidence can be. tendered before the Court i.e., by the rules relating to relevance and admissibility of the format in which it is presented to the Court of fact and the reasons why it may be adduced i.e., what evidence goes towards proving or disproving. Apart from that the law in hand also dictate the type of questions which may be asked of a particular witness depending upon the party calling them. The Law also safeguards vulnerable witnesses in order to maximise the quality of their evidence. A fact in issue for material fact or factum propandum, in a case is a fact which it is necessary for the prosecution in criminal proceedings or claimant in civil proceedings to prove if it is to succeed with its case. In a Criminal Trial, the burden of proof is usually on the prosecution, so the prosecution must prove the elements of the offence that the defendant is accused of as well as disprove the defence that he raises. Therefore, the facts in issue. a criminal case are all of the elements of the offence and defence that are in dispute as well as the identity of the defendant. A relevant fact or factum probans is a fact which is not a fact in issue, but is a fact which tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue. In a criminal case a relevant fact would be the existence or non-existence of motive of the defendant. The existence of a motive is not a fact in issue because it is not a requisite element of any criminal offence, i.e., it does not form part of the actus reus or mens rea elements of a criminal offence, but it is a relevant fact, because motive tends to prove a fact in issue i.e., that the defendant performed the actus reus of the offence charged with the necessary mens rea.