The evidence on which the circumstantial evidence is based shall not permit more than one interpretation. The conventional view is that relevance in law is a binary concept: evidence is relevant or not. As long as the probability ratio is not 1:1, the evidence is considered relevant. [9] However, the more the probability ratio deviates by 1:1, the higher the so-called probative value of probative value (i.e. in an interpretation of probative value). We will examine the probative value in more detail in Section 3.1. While there is consensus on the importance of the law of evidence to the design of the evidentiary process, there is controversy as to whether the law of evidence should and should not be presented, i.e., the question of relevance. There are two approaches to this question. Wigmore takes a different position.
He counters to Thayer that relevance is a legal concept. Its claim is twofold. The first is that the legal relevance of evidence requires “a degree of probative value generally higher than that which would be required in ordinary reasoning”: The author of the statement cannot be located without undue delay The author of the statement is unable to provide evidence Modern law of evidence, particularly in Tanzania, is the result of colonialism, which introduced the modern legal system that is still used today and the subjectivist Bayesian theory of legal fact-finding has been attacked (see generally Amaya 2015: 82-93; Pardo, 2013: 591). First, as we have already seen in Section 3.1, the determination of probability ratios is very problematic. Second, Bayesian theory is not sensitive to the weight of evidence, which is basically the amount of evidence available. This criticism and the concept of weight are explained in more detail in Section 3.3. The development of the law of evidence is based on certain fundamental principles. These are known as the “Five Principles” because Thayer (1898: 266, 530) influenced his view that the law of evidence has no say in logical relevance and that its main task is to deal with admissibility. If the evidence is logically irrelevant, it must be excluded for that reason.
If the evidence is logically relevant, it will be received by the court, unless the law – in the form of an exclusion or admissibility rule – requires its exclusion. In this system, the concept of relevance and the notion of admissibility differ: the rules of admissibility presuppose the relevance of the evidence to which they relate. “The chain of evidence linking the applicants to their father`s death is unbroken and therefore does not support the conclusion that the applicants are responsible for their father`s death.” Second, the term “evidence” may refer to an assertion of fact supported by evidence in the original sense. [5] This is sometimes referred to as the “probationary fact”. The fact that the accused was at or near the scene of the crime at the relevant time is a second sense of his possible participation in the crime. But the presence of the accused must be proved by evidence in the first sense. For example, the prosecution may call a witness to court and have him testify that he saw the accused near the crime at the relevant time. The success of the evidence of the accused`s presence (the probationary fact) depends on how the investigator assesses the accuracy of the witness and the reliability of his or her testimony. (The investigator is the person or body responsible for determining where the truth lies in the disputed questions of fact and who has the authority to decide the judgment. The investigator is also called a “trier of fact” or “trier of fact”.
Fact-finding is the responsibility of the jury or, for certain types of cases and in countries without a jury system, the judge.) Sometimes the evidence is directly accessible to the investigator. If the alleged knife used in the commission of the offence in question (a form of “authentic evidence”) is presented to the court, the investigator himself can see the shape of the knife; He does not need to know this through the testimony of an intermediary. In Sukhar v. State of UP [2] attempted to alert the victim that the accused was going to shoot him in a few minutes. When the witness heard the alarm, he almost reached the scene of the incident. However, the victim survived and the accused was charged under Article 307 of the Criminal Code (Penalty for attempted murder). Although this is hearsay evidence, the court recognized the act in the same part of the transaction and declared it to be a Section 6 matter of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the witnesses` testimony was admissible because it was part of the same transaction. The administrator is responsible for certain cases. According to the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 (2063) Article ..
They called judicial institutions. They must comply with legal procedures; This means that the law of evidence is also necessary for them.
