The object of rules of evidence is to help the Courts to ascertain the truth, to prevent protracted inquiries, and to avoid confusion in the minds of judges, which may result from the admission of excessive or irrelevant evidence. One must realise that if every circumstance which might tend to throw light on the matter in issue were to be let in, trials would be protracted to an intolerable length.
Thus, the main object of the law of evidence is to restrict the investigation made by Courts within the bounds prescribed by general convenience. Now, this object would be completely frustrated by the admission of every circumstance, on either side, having some remote and conjectural probative force, the precise amount of which might itself be ascertainable only by a long trial and a determination of collateral issues, growing up in endless succession as the inquiry proceeded. Evidence which tends to divert the attention of the Court and to waste its time is, therefore, to be rejected.
Image Source: blog.lesaonline.org
ADVERTISEMENTS:
As the following study of the Act will show, there are three main principles which underlie the law of evidence. These three principles are:
(i) Evidence must be confined to the matters in issue.
(ii) Hearsay evidence must not be admitted.
(iii) The best evidence must be given in all cases.