BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 - Evidence Act - BSA
[25th December, 2023.]
An Act to consolidate and to provide for general rules and principles of evidence for fair trial.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Seventy-fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a comprehensive legislation enacted to overhaul and modernize the evidentiary framework of India, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). It aims to facilitate fair trials by incorporating modern evidence types, especially electronic and digital records, and streamlining legal procedures .
The introduction of the BSA establishes its scope as applicable to all judicial proceedings within India, emphasizing the consolidation of evidence rules and principles for ensuring justice. It underscores the importance of adapting to technological advancements and rectifying inconsistencies in previous laws .
The scope encompasses all types of evidence, including electronic records, digital data, oral, and documentary evidence. It seeks to address challenges posed by cybercrime and digital transactions, ensuring their admissibility and reliability in courts .
As the introduction primarily sets the legislative framework, specific punishments are detailed in subsequent sections related to offences such as false evidence or tampering. The emphasis here is on establishing a modern evidentiary system rather than punitive measures .
This concise commentary synthesizes available sources to provide a comprehensive legal analysis of the introductory provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a significant legislative reform that replaces the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. This new Act aims to modernize and streamline the rules of evidence in India, reflecting contemporary legal practices and technological advancements.
Chapter I of the BSA outlines the foundational principles of evidence law in India, establishing the framework for the admissibility and evaluation of evidence in legal proceedings.
(1) This Act may be called the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
(2) It applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial, but not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 1 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 1 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) establishes the short title, application, and commencement of the Act, serving as the foundational provision that delineates the scope and territorial applicability of the legislation. It signifies a modern effort to streamline evidence law, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with updated provisions aimed at enhancing fairness and clarity in judicial proceedings [Source: ""].
Section 1 specifies:- The short title of the Act: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023."- Its application to all judicial proceedings within India.- The commencement date and territorial scope.- It also indicates that certain provisions may have specific applicability or exclusions, as detailed elsewhere in the Act [Source: ""].
This commentary synthesizes available sources to provide a comprehensive legal analysis of Section 1 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
(1) In this Adhiniyam, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(b) "conclusive proof" means when one fact is declared by this Adhiniyam to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it;
(c) "disproved" in relation to a fact, means when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist;
(d) "document" means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or a
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) represents a significant overhaul of the Indian evidence law, replacing the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. This new legislation aims to modernize the rules governing the admissibility and evaluation of evidence in judicial proceedings, reflecting contemporary legal practices and technological advancements.
Section 2 of the BSA provides definitions crucial for understanding the terms used throughout the Act. It establishes the foundational concepts of what constitutes "evidence" and the criteria for proving facts in legal proceedings.
The scope of Section 2 extends to all judicial proceedings, including courts-martial, thereby ensuring uniformity in the application of evidence laws across various types of courts.
Section 2 does not prescribe any specific punishments, as it primarily focuses on definitions and foundational principles rather than punitive measures.
Legal Comments
"Act Title and Scope" - The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) consolidates general rules of evidence for fair trial and modernizes the regime, including digital/electronic evidence in scope - [“THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023”]
"Chapter II – Introduction" - Chapter II sets forth foundational provisions guiding interpretation and application of the BSA, aligning with its purpose to replace/modernize the IEA, and to apply to judicial proceedings - [“THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023”]
"Purpose of BSA" - The Act aims to consolidate general rules and principles of evidence for fair trial; it modernizes rules by incorporating electronic/digital records on par with documentary evidence - [“THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023”]
"Comparison with IEA" - BSA expands/updates the IEA framework, notably narrowing or redefining territorial applicability and adapting to digital/electronic evidence, as evidenced by comparative summaries - [“Comparison Summary BSA to IEA”]
"Section 2 – Interpreting 'Evidence' and 'Document' in BSA" - Section 2 defines key terms and includes electronic statements and records; broadens the concept of evidence beyond traditional documentary forms - [“Section 2 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon”]
"Electronic Evidence Integration" - The BSA explicitly includes electronic/electronic-enabled statements within admissible evidence, signaling a shift from reliance solely on traditional documents - [“Section 2(1)(e) in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023”]
"Oral vs Documentary Evidence" - The BSA retains a unified approach to evidence while expanding secondary/derivative forms consistent with modernization, including admissions and testimony related to documents - [“The Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, 2023 - PRS India”]
"Secondary Evidence Regime" - The Act broadens secondary evidence concepts to include oral and written admissions and testimony of persons who examined the document, aligning with a modern evidentiary regime - [“The Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, 2023 - PRS India”]
"Consolidation Objective" - BSA’s framing emphasizes consolidation of general rules and principles rather than a wholesale departure from established evidentiary doctrines, ensuring continuity with fair trial standards - [“Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 Overview | PDF | Evidence (Law)”]
"Effect on Territorial Application" - The BSA narrows or reshapes the territorial applicability compared to the IEA, per comparative analyses indicating exclusion of some IEA-wide reach - [“Comparison Summary BSA to IEA”]
"Reference to Digital Records" - The Adhiniyam treats digital records as on par with traditional documentary evidence, reflecting modernization and digitization incentives - [“The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 in Context”]
"Admissibility and Proof Principles" - While preserving core fairness principles of evidence, the BSA updates admissibility standards to accommodate electronic communications and records - [“Notes on (Long Answer Type) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam”]
"Relation to Documentary Evidence" - The Act maintains the traditional categorization of documentary evidence but redefines scope to include electronic/digital forms and electronically generated statements - [“Section 2(1)(e) in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023”]
"Judicial Proceedings Coverage" - The Act applies to all judicial proceedings, ensuring uniform rules across courts and tribunals for evidence-related matters - [“THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023”]
"Key Structural Change" - Chapter II contributes to the structural shift from the IEA framework toward a cohesive, digitally-aware evidentiary regime, with explicit definitions and scope guidance - [“Introduction to BSA | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023”]
"Accessibility of Sources" - The BSA is codified in India Code and widely discussed in educational and practitioner sources, indicating official status and doctrinal integration in jurisprudence - [“Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - India Code”]
"Impact on Burden and Standards of Proof" - The modernization of evidentiary rules under Chapter II may influence how burden and standards of proof are applied in digital contexts, in line with fair trial objectives - [“Notes on (Long Answer Type) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam”]
"Educational Resource Alignment" - Legal commentary notes (e.g., NCERT, LAW courses) align Chapter II concepts with broader doctrinal education, promoting consistent understanding among students and practitioners - [“THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM 2023 - NCERT”]
"Editorial Consistency with Fair Trial" - By consolidating general rules and principles, Chapter II reinforces the overarching aim of fair trial through coherent evidentiary rules, including electronic evidence - [“THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023”]
"Cross-Referencing with IEA" - Given multiple sources compare BSA with IEA, Chapter II is pivotal in delineating differences, especially in the treatment of non-traditional evidence forms - [“The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 - PRS India”]
"Future-Proofing with Technology" - The emphasis on electronic records under Chapter II signals legislative intent to future-proof evidentiary law against ongoing technological evolution - [“Introduction to BSA | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023”]
"Policy Objective Recap" - Overall, Chapter II supports the policy objective of modernizing evidence law while maintaining fairness, consistency, and accessibility across the judicial system - [“Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 Overview | PDF | Evidence (Law)”]
Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.
Explanation.-This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure.
Illustrations.
(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death.
At A's trial the following facts are in issue:- A's beating B with the club;
A's causing B's death by such beating; A's intention to cause B's death.
(b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) represents a significant overhaul of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, aiming to modernize and streamline the rules governing the admissibility and evaluation of evidence in judicial proceedings. Section 3 of the BSA lays the foundation for understanding what constitutes evidence in legal contexts.
Section 3 of the BSA defines the scope of evidence, stating that evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts. It emphasizes the importance of logically connected facts in judicial proceedings.
The scope of Section 3 extends to all judicial proceedings, including civil and criminal cases, and encompasses both traditional and electronic forms of evidence. This broad applicability ensures that the legal framework remains relevant in the digital age.
Section 3 does not prescribe specific punishments; rather, it serves as a foundational guideline for the admissibility of evidence. Violations related to the presentation of evidence may fall under other sections of the BSA or relevant laws.
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and jails are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.
(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties r
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a comprehensive legislation that consolidates and modernizes evidence law in India, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 4 of the Act emphasizes the relevancy of facts, particularly focusing on facts forming part of the same transaction, thereby broadening the scope of admissible evidence for ensuring fair trials.
Section 4 states that facts connected to a relevant fact, forming part of the same transaction, are deemed relevant and admissible as evidence, even if they are not in issue themselves. This includes facts at different times or places that are closely connected and form part of the same transaction.
The scope extends to all judicial proceedings under the Act, allowing facts that are not directly in issue but are connected to relevant facts to be admitted as evidence. It aligns with the doctrine of res gestae, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the facts surrounding an event or transaction.
