At first there was confusion as to the applicability of evidence laws in the courts of India. It happened due to the introduction of English law from 1773 to 1783 by different regulations. Different statutes had been promulgated before the charter of 1726 and people would be confused as whether they were applicable only upon the British or upon the natives also.
image source
The famous charter of 1726 was the first initiative to introduce the British common law and statute law which had prevailed in England. The Regulation II of 1793 had declared that it would preserve the personal laws of the 'hindus' and the 'muslims'. In personal matters their own laws will be applied.
Evidence Law in the presidency towns: In the presidency towns english rules of evidence were being followed subject to some modifications. There were several important acts, including act no. II of 1855, but they were not enough to run the evidence administration.
Law of Evidence in the Mufassil Area: If we went outside of presidency towns, there were no fixed rules of evidence to govern that matter. A vague form of customary law had prevailed there. CJ Peacock in R v. Khairullah, rightly observed that there was a chaos in the mufassil area as no definite form of evidence law had existed there. A vague form of customary law that had been deduced party from the hedaya, partly from decisions of muslim officers and english text books had dealt the matter of evidence administration.
Before the enactment of the Evidence Act, 1872 by Sir James fitzjames stephen, there were 3 important sets of rules of evidence. These are mentioned below:
I) evidence law enacted by legislatures;
II) Evidence law deduced from judicial decisions ; and
III) Evidence law based on the personal law and customs.