On September 1st, 1872, the Evidence Act became operative. It has 167 Sections and 11 Chapters. The law of evidence is a crucial component of India's civil and criminal justice systems. Before the establishment of this statute, there were no written standards or regulations for capturing evidence. However, the entire Indian judicial system has evolved since the Evidence Law was passed. This act is based upon the English Law of Evidence.

It's not a very big thing. The Latin word "Evideari," from which the word "Evidence" is derived, means "to prove or show plainly."This act is applicable to all over India except the state of Jammu &Kashmir. And only the court proceedings are connected to this act. There are various types of evidence which comes under this Act. This short essay is centred on describing the notion of statements made under extraordinary circumstances which are listed under Sections 34-39 and Chapter II of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Various rules surrounding the admissibility of evidence in a court of law are set forth in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Statements made in unique circumstances and court of justice rulings are two significant sorts of evidence that may be admitted in particular situations. Dying declarations, declarations against interest, confessions to police, declarations in public records, and declarations made while conducting business are examples of statements made under unusual circumstances.

These declarations are admissible as evidence in court when made willingly and when they are pertinent to the dispute, among other requirements. The verdict of a court of justice, on the other hand, is typically not accepted as proof of the veracity of the facts set forth therein.

There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, such as when the fact in question was directly and significantly in dispute in the prior case or when the judgment is pertinent to explain the actions of a party. As a result, even while certain kinds of evidence might not always be allowed in court, they might nevertheless be crucial in some cases to establish a fact in dispute, demonstrate a court's jurisdiction, or justify a party's actions.

Research Methodology
This research will be qualitative in nature. Therefore, the basic sources, such as statutory legislation, will serve as the paper's foundation in addition to the data obtained for qualitative analysis. Additionally, it will draw on secondary sources like books, websites, reports on news and research, papers from national and international journals, and more.

Literature Review
Various rules surrounding the admissibility of evidence in a court of law are set forth in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Statements made in unique circumstances and court of justice rulings are two significant sorts of evidence that may be admitted in particular situations. Dying declarations, declarations against interest, confessions to police, declarations in public records, and declarations made while conducting business are examples of statements made under unusual circumstances.

These declarations are admissible as evidence in court when made willingly and when they are pertinent to the dispute, among other requirements. The verdict of a court of justice, on the other hand, is typically not accepted as proof of the veracity of the facts set forth therein.

There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, such as when the fact in question was directly and significantly in dispute in the prior case or when the judgment is pertinent to explain the actions of a party. As a result, even while certain kinds of evidence might not always be allowed in court, they might nevertheless be crucial in some cases to establish a fact in dispute, demonstrate a court's jurisdiction, or justify a party's actions.

Background
In general, statements made in unique situations, like in front of a notary public or under oath in court, are given more weight and reliability than regular utterances. This is so because the claims were made in a formal environment where lying or giving false testimony would have serious repercussions. A court of justice may use a statement made under unusual circumstances as evidence where it is pertinent to a legal matter.

The circumstances of the statement's making, the speaker's credibility, and any supporting evidence will all be taken into account by the court when assessing the statement's veracity. For instance, if a witness swears under oath in court that they witnessed the defendant commit a crime, the court may take this testimony into account when rendering a decision in the case. However, the court might not believe the witness' testimony if they have a history of lying or making contradictory statements.

Statements made in unique circumstances may occasionally be given more weight than other forms of evidence. A dying declaration made by a person who is aware that they are about to die might, for instance, be admissible in court as proof of their last intentions or as evidence in a criminal case in some jurisdictions. Overall, statements made under unusual circumstances may be crucial in court proceedings, but the court will carefully consider their veracity and relevance to the case.

Research
The concept of "acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention" is covered in Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). According to the provision, each person is held accountable as if they had personally committed the crime when it is committed by a group of people with the same goal. The section is based on the legal concept of joint liability and is applicable to both civil and criminal situations.

This means that even though not all of the acts that lead to the crime were personally committed, each person is nevertheless liable for the full consequences of the crime if two or more people agree to conduct it and carry it out. For instance, under Section 34 of the IEA, both parties can be held accountable for the full costs of a robbery if two people conspire to rob a bank and one person serves as the lookout while the other performs the heist.

Similar to this, Section 34 allows for the prosecution of all parties involved in a murderous conspiracy, even if only one person actually carries out the murder while the others aid or support them. Each person's level of involvement or intention in the offense is not a requirement of the provision. All those involved in the crime may be held accountable under Section 34, even if one person played a more active role in its commission.