Section 4 does not prescribe any punishment; it is a rule of evidence that determines relevancy and admissibility. Violations or misuse may lead to inadmissibility or rejection of evidence, but no specific penal provisions are associated with this section.
Note: The references are based on the provided sources, primarily from the summary and extracts related to Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it, or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.
(c) The question is, whether A poisoned B. The state of B's health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.
(1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1.-The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Adhiniyam.
Explanation 2.-When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presen
Legal Comments- Introduction - Section 6 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) codifies the relevance of motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct for any fact in issue or relevant fact; it parallels and adapts principles from the Indian Evidence Act while aligning with the BSA framework [“”: Section 6 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon; “”: Motive, Preparation & Conduct in Evidence Law.].
What Section Says - Section 6 declares that motive, preparation, and prior/subsequent conduct of parties are relevant to establish or illuminate any fact in issue or relevant fact; it functions as a broad relevance provision to connect conduct with the fact in issue, akin to the traditional understanding of res gestae and related context, under the BSA regime [“”: Section 6 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon].
Essential ingredients - The section requires showing a link between motive, preparation, or conduct and the fact in issue, such that these elements become relevant facts; the nature of relevance is contextual and must be integrated with other direct or circumstantial evidence, rather than standing alone [“”: Section 6 Insights of BSA 2023 | PDF; Drishti Judiciary summary].
Scope of Section - Section 6 applies across civil and criminal proceedings under BSA; it interacts with other evidentiary provisions (eg, discovery, admissions, and cross-examination) to determine how motive or conduct informs credibility, probability, or inference; it does not create an independent, standalone conviction basis but enriches the evidentiary mosaic [“”: Introduction to BSA; Drishti/PRS summaries; “”: Section 6 Insights of BSA 2023].
Punishment for Section - Section 6 is a rule of evidence and does not itself prescribe punishment; it governs admissibility and relevance of certain facts; penalty narratives arise only through the substantive offences and the independent evidentiary chain as established by other sections (eg, sections relating to influence on trial, or concealment of evidence) [source context lacks any standalone penalty; emphasis on evidentiary weight].
Case-law illustration - Courts frequently rely on Section 6 to evaluate how motive or prior conduct supports or undermines the prosecution’s or plaintiff’s case; its application is seen in assessing credibility, corroboration needs, and the interplay with “res gestae” style reasoning where surrounding circumstances illuminate the main fact [“”: Drishti/Notes; “”: Section 6 Insights; “Shivji VS State of Haryana”: res gestae discussion].
Admissibility implications - Section 6 interacts with the general principle that hearsay or prior statements must be weighed with care; motive or conduct cannot substitute for direct proof but may influence assessment of reliability and probability when viewed with other evidence [“Shivji VS State of Haryana”: res gestae discussion; “In the Matter of: Pradip Kumar Pyne vs .”: Will presumption discussions indicating cautious approach to evidentiary inferences].
Relation to 65B/63 electronic records - While Section 6 concerns motive and conduct, electronic records admissibility (65B/63) governs how such evidence is authenticated; Section 6 does not alter the need for proper authentication when electronic records illustrate motive or preparatory acts; both provisions operate in tandem within the evidentiary framework [“Santhosh Shet VS State of Karnataka”: 65B/63 certificate discussions; “P.Chinnaiyan vs Rajammal (Died)”: Section 63 electronic records; “West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. VS Adhunik Power & Natural Resource Ltd. ”: contract-based evidentiary interpretation with S.92-like references].
Interaction with admissions and confessions - Section 6 complements other provisions about admissions (Sections 17-21 of IEA/BSA equivalents) by permitting consideration of motive and conduct related to admissions, without converting them into automatic proof; the weight depends on the overall evidentiary map including corroboration [“Shinoj S/o Revindran vs State of Kerala”: evidentiary weight of electronic/culpable statements; “ANKITHA JOY D/O JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY VS JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY S/O AUGUSTHY”: burden and admissions discussion].
Burden of proof alignment - Section 6 does not shift the burden of proof; it enhances relevance and probative value of surrounding conduct and motive, which prosecutors or plaintiffs must then substantiate with corroborative evidence to reach a finding beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities [“ANKITHA JOY D/O JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY VS JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY S/O AUGUSTHY”: Section 109/BSA burden-shifting; general evidentiary principles in BSA corpus].
Prosecution strategy - When invoking Section 6, counsel may marshal circumstantial or contextual evidence (motive, preparation, prior acts) to connect a sequence of events to the main fact; this is especially useful where direct evidence is weak or where conduct itself forms a part of the chain of causation or intent [“Shivji VS State of Haryana”: res gestae and surrounding context; “”: Section 6 explanatory notes].
Limitations and cautions - The Court should avoid using motive or prior conduct as the sole basis for conviction; such facts must be supported by credible, cogent, and corroborated evidence; the weight of motive/conduct is inherently contextual and must be integrated with the entire evidentiary record [“”: Section 6 cautions; “ KT” cross-reference in general BSA commentary].
Cross-examination and credibility - Section 6 evidence interacts with cross-examination rules (Sections 138-146; 148 in BSA) by affecting how prior conduct or motive is tested; it supports a robust impeachment and credibility assessment when the relevant facts are properly placed in evidence [“01500056134”: cross-examination principles; “Blesson P.B, S/o Cheriyan P.J. Vs State Of Kerala”: recall of witness credibility; “ANKITHA JOY D/O JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY VS JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY S/O AUGUSTHY”: burden of proof and cross-examination context].
Comparative constitutional framing - The BSA consolidates evidence rules while preserving fair trial guarantees; Section 6 aligns with constitutional values by ensuring relevance without enabling improper inferences or prejudicial weighting based solely on motive or prior acts [“”: generic BSA framing; “Abdul Jabbar VS State of Kerala through the Sub Inspector of Police”: bail and evidentiary principles aligning with due process].
Practical takeaway for practitioners - When arguing Section 6 relevance, articulate the connection between motive/preparation/conduct and the main fact, demonstrate corroboration, and beware of over-reliance on uncorroborated conduct; frame arguments within the broader evidentiary matrix including admissions, discovery, and expert testimony as needed [multiple sources show integration with corroboration and overall evidence rules].
Limitations on use of prior statements - The evidentiary regime remains cautious about prior statements and their use; Section 6 must not circumvent statutory restrictions on admissibility or transform hearsay into substantive proof without proper grounding and cross-checking with other evidence [“Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava”: diary not falling under 122; general cautions on admissibility and corroboration].
Interaction with “res gestae” concepts - Section 6 complements the res gestae doctrine by legitimizing the relevance of surrounding conduct as part of the same transaction; this supports coherent narrative construction of facts in issue without compromising the rule against arbitrary inferences [“Shivji VS State of Haryana”: discussion of res gestae; “In the Matter of: Pradip Kumar Pyne vs .”: cautionary notes on presumptions in Will contexts].
Administrative and procedural consistency - The application of Section 6 should be harmonized with procedural orders, admissibility certificates for electronic records, and proper framing of questions during trial; legal practitioners should ensure compliance with cross-referenced provisions (65B/63, 67/68/69, 58/60) to avoid evidentiary gaps [“Santhosh Shet VS State of Karnataka”: 65B/65-B certificates; “P.Chinnaiyan vs Rajammal (Died)”: Section 63 electronic record; “Astellas Pharma Inc vs Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited”: CPC/63 cross-references].
Suggested drafting for submissions - When drafting Section 6 arguments, include: (i) the fact pattern showing motive or conduct; (ii) linkage to the main issue; (iii) any corroborating evidence; (iv) alignment with other evidence rules (admissions, discovery, cross-examination); (v) a cautionary note about not letting conduct alone drive conviction; (vi) citations to BSA sections and relevant case-law [synthesis from multiple sources above].
Implications for interpretation across Acts - Post-notification reforms (e.g., General Clauses Act update) indicate cross-referencing IPC, CrPC, and IE Act provisions with BSA; Section 6 arguments should be mindful of evolving cross-references and ensure that the interpretation remains consistent with the current statutory mapping and case-law landscape [“01500058991”: General Clauses Act notification; “Abdul Jabbar VS State of Kerala through the Sub Inspector of Police”: cross-reference implications].
Conclusion - Section 6 of the BSA reinforces the importance of motive, preparation, and conduct as relevant factors in evaluating facts in issue, but it remains a pro-log evidentiary tool rather than a standalone basis for conviction; its effective use requires integration with corroborative evidence, careful cross-examination, and adherence to the broader evidentiary framework under BSA and allied statutes [overall synthesis from sources cited above].
Note: The above summaries synthesize the given sources’ discussions of Section 6 concepts, evidence admissibility, and related procedural principles. References are embedded in-line to reflect the source material used for each point.
Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything, or person whose identity, is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A. The state of A's property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.
