Published Paper Details:

The modern criminal jurisprudence distinguishes criminal justice system under two broad categories, inquisitorial and accusatorial. The former is a fact-finding process whereas the latter concentrates on truth finding. However, the element which connects both the system in common would-be principles relating to evidence in a criminal trial. The guilt of the accused is decided by the judge or the jury on the basis of oral or documentary evidence. The origin of classification of evidences can be traced into the ancient Indian jurisprudence. Yajnavalkya classified proof into three categories sakshi, lekhya and bhukti. This attempt of classifying evidences was to bring about more clarity to the principles of evidence under Manusmriti. Further attempts were made by Narada, Brihaspati and Katyayana in explaining principles relating to rule of evidence for proving the guilt of the person. Justice delivery in ancient India was not too technical as we see today. Nevertheless, there were rules relating to admission, denial and confession. The entire process was designed enabling the rights of the accused to hear, the right of the accused to know the evidences against him and to defend himself. Many of these enumerated principles and practices carved under Vedic jurisprudence still forms the cardinal principles under contemporary jurisprudence. This paper explores the sway of Vedic Jurisprudence in principles relating to evidence such as kinds of evidence, admission, confession and rights of the accused under contemporary law.