In several instances, including those involving murder, robbery, and other crimes, Indian courts have interpreted and enforced Section 34. The section is a crucial instrument for making sure justice is done even when numerous people are involved in a criminal conduct and for holding people accountable for crimes committed jointly with others. Different factors, such as the type of work, the type of book, or the type of object, may be taken into consideration while implementing the general concept of regularity of entry.

It is acknowledged that using a system of regular account to support a specific fraud is such a challenging and dangerous procedure that the courts may use entries in such a system to inform their decisions. Truth, accuracy, and contemporaneous record are practically essential for the proper carrying on of such an account. "It must be confessed that to forge elaborate accounts extending over six years, or even to insert new sheets in such accounts, would be a most dangerous undertaking, and to make different book correspond exactly would be task of insurmountable difficulty," their lordship of the privy council said in the case of Jaswant Singh v. Shew Narain Lal.

When it comes to putting the section's guiding principle into practise, the phrases "books of account, regularly kept in the course of business" in Section 34 of the Evidence Act are of the utmost significance. Only those account statements that were kept by a party on his own behalf and that were undiscovered for the purposes of a particular lawsuit will be allowed to be admitted under this concept.

As a result, when an entry of that kind is offered, it must be demonstrated that it is in a book, a book of accounts, and that the account in question is one that is routinely maintained in the course of business. It is abundantly evident from the image for Section 34 that it exclusively applies to the entries of a plaintiff's account books. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable solely based on the entries in the account-books of an altogether distinct institution.

The circumstances surrounding the transaction that is documented in the book of account as well as the circumstances surrounding the presence of the books of account may be considered substantial corroborative evidence. No objection may be raised in an appeal if none was raised at the time the account book was produced. It is crucial that an objection be raised as soon as the book of accounts is being considered for admission into evidence.

Even though there would be no grounds for challenging the acceptance of the Evidence, their validity and the appropriate amount of weight to accord the Account Book would still need to be taken into account. Entries in the books of accounts, when relevant Every time they make reference to a subject that the Court must investigate, entries in books of account, including those preserved in an electronic format, are relevant. However, these statements alone are not sufficient to hold anybody liable.

Illustration: A files a lawsuit against B for Rs. 1,000, and entries in his account books reveal that B owes him this sum. Without other proof, the records are pertinent but insufficient to establish the debt. Regular entries made in the course of business are certain to be true since the author has all the information, has no incentive to lie, and the likelihood of lying is minimal. The records, however, must be retained on a regular basis in the course of business and may be used as evidence if they pertain to the issue at hand. Books of account must be backed up by further proof because they merely serve as corroboration.

The evidentiary value of the entries made in the books throughout the course of business will be extremely good if there is supporting proof, but it will be worthless if there isn't. Notes in a diary are not admissible, and random entries are not relevant. It should be made in the regularly maintained accounting records.

The court determined that excerpts from the books of accounts do not fall within Section 34 of the Act in the case of Iswar Das Jain v. Sohan Lal (AIR 2000 SC 426) and that sanctity may only be attached to the books of accounts as a whole, if they are actually accounts books. The court ruled in the matter of Prasad v. Narendranath Sen (AIR 1953 SC 431) that accounts made up of loose sheets cannot have the same legal effect as account books.

In the case of Y. Venkanna Chowdry v. Lakshmidev Amma, AIR 1994 (Mad.) 140, it was determined that while any book of account that is regularly kept and entries made therein in the course of business are relevant, they are insufficient on their own to hold anyone liable when the books of account are maintained by the Managing Partners and other partners have raised concerns about the entries, and if the Managing Partners are found to be vague and false, Notes in a diary are not admissible, and random entries are not relevant. Unbound sheets of paper cannot be trusted since they are not books of account.

The problem of the admissibility of evidence from earlier judgements or final orders is covered under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). The provision provides that the contents of a judgment, order, or decree can be proven as evidence in a subsequent case when their existence is important to the matter at hand. All final judgements, orders, or decrees rendered by a court with competent jurisdiction are covered by Section 35. This indicates that the judgment, ruling, or decree is deemed to be the last word on the topic and cannot be contested or appealed further.

The provision also lays out some restrictions on how such evidence may be used in court. For instance, the ruling, decision, or decree must be pertinent to the argument being made in the ensuing case. Aside from the facts it immediately decides, the judgement, order, or decree cannot be used as proof of any other facts.

In other words, Section 35 permits the use of a previous judgement or final order's contents as evidence of its existence, but it forbids the use of those contents as proof of the veracity of any facts that may have been mentioned in the judgement or order. In several instances, including ones involving property disputes, criminal proceedings, and civil lawsuits, Indian courts have interpreted and applied Section 35.