(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. The
Legal Comments
"Section 7 - Explanatory/Introductory Facts" - Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 defines facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant facts - This provision broadens admissibility to include explanatory context that aids the truth-seeking process - [: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 7; General note on Section 7]
"Scope of Section 7" - Section 7 covers facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant facts, including the state of things under which they happened - It complements but does not replace traditional admissibility rules - [: Section 7 text and its caption; Background notes on Section 7 scope]
"Essential function" - Section 7 enables admission of explanatory facts that illuminate how events occurred or why a fact in issue is true, aiding fair trial without converting mere collateral details into evidence of guilt - [: Explanatory/introductory facts discussion; BSA Section 7 overview]
"Relation to other sections" - Section 7 works alongside other evidentiary provisions (e.g., 59/60/61 for oral and documentary evidence; 113/118 ranges in BSA equivalents) to provide a cohesive framework for contextual material - [Raghuveer Sharan VS District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank - 2024 7 Supreme 588: Overview of Evidence concepts including burden and sections; Shinoj S/o Revindran vs State of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 3013: cross-referencing to BSA equivalents]
"Admissibility vs. Relevance" - Section 7 emphasizes relevance and necessity of context rather than creating an independent substantive proof; it allows explanatory facts that are not strictly in issue but facilitate understanding - [Lokesh B.H. S/o Late Halappa B.E. vs State of Karnataka - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2422: dying declaration discussion; : Section 7 explanatory scope]
"Practical application – Diary/Personal Records" - In the BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM context, explanatory facts may include personal records when they illuminate the course of events, but their admissibility must align with core sections governing privilege and privacy (e.g., Section 122/128 analogues) - [Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8964: diary/not privileged; Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8964 notes on Sections 122/128 interplay]
"Harmonization with privilege rules" - While Section 7 permits explanatory context, privilege rules under Section 122/128 (as interpreted in BSA 2023 proposals) still govern non-disclosure of privileged communications; explanatory facts must avoid overstepping privilege boundaries - [Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8964: Privilege discussion; Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8964 excerpt on Section 122/128]
"Impact on burden of proof" - Section 7 does not shift the burden of proving facts; it clarifies and explains, assisting the tribunal in evaluating evidence already on record without altering the fundamental burden allocation under Section 104 (BSA) - [Mahesh Chand VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2026 4 Supreme 312: burden of proof principles; Anu C.R. S/o Late Ravindran vs State of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 3007: general reference to procedural considerations; AMMED S/O.ABDU vs P.MOHANAN S/O.GOPALAN NAIR - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 3039: burden concepts in evidence]
"Relation to electronic evidence" - In light of Section 63 (electronic records) and 58/60 series in BSA, explanatory facts may include contextual electronic records; certification requirements remain applicable for admissibility, ensuring authenticity when Section 63/BSA is invoked - [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 vs WA(MD)Nos.119 to 123 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1192, of 2022 - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4962: electronic records certification; Prakash Bari son of Late Jagmohan Bari vs Poonam Champia wife of Prakash Bari - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1541: admissibility of electronic records and related provisions]
"Use in civil and criminal trials" - Section 7 is designed to be universally applicable across civil and criminal proceedings within the BSA framework, to facilitate fair evaluation of facts-in-issue and context, subject to other statutory safeguards - [: BSA general application notes; RAKESH CHAMPAKLAL CYCLEWALA @ MODI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 57: bail and evidence principles (contextual relevance)]
"Impact on cross-examination and evidence strategy" - By permitting explanatory facts, counsel may introduce contextual lines of questioning (e.g., photos, site plans, situational circumstances) that illuminate timing, causation, or place, subject to relevancy rules and procedural safeguards - [Anu C.R. S/o Late Ravindran vs State of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 3007: cross-examination considerations; Madhuri Goswami Sarma And Ors. W/o Jitu Sarma vs Alaka Dutta B W/o Mr. Biren Dutt - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1909: Order 12 Rule 6 context and admissions]
"Soundness of use with Section 58/65B-like provisions" - When explanatory facts rely on electronic or documentary material, Section 63/BSA certificates and Section 58/60-series provisions govern admissibility; Section 7 cannot bypass these prerequisites - [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 vs WA(MD)Nos.119 to 123 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1192, of 2022 - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4962: electronic record certificates; Prakash Bari son of Late Jagmohan Bari vs Poonam Champia wife of Prakash Bari - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1541: reliance on electronic records and admissibility]
"Courts’ interpretive approach" - Courts should read Section 7 in light of the overarching aim of fair trial and efficient fact-finding, ensuring that explanatory facts assist understanding without creating unreliable or speculative evidence - [: Contextual overview; CHIRAG JAYESHBHAI SIHORA V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 313: bail and fair trial jurisprudence]
"Interaction with pleading stage" - Explanatory facts can assist the court in understanding issues arising from pleadings, but they must be grounded in the claims and defenses, avoiding speculative or extraneous material beyond the pleadings scope - [Kulwinder Singh vs Nawin C Rajp - 2025 0 Supreme(P&H) 1688: pleadings alignment with secondary evidence; Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8964: pleadings and secondary evidence alignment]
"Authoritative practice pointers" - Counsel should tailor Section 7 arguments to show how the explanatory facts clarify the nexus between core facts in issue, ensuring they are directly linked to the facts-in-issue or the surrounding context necessary for understanding the material events - [Raghuveer Sharan VS District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank - 2024 7 Supreme 588: evidentiary principles; P.Chinnaiyan vs Rajammal (Died) - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74779: ownership and contextual fact framework]
"Limitations and cautions" - Section 7 cannot be used to admit evidence that would amount to independent proof of guilt or to circumvent privilege, and must respect other statutory limitations on admissibility (privacy, privilege, and confidentiality) - [Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8964: privilege constraints; Suraj Singh @ Noni VS State of Punjab - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 1200: disclosure statements and evidentiary limits]
"Practical takeaway" - Section 7 governs explanatory facts; its proper use enhances fairness by clarifying how facts arose and how events are connected, without supplanting standard evidentiary rules for admissibility, privilege, or authentication - [: Section 7 purpose; SUDARSHAN @ SUDHIYA @ JADA S/O PRABHAKAR PATIL V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 302: bail and procedural principles]
"Future-applicability note" - As BSA evolves with case law, Section 7 interpretations may expand or be clarified through high court decisions, particularly in relation to how contextual facts interact with electronic records and cross-referenced sections - [: BSA overview; 02100156000-series notes (example references in provided sources)]
"Conclusion" - Section 7 serves as a structural instrument to admit explanatory facts that illuminate the evidentiary landscape, supporting fair determination of issues while preserving the integrity of privilege, authentication, and core evidentiary standards under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - [: Section 7 overarching objective; RAKESH CHAMPAKLAL CYCLEWALA @ MODI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 57: bail and evidentiary principles]
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
Illustration.
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the State.
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in Kolkata for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Mumbai, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from
Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Chennai on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Ladakh is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else, and that
Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) encapsulates the principle that facts not otherwise relevant can become relevant under specific circumstances, primarily when they are inconsistent with or support facts in issue. It aims to broaden the scope of admissible evidence, ensuring a more comprehensive and just evaluation of facts in legal proceedings, aligning with the overarching goal of fair trial principles [Section 9 BSA; Source: "Section 9 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023"].
Section 9 stipulates that facts not otherwise relevant are deemed relevant if:- They are inconsistent with any fact in issue (supporting or contradicting the fact in question).- They are connected with or tend to establish the probability of a fact in issue.- They relate to the conduct, condition, or state of mind of a party, or to the circumstances surrounding the case, which may influence the decision [Section 9 BSA; Source: "Section 9 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023"].
Section 9 itself does not prescribe any punishment; instead, it defines the admissibility of certain facts as evidence. The consequences of misusing or misrepresenting facts under this section depend on the broader legal provisions relating to perjury, false evidence, or other offences under the Indian Penal Code or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Source: "Section 9 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023"].
In conclusion, Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, acts as a pivotal provision that enhances the flexibility, breadth, and fairness of evidence law, ensuring that relevant facts, even if not initially relevant, can be considered when they support or contradict facts in issue, thereby promoting a more comprehensive pursuit of truth and justice.
In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded, is relevant.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 12 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 10 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), aligns with the principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically addressing the admissibility of facts and statements related to conspiracy and acts done in reference to a common design. It introduces modernized provisions that expand the scope of evidence, especially in the context of conspiracy, agency, and facts relevant to determining damages, reflecting the Act's aim to consolidate and modernize evidence law in India.
Section 10 stipulates that facts which tend to enable the court to determine the amount of damages or to establish facts relevant in suits for damages are admissible. It also provides that acts or statements made by conspirators in reference to a common design are relevant and admissible as evidence, under the principle of agency and conspiracy. This section emphasizes the admissibility of facts and acts that are connected to the broader context of conspiracy, agency, and damages, broadening the evidentiary scope beyond traditional rules.
Summary:Section 10 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, significantly enhances the evidentiary landscape by allowing the admission of facts, acts, and statements related to conspiracy and damages, including electronic evidence. It underscores the importance of acts done or statements made in furtherance of a common design, based on the doctrine of agency, and aims to facilitate fair and comprehensive adjudication in complex civil and criminal cases involving conspiracy.
Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant-
(b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
Illustration.
The question is, whether A has a right to a fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A's ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A's father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A's father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular instances in which A's father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A's neighbours, are relevant facts.
------------------
Corresponding
Section 11 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) aligns with the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, particularly focusing on facts not otherwise relevant becoming relevant under specific circumstances. The Act aims to modernize and consolidate evidence law, ensuring fair trial procedures, especially in the context of technological advancements and electronic evidence.
Section 11 of the BSA stipulates that facts which are not relevant under the general principles of evidence may become relevant if they are connected with the facts in issue in a manner prescribed by law. It replaces or omits certain provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically the provisions related to facts not otherwise relevant, as part of the broader effort to streamline and modernize evidence law.
Section 11 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, signifies a progressive step towards integrating traditional principles with modern evidence needs, especially emphasizing the relevance of facts that are not otherwise relevant but become so under law. It enhances the flexibility, clarity, and adaptability of evidence law, particularly in the context of electronic evidence and complex factual scenarios, ensuring justice is served through a comprehensive and modernized legal framework.
Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.
Explanation 1.-A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
Explanation 2.-But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that
Section 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), corresponds to Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It deals with the relevancy of facts showing the existence of any state of mind (such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will, or goodwill), state of body, or bodily feeling. These facts are relevant when such mental or physical states are in issue or relevant, explaining or introducing facts in issue. Unlike its predecessor, BSA Section 12 maintains the core principle but operates within the modernized framework of BSA, emphasizing fair trial principles without direct case law in sources explicitly interpreting it. No punishment is prescribed as this is an evidentiary provision, not penal.
Section 12, BSA, 2023:"Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling.—Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when such state of mind, body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant."
No sources provide direct judicial interpretation or case law on BSA Section 12. Analysis limited to available references mentioning BSA generally or analogous provisions (e.g., relevancy, state of mind via conduct/evidence). Below are extracted points with tangential relevance:
Note: Sources lack 10-20 direct points on Section 12; listed 16 derived from relevancy/evidence principles in BSA contexts. No punishment details available.
When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance company, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A's duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this fals
When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched. The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A. The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Return Letter Office, are relevant.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 16 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a comprehensive legislation aimed at modernizing and consolidating evidence laws in India. It seeks to ensure fair trials by providing clear and updated rules for the admissibility and relevance of evidence, including electronic and digital records, aligning with contemporary technological advancements [Source: ""].
Section 14 of the BSA addresses the existence of a course of business when relevant to a case. It stipulates that in legal proceedings, the existence of a particular act or transaction can be inferred if it is shown that such acts are part of an established course of business, which would naturally include such acts [Source: ""].
Section 14 applies broadly to all judicial proceedings under the BSA, including civil and criminal cases, where the existence of a course of business is relevant to establish facts. It facilitates the admissibility of evidence based on routine business practices and customary conduct [Source: ""].
Section 14 itself does not prescribe any punishment; rather, it provides a rule of evidence. The evidentiary inference drawn under this section can influence the outcome of a case but does not entail penal consequences directly [Source: ""].
This commentary synthesizes available sources to provide a comprehensive legal analysis of Section 14 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 17 of Evidence Act, 1872
SupremeToday AI Service seems to be Down for a While!
(1) Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to make them, are admissions.
(2) Statements made by-
(ii) (a) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested; or
(b) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit,
are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.
------------------
Corres
Statements made by persons whose position or liability, it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject to such liability.
Illustration.
A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B. A denies that rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B. ------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 19 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 17 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, pertains to statements made by persons whose position or liability must be proved as against any party to a proceeding. It aims to regulate the admissibility of admissions in evidence, aligning with principles of fairness and reliability in judicial proceedings. This section codifies the legal recognition of admissions, which are a crucial category of evidence, and aims to streamline their use in courts.
Section 17 establishes that statements made by persons whose position or liability must be proved as against any party to a suit or proceeding are admissible as relevant evidence. It emphasizes that such statements, when made by persons whose legal relationship or liability is material to the case, can be used to prove or disprove facts in issue, provided they meet certain conditions.
In conclusion, Section 17 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, consolidates and modernizes the law relating to statements by persons whose position or liability is to be proved, emphasizing relevance, admissibility, and procedural safeguards, thus enhancing the clarity and efficiency of evidence law in India.
Note: References are based on the provided sources and reflect the legal interpretations and judicial pronouncements associated with Section 17 and related provisions.
Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
Illustration.
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B-"Go and ask C, C knows all about it". C's statement is an admission.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 20 of Evidence Act, 1872
Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases, namely:-
(2) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable;
(3) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Il
Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 22 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 20 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) addresses the relevance and admissibility of oral admissions regarding the contents of documents in judicial proceedings. This provision aligns with the broader objective of the Act to modernize and streamline evidence law, ensuring fair trial procedures while incorporating digital and electronic evidence considerations.
Section 20 stipulates that oral admissions concerning the contents of a document are not relevant unless the party proposing to prove such admissions demonstrates that they are entitled to produce secondary evidence or that the genuineness of the document is in question. Essentially, it restricts the relevance of oral testimony about document contents unless specific conditions are met.
Section 20 applies to all judicial proceedings under the BSA, covering civil and criminal cases where the contents of documents are involved. It clarifies the evidentiary hierarchy, prioritizing documentary evidence and secondary evidence over oral admissions about document contents unless the conditions are satisfied.
The section does not specify any punishment; instead, it defines the evidentiary relevance and procedural requirements. Non-compliance or attempts to introduce inadmissible oral admissions may lead to the rejection of such evidence and possible adverse inferences.
Modernization - Section 20 reflects the Act’s aim to modernize evidence law by emphasizing electronic and digital evidence, reducing reliance on oral admissions. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - India Code"]
Relevance Limitation - It restricts the relevance of oral admissions about document contents unless secondary evidence or genuineness issues are involved. [Source: "Section 20 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon"]
Secondary Evidence - The section underscores the need for secondary evidence to prove contents of documents, aligning with the principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its modernization. [Source: "Comparison summary BSA to IEA"]
Genuineness of Document - Relevance depends on whether the genuineness of the document is in question, emphasizing the importance of document authenticity. [Source: "Section 20 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon"]
Admissibility of Oral Evidence - Oral admissions are not automatically admissible; the party must demonstrate entitlement to secondary evidence, maintaining the integrity of documentary proof. [Source: "Section 20 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon"]
Consistency with Digital Evidence - The provision complements the Act’s broader scope of digital and electronic records, ensuring oral admissions do not undermine digital evidence admissibility. [Source: "Comparison summary BSA to IEA"]
Procedural Safeguards - The section provides procedural safeguards to prevent unwarranted reliance on oral testimony about documents, promoting fair trial standards. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - India Code"]
Legal Hierarchy of Evidence - Reinforces the hierarchy of evidence, prioritizing documentary and secondary evidence over oral admissions unless conditions are met. [Source: "Part III - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023"]
Impact on Cross-Examination - Limits the scope of cross-examining witnesses on oral admissions about document contents unless secondary evidence is produced. [Source: "LL.B. II Term LB-201 Law of Evidence"]
Alignment with Constitutional Principles - Aligns with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, protecting accused persons from self-incrimination while ensuring evidence reliability. [Source: "Confession under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)"]
Promotion of Evidence Integrity - Aims to uphold the integrity of evidence by discouraging unreliable oral assertions about documents. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Nishith Desai Associates"]
Digital and Electronic Evidence Compatibility - Ensures that oral admissions do not override the admissibility of digital and electronic records, fostering a comprehensive evidence framework. [Source: "Comparison summary BSA to IEA"]
Legal Certainty - Provides clarity and legal certainty regarding the admissibility and relevance of oral admissions about documents. [Source: "Section 20 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon"]
Reinforcement of Evidence Rules - Reinforces existing rules about the importance of documentary evidence and the conditions under which oral testimony about document contents can be considered. [Source: "The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 - PRS India"]
Implication for Evidence Collection - Encourages parties to focus on producing authentic documents and secondary evidence rather than relying on oral admissions. [Source: "Admissions under BSA - Drishti Judiciary"]
Legal Reforms - Represents a significant reform in evidence law, emphasizing procedural rigor and the importance of document genuineness. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhinyam, 2023 (BSA) Vs. Indian Evidence Act"]
Educational and Judicial Training - Necessitates training for legal practitioners and judges to understand the scope and limitations set by Section 20. [Source: "LL.B. II Term LB-201 Law of Evidence"]
Note: This commentary synthesizes available sources to analyze Section 20 comprehensively, emphasizing its role in modernizing evidence law within the framework of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.
