Since “evidence law” and “evidence” are two distinct topics, it is crucial to first discuss the fundamental idea of “evidence” before getting into specifics. The Latin term “evidentia,” which meaning to exhibit plainly, to make obvious to the sight, to discover clearly definite, to ascertain, or to prove, is where the word “evidence” first appeared. Therefore, evidence is something that supports or refutes the existence or falsity of a stated fact. The person making the allegation must provide evidence to support it, and the person making the denial must show that the allegation is false or disprove it.

All facts, though, may not be regarded evidence in the eyes of the law of evidence. Instead, evidence is something that is brought before the court to support or refute a contention. In other words, evidence is a way for the parties to convince the court that a fact that is being contested in their pleadings is true or false.

The law of evidence is the topic of the course. That includes not just the guidelines governing whether or not a certain piece of information is acceptable, but also issues like what happens if there is no supporting evidence for a particular claim. How much evidence, if any, must a side present to prevent a judge from rejecting a factual claim? What functions does the judge have in assessing the evidence and other things like that? In this regard,

Robert Arthur Melin [here after referred as Melin], have made an attempt to define evidence law in a more comprehensive
way. He defined it as follows:
The law of evidence is the body of legal rules developed and enacted to govern:
I. Facts that may be considered in court? This is the issue of relevant evidence that one should adduce before the court to support his allegation.
II. Facts in issue
III. Facts relevant to facts in issue.
IV. The methods of securing consideration of these facts.
V. By proof.
a. Real (e.g. documentary, exhibits) evidence.
b. Oral evidence
Certain facts, which need not be proved
I. Judicial notice- Facts so notorious as to facts in public knowledge, capable of being verified by authoritative texts
II. Judicial admission (facts admitted in pleadings, at open court, in examination of parties, in testimony etc.)

section 3 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E 2002
“evidence” denotes the means by which an alleged matter of fact, the truth of which if submitted to investigation, is proved or disproved; and without prejudice to the preceding generality, includes statements and admissions by accused persons.

Nature of Evidence law:

Understanding where evidence law stands in respect to other laws is crucial. Laws can be broadly categorized into substantive and adjectival categories. Adjective laws deal with how matters are presented to courts for proof or with generally upholding the rights and obligations stipulated by substantive laws. While those that establish rights and obligations are known as substantive laws.
Since it specifies what rights, privileges, and obligations one person may have against or owe another, it would appear that this is the majority of the law and is therefore the component that is more essential.
However, the existence of such rights, advantages, and obligations will be meaningless unless they can be put into practice.

This is why procedural laws, including those governing criminal and civil procedure, are included in the category of adjective law. Of course, some scholars have argued that because they serve a similar purpose, incorporating rules of evidence into procedural law would not present any issues. However, the consensus has been reached that doing so is best for the purposes of clarity.
Although procedural laws do contain some elements of evidence law, their primary focus is on how pleadings can be constructed, investigations can be carried out, evidence can be gathered, etc. This does not automatically imply that the law of evidence is procedural law.

Certain matters are left to evidence law and never addressed by procedural laws. For instance, you didn’t study the standard of proof, whether certain facts need to be proven or not, how much weight to give each term of evidence, etc. in procedural law. Since these are left to evidence law, it is not technically speaking a procedural law, but it does have certain similarities to procedural laws in that they both serve as tools for enforcing substantive law. As a result, evidence law appropriately belongs to the larger category of adjectival laws, which deal with the application of substantive law.

Purpose or significance of Evidence law:

The “Key” that a court requires to make a decision is evidence. There cannot be proof in the absence of proof. Information is presented to the court through evidence. A certain account of the events must be accepted by the court in order to establish facts through the presenting of evidence. Of course, one can pursue the truth even if they violate the parties’ constitutional rights. Evidence gathered illegally, however, could not support the upholding of justice in the future. Therefore, in order to accomplish quick, equitable, and cost-effective justice, the proof process should be governed by evidentiary norms and standards.

The law of evidence serves a variety of objectives in both criminal and civil trials. In a nutshell, the law of evidence controls the proof-making process. The framework for the proof process and the conduct of litigation is established by the rules of civil and criminal evidence, in conjunction with the rules of procedure, so that a lawyer advising his client, preparing his case for trial, or presenting it to the court or tribunal will be aware of the issues his client must prove in order to succeed.