The provision serves to guarantee that the principle of finality of judgements is observed and upheld by giving parties in subsequent proceedings a valuable tool to establish the existence of a prior judgement or order.

Relevance of record entry made in the course of official duty:
An entry made by a public servant in the course of performing his official duties, or by any other person in the performance of a duty specifically mandated by the law of the nation in which such book, register, or 2 [record or an electronic record] is kept, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, is itself a relevant fact.

The act's Section 74 provides a list of public documents. Generally speaking, a public document is one that was created with the public's usage in mind. The general public is free to use and refer to it as they like. Section 21 of the IPC and Sections 74 and 78 of the IEA also include definitions of public servants. Entries made on electoral rolls and entries relating to births and deaths made at the time of registration are both acceptable. Under this clause, a statement made in a private book or register is not admissible.

To be relevant under this provision, an entry must meet the requirements listed below:
Must appear in a public or other official book Be created by a public official Be created by that person while performing official duties Be created by someone who is specifically mandated by law to do such duties Describe any pertinent facts or facts at issue It has long been believed that the Birth Certificate, which is based on the Baptism Certificate and contains the information that the Baptism record was read and examined in front of the god parents and signed by a person other than the god parents, is valid as proof of the legitimacy of the child. As a result, Birth Certificates that are being processed based on Baptism Certificates are legally regarded as valid.

Hearsay evidence is admissible according to Section 36 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). A remark made by someone other than the witness who is repeating it and used as evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the claim is known as hearsay. According to the section, hearsay evidence may be used if it fits into one of the following categories: a declaration about their cause of death or any other pertinent fact made by someone who is deceased, cannot be located, or has lost the ability to speak in court.

A claim made by a person that pertains to their own family history about the existence of any relationship, such as a marriage, birth, legitimacy, or adoption. A statement made by a person while conducting business, exercising a profession, or performing other duties where the declaration was made in the regular course of such conduct.

An assertion stated in a public document or a private document that can be produced from proper custody and is older than 30 years. An assertion made in a court's ruling, rule, decree, or other legal procedure. Statements of the relevant facts or the relevant facts in question made in published maps or charts generally sold to the general public, or in maps or plans made with the approval of the Central Government or any State Government, with regard to the subjects typically represented or stated in such maps, charts, or plans, are themselves relevant facts. Maps created by private individuals are not subject to governmental control and are not admissible unless it can be demonstrated that they were ordinarily made available to the public for purchase.

Such documents' correctness is not assumed to be correct. Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans: The interpretation and application of Section 36 of the IEA have been covered in a number of court decisions. For instance, the Supreme Court of India held in the case of K. Ramachandra Reddy v. The Public Prosecutor (1976) that hearsay evidence could be admitted if it is pertinent to the topic at hand and if the person who made the statement is unavailable to testify.

The Indian Evidence Act (IEA), Section 37, addresses the relevance of facts that are a part of a single transaction or a series of related transactions. According to this clause, facts related to a specific transaction or a series of transactions are relevant and admissible as evidence in court if they shed light on the nature or consequences of the relevant transaction or transactions.

For instance, if someone is charged with perpetrating a robbery, Section 37 of the IEA may deem relevant evidence pertaining to the owner of the stolen property, the area where the stolen property was discovered, and the circumstances surrounding the robbery. The clause further indicates that the court may examine any shared goals or objectives that the parties to the transaction or series of transactions may have shared when determining whether such facts are relevant.

Numerous cases involving contract disputes, property conflicts, and criminal cases have all seen Indian courts apply Section 37. The section is a crucial tool for parties to use when presenting evidence that explains the nature or impact of a transaction-or a series of transactions—by providing examples. Before accepting such evidence as evidence, the court will, as with all evidence, carefully consider its relevancy and veracity.

Note that only facts related to a single transaction or a group of related transactions are covered under Section 37. The facts might not be taken into account under this section if they are unrelated to the transaction or series of transactions. The court also has the power to disregard any evidence that it deems to be irrelevant, superfluous, or disproportionately detrimental to one of the parties.

Statements about facts of a public character that are relevant to specific Acts or notifications:
When the Court must determine whether a fact of a public nature exists, any statement of that fact made in a recital contained in any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, any Central Act, Provincial Act, or a State Act, or in a Government notification or notification by the Crown Representative appearing in the Official Gazette or in any printed paper claiming to be the London Gazette or the Government Gazette of any Dominion, colony, or possession of the United Kingdom, or in a notification by the Crown Representative As a result, this area permits the admission of all official actions and notifications.