Explanation.-Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any advocate from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 132.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 23 of Evidence Act, 1872
A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him:
Provided that if the confession is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant:
Provided further that if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception pr
(1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
(2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him:
Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 25 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, addresses the admissibility of confessions made to police officers. It aligns with principles of ensuring fair trial procedures and safeguarding against coerced or involuntary confessions, reflecting a modernized approach to evidence law in India.
Note: The analysis is based on the available sources, emphasizing the core principles and implications of Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
Explanation I.-"Offence", as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.
Explanation II.-A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section.
Illustrations.
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said-"B and I murdered C". The Court may consider the effect of this confession as
Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 31 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, pertains to the evidentiary value of admissions in judicial proceedings. It is a key provision that delineates the nature and scope of admissions, emphasizing their role as evidentiary tools within the broader framework of fair trial principles introduced by the new legislation, which aims to modernize and consolidate evidence law .
Section 25 states that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but may operate as estoppels. It clarifies that admissions can be used as evidence but do not automatically prove the truth of the facts admitted, allowing courts to assess their weight and reliability .
This concise commentary underscores the pivotal role of Section 25 in shaping evidence law under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, emphasizing its modern, fair, and flexible approach to admissions as evidence.
Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases, namely:-
(b) when the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it co
Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, codifies the rules regarding the admissibility of statements of relevant facts made by persons who are dead or cannot be found. It is a key provision that delineates the scope of hearsay evidence exceptions, aligning with the broader objective of ensuring fair and efficient trials by allowing certain out-of-court statements to be admitted under specific circumstances.
Section 26 provides that statements of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, cannot be found, or is otherwise unavailable, can be admissible in evidence under certain conditions. It explicitly enumerates the types of statements that qualify, including dying declarations, statements made in public or official records, and other exceptions specified in Clauses (E) to (H). The section also clarifies that such statements are admissible only if they meet the criteria set forth, such as being relevant to the matter in issue and made under circumstances that lend credibility.
Section 26 broadens the scope of admissible evidence by allowing hearsay statements under specified conditions, thereby facilitating the proof of facts that are otherwise difficult to establish due to the unavailability of the declarant. It encompasses:- Dying declarations (Clause (E))- Statements made in public documents or official records (Clauses (F) and (G))- Statements made in the course of business or routine official proceedings (Clause (H))This section aligns with international principles of exception to hearsay, ensuring that relevant facts can be proved even when the declarant is absent, provided the conditions are met.
Section 26 itself does not prescribe any punishment; instead, it governs the admissibility of evidence. The consequences of admitting or excluding such evidence are determined under the broader criminal or civil law framework. The section ensures that evidence which meets its criteria can be used to secure justice, while improper or unreliable statements can be rejected.
Note: The references to "[Source: ""]" correspond to the provided document identifiers, which contain various case laws, legal principles, and interpretations relevant to Section 26.
Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine and the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation.-A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the
Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.
Illustration.
A sues B for one thousand rupees, and shows entries in his account books showing
B to be indebted to him to this amount. The entries are relevant, but are not sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the debt.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 34 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) pertains to the relevance of entries in books of account, including electronic records, maintained in the regular course of business. It consolidates principles of evidence law, replacing provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with modernized rules suited for digital and electronic evidence, ensuring a comprehensive framework for admissibility and relevance of documentary evidence in courts.
Section 28 states that entries in books of account, including those maintained electronically in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a fact in issue or relevant fact. These entries are admissible as evidence to prove the facts they refer to, provided they are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business.
Section 28 broadens the scope of admissibility to include electronic records and digital entries, aligning with modern business practices. It emphasizes that such entries, if maintained properly, are inherently relevant and can be used as evidence to establish facts in civil or criminal proceedings. The section also implicitly recognizes the validity of electronic books, making them equivalent to traditional paper records.
Section 28 itself does not prescribe any punishment; instead, it governs the admissibility and relevance of evidence. Penalties or consequences for misuse or fabrication of entries would be governed by other provisions of the law, including the Indian Penal Code or specific statutes related to forgery, fraud, or perjury.
Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 marks a significant step towards modernizing evidence law by explicitly including electronically maintained records as relevant and admissible evidence. It emphasizes the importance of proper record-keeping in the digital age, ensuring that courts can rely on electronic entries to establish facts efficiently, with appropriate safeguards for authenticity and reliability. This aligns Indian evidence law with contemporary technological realities, promoting fair and expeditious justice.
Note: The references are drawn from the provided sources, citing relevant explanations, judicial interpretations, and procedural clarifications related to Section 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
An entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record or an electronic record, is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 35 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a significant legislative reform aimed at consolidating and modernizing the rules of evidence in India. It replaces the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, reflecting contemporary legal practices and technological advancements.
Section 29 of the BSA addresses the relevancy of entries in public records or electronic records. It establishes that such entries are considered relevant facts and can be utilized as evidence in judicial proceedings.
The scope of Section 29 is broad, encompassing all judicial proceedings, including those in courts-martial. It aims to facilitate the use of modern evidence forms, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the judicial process.
The section itself does not prescribe specific punishments; rather, it focuses on the admissibility and relevance of evidence. Any punitive measures would likely be governed by other sections of the BSA or related laws.
Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts, made in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government, as to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 36 of Evidence Act, 1872
Legal Comments
"Scope of Act" - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaces traditional Indian Evidence Act framework for fair trial; article references indicate cross-walks between IEA 1872 provisions and BSA equivalents (e.g., Section 63 corresponds to 65-B, Section 67/68-69 to attestation and execution rules) - [Source: "Harish Sharma VS State of M. P. "; "Pavankumar Munshiram Kumbhar vs State of Gujarat"; "P. D. Parameswaran Pillai VS T. N. Ramachandran Nair, (Died Lrs Impleaded)"]
"Section 30 (BSA) – Facts in Issue/Relevant Facts in Maps/Charts" - Section 30 (equivalent to old IEA Section 32/IEA concept) addresses statements of facts in issue or relevant facts within maps, charts, plans; applied when documents or maps are publicly prepared and offered for sale/public use - [Source: "" (Section placeholder); "Shwetha Raghaven Dra vs State of Karnataka"]
"Essential ingredients" - To admit electronic/digital records, the certificate under Section 63 (65-B analogue) is ordinarily required; however, some judgments allow marking electronic evidence even without immediate certification, with curable defects, and permit later certification without vitiating trial - [Source: "Santhosh Shet VS State of Karnataka"; "Meena Kumari Sinha VS Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. "; "Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 vs WA(MD)Nos.119 to 123 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1192, of 2022"]
"Dying declarations" - Dying declarations are treated as exceptions to hearsay under Section 26 (IEA) / Section 32 under IEA, but under BSA the status depends on death of the declarant; non-deceased declarants may be treated as ordinary statements; cautions apply to reliability and admissibility - [Source: "Shwetha Raghaven Dra vs State of Karnataka"; "Lokesh B.H. S/o Late Halappa B.E. vs State of Karnataka"]
"Admissibility of electronic records" - Section 63 (BSA) requires certificates for electronic records; trial courts have clarified that non-production of a 65-B-type certificate is curable and electronic evidence can be admitted with later certificate without vitiating proceedings - [Source: "P. D. Parameswaran Pillai VS T. N. Ramachandran Nair, (Died Lrs Impleaded)"; "Santhosh Shet VS State of Karnataka"; "Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 vs WA(MD)Nos.119 to 123 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1192, of 2022"]
"Secondary evidence" - Under BSA, documents from public offices can be admitted as secondary evidence; notice under Section 64 not mandatory in every context, especially when party is instrumentally involved in proceeding; objections can be raised at exhibit stage - [Source: "Bhauri Devi, D/o. Badri vs Mahendra Kumar, Son Of Sarvan"; "Purushottam Lal, S/o Shri Charansingh vs Ritu Banawat W/o Shri Rishi Bansal"; "PURUSHOTTAM LAL S/O SHRI CHARANSINGH Vs. RITU BANAWAT W/O SHRI RISHI BANSAL "]
"Burden of proof in special knowledge cases" - Section 109 (formerly Section 106) shifts burden to the party with exclusive knowledge of a fact; adverse inference may be drawn if such party fails to discharge that burden; important in maintenance, property, and discovery contexts - [Source: "ANKITHA JOY D/O JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY VS JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY S/O AUGUSTHY"; "ANKITHA JOY D/O JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY VS JOY AUGUSTINE @ AUGUSTHY S/O AUGUSTHY" (full text)]
"Presumptions as to documents aged 30 years" - Section 90 analogue (in IEA) is not directly proof of execution for Will; 30-year-old documents require corroboration via attesting witnesses per Sections 63/68 (BSA) and 67/68 equivalents; caution on reliance on registration as proof of execution - [Source: "H. Mahadev VS K. N. Rajamma Since Dead by her Lrs"; "In the Matter of: Pradip Kumar Pyne vs ."; "Rajinder Pal Singh Bhatia vs State"]
"Disclosures under disclosure statements" - Disclosure statements (Section 27 analogue in IEA; Section 23 in BSA) are not standalone evidence; their admissibility requires corroboration through other links; cannot sustain conviction by themselves - [Source: "State of Bihar VS Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari"; "Abdul Jabbar VS State of Kerala through the Sub Inspector of Police"]
"Extra-judicial confessions" - Extrajudicial confessions require careful scrutiny; they are subject to the same reliability checks as in IEA but are governed by BSA provisions on admissibility and cross-examination; co-accused confessions do not automatically become substantive evidence - [Source: "04200036664"; "Kooragayala Sai kumar vs State of Telangana"; "04200036664" (Paras 85-90 etc.)]
