What Does Lack of Evidence Mean?


Evidence in general means some sort of proof to show that a party is guilty or not guilty as the circumstance may be. In law, evidences are governed under a special separate Act altogether with the name of “The Indian Evidence Act, 1872”.

This Act gives a detailed explanation about what to do and what not to do while administering a piece of evidence to the Honourable Court as well as, it also takes into account what all can be considered as an evidence in the court.

Although the India Evidence Act relies on English law still it’s not fully comprehensive and also it is a ‘Lex Fori’ law which implies law of the land where court proceedings are taken. The term ‘evidence’ springs from Latin word i.e., ‘Evident’ or ‘Evidere’ which implies ‘to show clearly, or to get, or to determine or to prove.’


Evidence is that the only possible way by which the court can make inferences to render a decision. The definition of evidence explains that evidence is the proof of any fact in issues so without evidence there will be no possibilities to prove any fact in issues or maybe to determine any facts within the cases. it is very obvious that it is not much difficult task to get trust through violating the essential structure of law but within the course of protecting those rights Evidence, Law comes into the view. Evidence Law tells the fundamental principles and rules regarding collection. therefore, the process of evidencing any facts or proof should be governed by a well-established law so as to realize speedy and fair justice.

The law of evidence is not just a fundamental governing the method of proof rather it also features a multidimensional purpose of governing the principles concerning the process of proof in court proceedings. While it’s moral dimension may be a special asset in criminal trials because it endeavours in protecting the innocent and highlighting the guilty person to administer complete and fair justice. On the opposite hand, the evidence rules even have the potential to cover and stop the truth to be disclosed within the public domain to safeguard the mass public interest.


1. Physical Evidence:

The court also will generally attribute a high probative value to physical exhibits. The court takes in physical evidence because they are items the court can see and examine to interpret the facts in issue for proof beyond a rational doubt. Physical evidence can include almost anything, like weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire marks, tool impression, hair, fibre, or body fluids. These sorts of physical exhibits of evidence are often examined and analysed by experts who can provide the court with expert opinions that connect the item of evidence to an individual, place, or the criminal event. This permits the court to think about circumstantial connections of the accused to the crime scene or the accused to the victim.

Oral Evidence:

Section 60[1] deals with the oral evidence, where oral evidence is those evidence which the witness has either personally seen or heard any such facts or information which has the potential of proving or establishing the facts in issues. the only condition with these sorts of evidence is that they need to be direct or positive for establishing the very fact in issues.

Indirect/ Circumstantial Evidence:

When there is no sufficient direct evidence to prove any fact in issue then the court can make an assumption on the readiness of existing evidence and create an association between the existing evidence and the inference.

Judicial Evidence:

Statements from the witness, facts recognized during the investigation of a witness within the court, confession is some kind of evidence which the court receives itself and such evidence are defined to as judicial evidence.

Non- Judicial Evidences:

Confession made by the witness or accused or victim outside the court are considered as non-judicial evidence.

Prima Facie Evidence:

The concept of ‘on the face of it’ with reference to evidence may be a principle when the court presumes any facts and thought of them proved until they’re disproved, then such evidence is understood as clear evidence.


Lack of evidence is when there is usually no evidence or proof to state that a person is guilty and give the required punishment for the same. This is also usually taken as a tool to even escape the said punishment, and this method has been increasing exponentially over the recent years.

There have been many cases that have been brought to the forefront which used this method to escape from various punishments, as usually what happens is that the court follows the phrase “Innocent until proven guilty” and this has a good as well as a bad effect as the innocent ones are innocent till the end, but usually this has been used for dubious other reasons too such as to escape from being guilty of the offences.


Like two sides to a coin, there are two sides also to a situation. In this case, like mentioned before Law of Evidence was introduced so that the innocent can be saved from all the unnecessary complications of going through a punishment even when they are not guilty, but recently in the recent years, this has been used as a mechanism to outsmart the system of justice and the ones who are guilty are using this as an advantage and saving themselves from going through the punishments by sating one way or the other that there is no evidence to support the same and the said parties end up roaming free in this world.

[1] Section 60, The Indian Evidence Act,1876

This Article Written by Chandana Pradeep, Student of  UPES, School of Law, Dehradun.

Also Read – Is Circumstantial Evidence Enough to Prove A Person Guilty?

Law Corner

Leave a Comment