The Indian Evidence Act's (IEA) Section 38 addresses the applicability of statements made under unusual circumstances.

According to the section, a comment made by someone in any of the following situations is relevant and may be used as evidence:
When someone claims to know the reason for their death or any other details surrounding the event that caused their death. When the statement is made by a person while conducting business or performing a duty, it is related to a fact that is pertinent to the activity or task. When the statement is related to the subject and is made by a person who has a personal interest in it.

When a statement is made by an expert and it is related to an opinion, piece of counsel, or conclusion the expert has drawn from his field of expertise. When the statement is made by a person who has particular access to information about the statement's subject. Additionally, Section 38 stipulates that such utterances may be used as evidence even if the speaker is not present to give a testimony in court.

To be considered acceptable, the statement must be given voluntarily and free from pressure or undue influence. In various cases involving medical reports, business data, and expert testimony, Indian courts have interpreted and applied Section 38.

Even if the individual who made the statement is not accessible to testify, the section is a crucial tool for parties to use to present pertinent information in court. Before admitting such utterances as evidence, the court will, as with all evidence, carefully consider their veracity and applicability.

Statements about any law that are relevant and found in law books:
Any statement of a foreign law found in a book claiming to be printed or published by the government of that nation and containing that nation's laws, as well as any account of a foreign court decision found in a book claiming to be a report of those decisions, are relevant when the Court must form an opinion regarding those laws. Statements about any law that are relevant and found in The Indian Evidence Act's (IEA) Section 39 addresses statements made by those who are missing or deceased.

This clause states that under certain conditions, remarks made by a person who is deceased or cannot be located, who was connected to the subject at hand or who had firsthand knowledge of the subject, are relevant and acceptable. According to the provision, these declarations may be used as evidence in the following situations: If the claim is brought by a decedent and pertains to the manner of death or any other elements of the transaction that contributed to the decedent's passing.

Statements about any law that are relevant and found in if any important fact at issue in the process is addressed in the statement delivered by a deceased individual. If the statement is made by a person who cannot be located and it pertains to the existence of any relationship between individuals-whether by blood, marriage, or adoption—about which the person making the statement had unique information.

If the statement refers to the existence of any other pertinent fact in question and was made by a person who cannot be located. Statements about any law that are relevant and found in However, the admissibility of such statements is subject to several restrictions. According to Section 39, the remark must have been made before the issue in the hearing was raised and the speaker must be deceased or untraceable.

Furthermore, the assertion must be made by someone who was acquainted with the subject at hand or who had firsthand knowledge of it. Statements about any law that are relevant and found in In several cases, including ones involving murder, property disputes, and family issues, Indian courts have used Section 39.

Even if the witness who gave the statement is no longer accessible to testify, the section remains a crucial tool for parties to use to present evidence in court. Before admitting such utterances as evidence, the court will, as with all evidence, carefully consider their relevancy and veracity.

Statements about any law that are relevant and found in Section 39 stipulates:
When a statement that has to be proven is included in a lengthier statement or conversation, in a book, or in a group of letters Evidence must be provided for a significant portion of the statement, discussion, document, book, or collection of letters According to what the court deems essential to fully comprehend the nature, significance, and context of that remark It is not necessary to prove the portion that is necessary to understand the meaning of the pertinent statement.

The only thing that must be proven is what the judge deems necessary for the statement to be understandable. Statements about any law that are relevant and found in Evidence that is prohibited under the IEA cannot be introduced into evidence under S. 39.

Conclusion:
Statements about any law that are relevant and found in In conclusion, under certain conditions, comments made under unusual circumstances, such as those made by a person who has passed away, is incompetent or cannot be located, may be admitted as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.

These remarks may be taken into account in cases involving murder, property disputes, family issues, and other disputes if they help to clarify the nature or effect of a transaction or set of transactions. The requirement that the statement was made prior to the question in the proceeding being raised and that the person who made the statement had special knowledge of or a connection to the matter in question are two restrictions on the admissibility of such statements.

Statements about any law that are relevant and found in Ultimately, before allowing such utterances as evidence, the court will carefully assess their relevancy and veracity. Statements about any law that are relevant and found in After completing the project, the researcher came to the conclusion that, under Section 34 of the Act, the books of accounts are admissible as evidence, but how much weight would be given to them depends on the circumstances. Any type of account book would also be admissible under Section 34 if it is created on a regular basis and the maker is aware of the information contained therein.

Therefore, if an account book complies with the aforementioned conditions, it will be accepted even if it is created in hathbhai form. Additionally, if accounts are prepared using a rough book and the rough book is updated on a regular basis, that would also be acceptable.