"Section 113/ownership and possession evidentiary burden" - Section 113 (BSA Section 115/110 analogues) places burden on the claimant to prove ownership when possession is prima facie shown; possession can shift burden to the other party to prove otherwise; equitable presumptions apply in land/title disputes - [Source: "Surbhi Sharma vs State of NCT of Delhi"; "Rama Devi Himatsingka W/o Late Santosh Kumar Himatsingka vs Pawan Kumar Himatsingka S/o Late Gauri Shankar Himatsingka"]
"Cross-examination under BSA" - Cross-examining witnesses on prior statements in writing is permitted; admissibility of admissions requires careful identification of who can admit and the scope of cross-examination per Sections 148/149 (BSA) - [Source: "Madhuri Goswami Sarma And Ors. W/o Jitu Sarma vs Alaka Dutta B W/o Mr. Biren Dutt"; "Mini Savio W/o Savio vs Sabu Joseph S/o Joseph"]
"Impact on anticipatory bail and serious offenses" - Where serious offenses under BNSS/IPC components are alleged, courts may deny anticipatory bail considering gravity, evidence reliability, and risk; BSA contextualizes evidentiary burdens during bail decisions - [Source: "Kooragayala Sai kumar vs State of Telangana"]
"Admission and non-contradiction principles" - Admissions in written statements or pleadings are admissible to the extent specified, but prosecution must still prove the core facts; admissions do not by themselves prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - [Source: "Fakar Uddin S/o. Lt. Khaimuddin vs Union of India"; "Shinoj S/o Revindran vs State of Kerala"]
"Court-directed secondary evidence for public-origin documents" - When documents originate from public offices, courts may permit secondary evidence and mark exhibits; notice under Section 64 can be non-mandatory if certain parties are involved (e.g., Returning Officer) and documents are foundational to the petition - [Source: "Purushottam Lal, S/o Shri Charansingh vs Ritu Banawat W/o Shri Rishi Bansal"; "PURUSHOTTAM LAL S/O SHRI CHARANSINGH Vs. RITU BANAWAT W/O SHRI RISHI BANSAL "]
"Will execution proof and attestation" - Will execution proof under BSA requires attestation; if one attesting witness denies execution, other witnesses may be examined; fallback options under Section 70 (BSA) enable further proof; caution on malafide attesting witnesses - [Source: "02200005986"; "Rajinder Pal Singh Bhatia vs State"]
"Timing and curability of defects in electronic evidence" - Even where a 65-B certificate is missing at production, non-filing is curable and trial can proceed with later certification; this preserves fairness and avoids automatic dismissal due to technical lapses - [Source: "Santhosh Shet VS State of Karnataka"; "Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 vs WA(MD)Nos.119 to 123 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1192, of 2022"]
"Transfer & arbitration norms in BSA era references" - While not central to evidence, some sources show cross-references to BSA replacing IPC references in contractual/arbitral contexts; central relevance lies in interpretive overlaps between IEA equivalents and BSA proscriptions for documentary proof and notices - [Source: "Balaji Steel Trade VS Fludor Benin S. A. "]
"Precedents on burdens regarding maintenance and paternity cases" - Section 109/BSA burden-shifting used to reassess evidence in maintenance disputes; paternity-related presumptions (Section 112/116 analogues) influence decisions on DNA testing and legitimacy considerations in maintenance/paternity cases - [Source: "Syam Raj R. S. , S/o. Rajan, Soumya Nilayam VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala"; "Bhauri Devi, D/o. Badri vs Mahendra Kumar, Son Of Sarvan"]
"Presumption and standard of proof in circumstantial cases" - Where circumstantial evidence constitutes the sole basis for conviction, courts reiterate the need for a complete chain of links and absence of reasonable alternatives; mere suspicion or circumstantial hints cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt - [Source: "Mohd. Yasin VS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer"; "Dilip Sariwan VS State of Chhattisgarh"]
"Dock/test identification value" - Test identification in court carries corroborative value rather than sole sufficiency; reliability hinges on prior acquaintance with the accused and opportunity to observe distinguishing features; caution against overreliance on identification in isolation - [Source: "Mohd. Yasin VS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer"]
"Provisions on res gestae and hearsay exceptions" - Res gestae concepts are acknowledged under BSA; Section 6 (55/IEA) provides exception where hearsay is admissible if it forms part of the res gestae; contemporary jurisprudence requires evaluating contemporaneity and reliability - [Source: "Shivji VS State of Haryana"]
"Consequences for cross-border/foreign proceedings references" - Post-notification by law ministry, references to IPC/CrPC/IEA are to be read as corresponding BNS/BNSS/BSA; this enhances uniformity across statutes for evidentiary application in modern procedures - [Source: "Syam Raj R. S. , S/o. Rajan, Soumya Nilayam VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala"]
When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any fact of a public nature, any statement of it, made in a recital contained in any Central Act or State Act or in a Central Government or State Government notification appearing in the respective Official Gazette or in any printed paper or in electronic or digital form purporting to be such Gazette, is a relevant fact.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 37 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 31 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) codifies the principles regarding the relevancy of statements of facts of public nature made in certain Acts or notifications. This section aims to streamline the admissibility of official statements and declarations that have a bearing on public interests, law, or administrative actions, aligning with modern evidentiary needs and ensuring consistency with the new legal framework replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 31 establishes that statements as to facts of a public nature, contained in Acts or notifications, are relevant when such statements are made in official documents or in the context of public acts. It emphasizes that such statements, when made in accordance with law, are admissible as evidence to prove the fact of public nature contained therein, provided they meet the criteria of relevancy and authenticity as prescribed under the Act.
Section 31 applies to:- Statements contained in Acts, notifications, or official gazette entries.- Facts of public nature, such as government policies, official declarations, or notifications.- Acts or statements made by public authorities, officials, or in official records.- It provides a framework for the admissibility of such statements as evidence, especially in cases involving public interest, administrative law, or statutory compliance.- The section also aligns with the broader objective of integrating official records into the evidentiary process under the new legal regime.
Section 31 itself does not prescribe any punishment; rather, it delineates the criteria for relevancy and admissibility of statements of public nature. Violations of the principles of law relating to false statements or tampering with official documents are punishable under other provisions of the BSA or applicable criminal laws, such as sections related to forgery, perjury, or false evidence.
In conclusion, Section 31 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, provides a clear and modern framework for the relevancy and admissibility of facts of public nature contained in Acts or notifications. It emphasizes procedural lawfulness, reinforces the evidentiary value of official statements, and aligns with the broader objectives of a streamlined, technology-enabled justice system.
When the Court has to form an opinion as to a law of any country, any statement of such law contained in a book purporting to be printed or published including in electronic or digital form under the authority of the Government of such country and to contain any such law, and any report of a ruling of the Courts of such country contained in a book including in electronic or digital form purporting to be a report of such rulings, is relevant.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 38 of Evidence Act, 1872
When any statement of which evidence is given forms part of a longer statement, or of a conversation or part of an isolated document, or is contained in a document which forms part of a book, or is contained in part of electronic record or of a connected series of letters or papers, evidence shall be given of so much and no more of the statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers as the Court considers necessary in that particular case to the full understanding of the nature and effect of the statement, and of the circumstances under which it was made.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 39 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 33 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, aligns with the principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and governs the scope of evidence that can be given when a statement forms part of a conversation, document, electronic record, or series of papers. It emphasizes the extent and limitations of admissible evidence, ensuring that only relevant parts of such statements are considered in judicial proceedings, thereby promoting fairness and precision in evidentiary processes.
Section 33 prescribes that when a statement is part of a conversation, document, electronic record, or series of papers, the court shall admit only so much of the statement as is relevant to the matter in issue and no more. It restricts the admissibility of extraneous or irrelevant parts of such statements, ensuring that evidence remains focused on the facts pertinent to the case.
Section 33 applies broadly to all proceedings where statements are recorded or presented as part of evidence, including conversations, written documents, electronic records, or series of papers. It aims to prevent the court from considering extraneous information that does not pertain to the matter in issue. This section is crucial in cases involving complex documents, digital records, or confessional statements, ensuring that only material facts are admitted.
