| dc.description.abstract | The law of evidence is fundamentally a
procedural law, but in certain parts, it acts as
substantive law as well. The evidence offered to support
a fact in issue, as to the necessary elements of the case,
as opposed to evidence that goes to procedural or
collateral issues are termed substantive evidence.
Reliance can be placed on such evidence to arrive at a
decision. Non-substantive evidence is such that either
corroborates the substantive evidence to increase its
credibility or which contradicts substantive evidence to
discredit it. Substantive evidence can take many forms;
such as; witness testimony, statements made by
individuals who have firsthand knowledge of the events
in question. Witness testimony can be either direct
(witness saw or heard something through his own
senses) or circumstantial (witnesses can provide
information that indirectly supports a claim), Physical
evidence; objects, documents or other materials can be
presented to the court to support a claim. Expert
testimony: opinions given by qualified experts in a
particular field that can help explain complex issues or
provide insights into technical matters. If a witness
testifies that he saw the defendant commit the crime, his
testimony would be considered substantive evidence that
supports the prosecution’s case. Identification of the
accused at an Identification Parade as substantive
evidence is a common method in procedural law in most
common law jurisdictions. However, when observing
the recent trends in adjudications in Sri Lanka, it was
understood that, the probative value given to facts of an
ID parade in Sri Lanka was something less than
substantive evidence. Given the fact that, Sri Lanka’s
Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for a
comprehensive procedure for the conduct of an ID
parade, a question arises as to whether a fair trial could
be ensured when different procedure adopted in
different cases allows a trial judge the discretion of
admission or non-admission of such evidence at the
trial. This paper attempts to understand the legal
position of Sri Lanka relating to ID parades in
comparison with the Indian Law and UK law. This is
doctrinal research where, a comparison of landmark
cases from UK, India and Sri Lanka are critically
evaluated to understand the judicial stance of these
jurisdictions with regard to the evidentiary value given
to facts of an ID parade. Descriptive analysis method
was used to analyze data. It was found that, there are
discrepancies in the substantive and procedural laws
relating to ID parades in these three jurisdictions. Sri
Lankan judiciary seems to adopt ad-hoc methods in
admitting evidence given at ID parades, mainly due to
the absence of proper statutory guidelines. An urgent
need to bring necessary statutory amendments and or
introduction of new substantive and procedural laws
could be a viable solution. | en_US |