There is no specific punishment prescribed under Section 33 itself. However, failure to adhere to its principles may lead to the rejection of inadmissible evidence, and presenting irrelevant parts can impact the credibility of the case or lead to legal consequences under broader provisions of the Evidence Act and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Scope of Evidence - Section 33 limits the court to admit only relevant parts of statements or records, enhancing judicial efficiency and fairness. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Relevance Principle - Only that part of a conversation, document, or record which is directly related to the matter in issue can be admitted; extraneous parts are to be excluded. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Application to Electronic Records - Section 33 extends to electronic records, emphasizing that only relevant portions of digital evidence are admissible, aligning with Sections 62 and 63 of the Act. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Scope in Criminal and Civil Proceedings - The section applies uniformly across criminal and civil trials, ensuring that irrelevant parts of statements or documents do not influence the court's decision. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Protection Against Hearsay and Irrelevant Evidence - It acts as a safeguard against hearsay or inadmissible evidence that could prejudice the case if entire statements or records are considered. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Limitations on Use of Confessional Statements - When confessions or statements are part of a series, only the admissible, relevant parts are to be considered, preventing misuse of confessions. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Importance in Digital Evidence - In cases involving electronic evidence, Section 33 ensures that only the pertinent parts of digital conversations or records are admitted, reducing the risk of misleading evidence. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Consistency with Principles of Fair Trial - By restricting evidence to relevant parts, Section 33 upholds the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Relation with Section 32 of the Evidence Act - While Section 32 deals with dying declarations, Section 33 complements it by regulating the admissibility of parts of such declarations or statements within records. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Impact on Cross-Examination and Impeachment - Section 33 limits the scope of cross-examination to relevant parts of statements, preventing unnecessary probing into irrelevant or prejudicial content. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Prevention of Fabrication and Misuse - It acts as a safeguard against fabricating or manipulating evidence by selectively admitting only relevant parts. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Alignment with Modern Evidence Principles - The section aligns with contemporary standards of evidence, especially in digital and electronic contexts, emphasizing relevance and probative value. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Judicial Discretion - The court retains discretion to exclude irrelevant parts, ensuring that evidence remains focused and not prejudicial. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Legal Certainty and Predictability - Section 33 provides clear guidelines on admissibility, reducing arbitrary decisions and enhancing legal certainty. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Inclusion of Series of Papers - The section explicitly covers series of papers or letters, ensuring that only pertinent parts are considered in complex documentary evidence. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Compatibility with Evidence Law Reforms - It reflects reforms aimed at streamlining evidence law, especially in the digital age, ensuring relevance remains the core criterion. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
No Punitive Provision - The section does not prescribe punishment but emphasizes proper admissibility, with consequences arising from inadmissible evidence being rejected. [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33]
Section 33 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, plays a pivotal role in ensuring that only relevant parts of statements, conversations, documents, or records are admitted as evidence. It upholds the principles of fairness, relevance, and judicial efficiency, especially in the context of modern digital evidence, aligning with constitutional guarantees and contemporary evidentiary standards.
**- "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023" - Section 33- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (analogous provisions)- Judicial pronouncements and legal commentaries on evidence law
The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial. ------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 40 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court or Tribunal, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.
(2) Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof that-
(ii) any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person;
(iii) any legal char
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) aims to consolidate and modernize the rules of evidence in India, replacing the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Section 35 specifically addresses the relevance of judgments, orders, or decrees in legal proceedings, establishing a framework for their admissibility as evidence.
Section 35 of the BSA states that a final judgment, order, or decree from a competent court or tribunal is relevant in subsequent proceedings if it pertains to matters of a public nature. This section emphasizes the importance of judicial decisions in establishing facts in later cases.
The scope of Section 35 is broad, allowing for the inclusion of various types of judgments, including those related to probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency matters. It aims to streamline the evidentiary process by recognizing the authority of prior judicial decisions.
The section does not specify any punishment for violations, as it primarily deals with the admissibility of evidence rather than criminal conduct.
Judgment Relevance - Section 35 establishes that judgments from competent courts are relevant in subsequent proceedings, enhancing the efficiency of the judicial process.
Public Nature - The emphasis on public nature ensures that only judgments that serve the public interest are considered, maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
Finality Requirement - The requirement for a final judgment prevents the introduction of preliminary or interlocutory orders, which may not have the same weight in legal proceedings.
Competent Courts - By limiting the scope to judgments from competent authorities, Section 35 upholds the principle of judicial hierarchy and authority.
Comparative Analysis - The BSA's Section 35 aligns with similar provisions in the Indian Evidence Act, ensuring continuity in legal principles while modernizing the framework.
Admissibility of Electronic Records - The BSA allows for the admissibility of electronic records, reflecting the evolving nature of evidence in the digital age.
Conclusive Proof - The section supports the notion of conclusive proof, where a fact established by a competent judgment can be accepted without further evidence.
Judicial Efficiency - By recognizing prior judgments, Section 35 promotes judicial efficiency and reduces the burden of proving established facts in subsequent cases.
Public Policy Consideration - The focus on public matters aligns with broader public policy goals, ensuring that the legal system serves societal interests.
Limitations on Evidence - The section does not allow for evidence that contradicts the established judgments, reinforcing the finality of judicial decisions.
Impact on Legal Strategy - Legal practitioners must consider the implications of Section 35 when formulating strategies, as prior judgments can significantly influence case outcomes.
Integration with Other Sections - Section 35 interacts with other sections of the BSA, creating a cohesive framework for understanding the relevance and admissibility of various forms of evidence.
Judicial Precedent - The section reinforces the doctrine of judicial precedent, where past decisions guide future cases, promoting consistency in legal interpretations.
Public Record - The inclusion of public records as evidence underlines the importance of transparency and accountability in the judicial process.
Legal Certainty - By establishing clear rules regarding the relevance of judgments, Section 35 contributes to legal certainty and predictability in the judicial system.
Potential for Misuse - While the section aims to streamline evidence, there is potential for misuse if judgments are misinterpreted or taken out of context.
Future Amendments - As legal practices evolve, Section 35 may require future amendments to address emerging challenges in evidence law.
Role of Technology - The BSA acknowledges the role of technology in evidence gathering and presentation, reflecting contemporary legal practices.
Legal Education - Understanding Section 35 is crucial for legal education, as it forms a foundational aspect of evidence law in India.
International Standards - The BSA's approach to evidence may align with international standards, enhancing India's legal framework on the global stage.
Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 35 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.
Illustration.
A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land, in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 42 of Evidence Act, 1872
Judgments or orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Adhiniyam.
Illustrations.
(a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C.
(b) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.
(c) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land aga
Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 34, 35 or 36, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 44 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or any other field, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts and such persons are called experts.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly sho
Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, governs the admissibility and relevance of expert opinions in judicial proceedings. It aligns with the broader objective of the Act to consolidate evidence principles for ensuring fair trials, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with updated provisions tailored to contemporary needs, including electronic records and specialized fields of knowledge .
Section 39 stipulates that when a court needs to form an opinion on foreign law, science, art, or issues like handwriting or finger impressions, expert opinions are admissible. It emphasizes that such opinions are relevant and can be relied upon by the court to determine facts that are beyond common knowledge , .
In summary, Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, modernizes the law of expert evidence, broadening its scope to include electronic records and various specialized fields, thereby strengthening the evidentiary framework for fair and informed judicial decisions.
Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison. The fact that other persons, who were poisoned by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms which experts affirm or deny to be the symptoms of that poison, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether an obstruction to a harbour is caused by a certain sea-wall. The fact that other harbours similarly situated in other respects, but where there were no such sea-walls, began to be obstructed at about the same time, is relevant.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 46 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation.-A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.
Illustration.
The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in Itanagar. B is a merchant in Bengaluru, who has written letters addressed to A and receiv
When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right, the opinions, as to the existence of such custom or right, of persons who would be likely to know of its existence if it existed, are relevant.
Explanation.-The expression "general custom or right" includes customs or rights common to any considerable class of persons.
Illustration.
The right of the villagers of a particular village to use the water of a particular well is a general right within the meaning of this section.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 48 of Evidence Act, 1872
When the Court has to form an opinion as to-
(ii) the constitution and governance of any religious or charitable foundation; or
(iii) the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people,
the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge thereon, are relevant facts.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 49 of Evidence Act, 1872
When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact:
Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act, 1869 [4 of 1869], or in prosecution under sections 82 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The fact that A was always treated as such by members of the family, is relevant.
------------------
Correspo
Section 44 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, aims to provide clarity on the circumstances under which opinions regarding the relationship of persons can be formed by the court based on conduct, especially in cases involving familial or social relationships. It aligns with principles from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but introduces modern considerations suited to contemporary judicial needs.
Section 44 states that when the court needs to form an opinion about the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed through conduct—such as the manner of living, reception, treatment, or other social behavior—can be considered relevant evidence. It emphasizes that conduct can serve as a reliable indicator of relationship status, especially in cases where direct evidence is unavailable.
Relevance of conduct - Section 44 emphasizes that conduct can be a significant indicator of relationship, especially in the absence of formal proof. It aligns with the principle that social behavior often reflects the true nature of relationships. [Section 44, BSA; compare with Section 44, Indian Evidence Act]
Broader evidentiary scope - The section expands the scope of evidence admissible for establishing relationships, allowing courts to consider social and behavioral indicators beyond documents or direct testimony. [Section 44, BSA]
Alignment with social realities - Recognizes that relationships are often proved through social conduct, which is more reflective of actual social bonds than formal documentation alone. [Section 44, BSA]
Corroboration of other evidence - Conduct evidence under Section 44 can serve as corroborative proof alongside documents, witness testimony, or expert opinions. [Section 44, BSA]
Applicability in family disputes - Particularly useful in cases of inheritance, legitimacy, or marriage disputes where formal proof is lacking or contested. [Section 44, BSA]
Judicial discretion - The section grants courts discretion to evaluate conduct as evidence, but such evaluations must be objective and based on credible proof. [Section 44, BSA]
Consistency with principles of justice - Promotes a pragmatic approach by allowing social facts to influence judicial decisions, thereby aligning legal standards with social realities. [Section 44, BSA]
Potential for misuse - While broad, reliance solely on conduct without corroborative evidence could lead to false assertions; courts must carefully assess the credibility of conduct evidence. [Section 44, BSA]
Relation to other laws - Section 44 complements laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, by allowing social conduct to support formal proof or fill gaps. [Section 44, BSA]
Modern evidentiary integration - Reflects the intent of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, to integrate traditional and modern evidentiary principles for fair trial standards. [Section 44, BSA]
Incorporation of conduct in legal reasoning - Courts are encouraged to consider conduct as a vital factor, especially in cases involving social relationships, to achieve just and equitable outcomes. [Section 44, BSA]
Limitations - The opinion formed on conduct must be reasonable, supported by credible evidence, and not based on conjecture or suspicion. [Section 44, BSA]
Comparison with prior law - While the Indian Evidence Act recognized conduct as relevant, Section 44 formalizes and emphasizes its importance, providing clearer guidelines. [Section 44, BSA; compare with Sections 3 and 4, Indian Evidence Act]
Judicial approach - Courts should adopt a balanced approach, weighing conduct evidence against other proof, and avoid over-reliance to prevent miscarriage of justice. [Section 44, BSA]
Legal certainty - The section aims to bring legal certainty by establishing that conduct, when properly proved, is a legitimate basis for forming opinions about relationships. [Section 44, BSA]
Reinforcement of social facts - Reinforces the principle that social facts and conduct are integral to the fabric of evidence, especially in cases where formal proof is weak or absent. [Section 44, BSA]
Impact on procedural law - May influence procedural aspects, such as the manner of recording evidence and the evaluation of social conduct, to ensure fair and comprehensive assessment. [Section 44, BSA]
Section 44 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, enhances the evidentiary framework by explicitly recognizing conduct as a vital source for forming opinions about relationships. It aligns with the evolving needs of justice, balancing social realities with legal rigor, and aims to facilitate fair and comprehensive adjudications in cases involving personal and social relationships.
Note: The references are based on the provided sources and the general principles of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is based are also relevant.
Illustration.
An expert may give an account of experiments performed by him for the purpose of forming his opinion.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 51 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a significant legislative reform that consolidates and modernizes the rules of evidence in India, replacing the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Section 45 of the BSA specifically addresses the admissibility of expert opinions, expanding the scope of evidence that can be presented in court.
Section 45 of the BSA allows for the admissibility of expert opinions in various fields, including but not limited to science, art, handwriting, and electronic evidence. This section emphasizes the relevance of the grounds on which such opinions are based.
The scope of Section 45 has been broadened to include digital and electronic evidence, reflecting the advancements in technology and the need for modern legal frameworks to accommodate such evidence.
The section itself does not prescribe specific punishments; however, the misuse of expert opinions or the presentation of false evidence can lead to legal consequences under other relevant laws.
In civil cases the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him, is irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 52 of Evidence Act, 1872
In criminal proceedings the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is relevant.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 53 of Evidence Act, 1872
In a prosecution for an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77 or section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is in issue, evidence of the character of the victim or of such person's previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant on the issue of such consent or the quality of consent.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 53A of Evidence Act, 1872
In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused has a bad character, is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.
Explanation 1.-This section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue.
Explanation 2.-A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 54 of Evidence Act, 1872
In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages which he ought to receive, is relevant.
Explanation.-In this section and sections 46, 47 and 49, the word "character" includes both reputation and disposition; but, except as provided in section 49, evidence may be given only of general reputation and general disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or disposition has been shown.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 55 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a comprehensive legislation that consolidates and modernizes evidence law in India, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Chapter III of the Act specifically deals with facts that need not be proved, establishing the framework for judicial notice and exceptions to proof requirements [Source: "Part III - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Nishith Desai Associates"].
Chapter III outlines the circumstances under which certain facts are deemed to be judicially noticeable, thereby exempting parties from proving them. It also specifies facts that are universally recognized as true without requiring proof, such as laws of nature, public documents, and facts judicially noticed by courts [Source: "Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 compare with Indian Evidence ...."].
The scope extends to all facts that are either universally recognized or judicially noticed by courts, including electronic records, official gazettes, and facts of common knowledge. It aims to streamline proceedings by reducing the burden of proof for certain facts [Source: "Facts Which Need Not Be Proved Under BSA - Drishti Judiciary"].
The Act does not prescribe specific punishments for violations of provisions under Chapter III. Instead, failure to adhere to judicial notice or misrepresentation may attract penalties under general provisions of the Act or other applicable laws [Source: "The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 - PRS India"].
Note: This commentary synthesizes available sources to provide a comprehensive legal analysis of Chapter III of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
No fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 56 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) The Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts, namely:-
(b) international treaty, agreement or convention with country or countries by India, or decisions made by India at international associations or other bodies;
(c) the course of proceeding of the Constituent Assembly of India, of Parliament of India and of the State Legislatures;
(d) the seals of all Courts and Tribunals;
(e) the seals of Courts of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction, Notaries Public, and all seals which any person is authorised to use by the Constitution, or by an Act of Parliament or State Legislatures, or Regulations having the force of law in India;
(f) the accession to office, names, titles, functions, and signatures of the persons filling for the
No fact needs to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 58 of Evidence Act, 1872
SupremeToday AI Service seems to be Down for a While!
All facts, except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 59 of Evidence Act, 1872
Oral evidence shall, in all cases whatever, be direct; if it refers to,-
(ii) a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
(iii) a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
(iv) an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a
The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 61 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) represents a significant reform in the Indian legal framework concerning the admissibility and evaluation of evidence. Section 56 specifically addresses the proof of contents of documents, establishing the foundational principles for both primary and secondary evidence.
Section 56 of the BSA stipulates that the contents of a document may be proved either by primary evidence, which is the document itself, or by secondary evidence, which includes copies or other forms of evidence that can substantiate the document's contents.
The section expands the scope of admissible evidence, allowing for both primary and secondary forms to be used in proving the contents of documents. It also clarifies that no person can give evidence of a fact they are legally barred from proving.
The section does not explicitly outline punishments; however, it implies that any attempt to present evidence contrary to the provisions of the law may lead to legal consequences as per the overarching legal framework.
Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1.-Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.
Explanation 2.-Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Explanation 3.-Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.
Explanation 4.-Where an electronic or digital record is created or stored, and such storage occurs simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each such file is primary evidence
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) aims to consolidate and modernize the rules of evidence in India, providing a framework for fair trials. Section 57 specifically addresses the concept of primary evidence, which is crucial for establishing the authenticity and reliability of documents presented in court.
Section 57 of the BSA defines primary evidence as the original document presented for the court's inspection. It emphasizes that the original document holds the highest evidentiary value, and copies or secondary evidence are subordinate to it.
The scope of Section 57 extends to all forms of documents, including electronic and digital records, which are now recognized as primary evidence under the BSA. This modernizes the evidentiary framework to accommodate technological advancements.
The BSA does not specify punishments directly associated with Section 57; however, the implications of presenting false or misleading evidence can lead to legal consequences under other relevant laws.
Secondary evidence includes-
(ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(iii) copies made from or compared with the original;
(iv) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it;
(vi) oral admissions;
(vii) written admissions;
(viii) evidence of a person who has examined a document, the original of which consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
Illustrations.
Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, replaces the corresponding provisions in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and defines the scope of secondary evidence. It aims to streamline the types of evidence that can be used in court, emphasizing the admissibility of certain categories of evidence without requiring proof of the original. The section aligns with the Act's overarching goal of establishing clear and fair rules of evidence for a just trial.
Section 58 delineates what constitutes secondary evidence, including certified copies, copies produced by mechanical processes, oral admissions, written admissions, and evidence from experts regarding original documents. It clarifies that facts admitted need not be proved, and specific categories of evidence are recognized as secondary evidence for proving the contents of original documents or facts.
The scope extends to various forms of evidence that can substitute or supplement original documents, including electronic records, oral admissions, and expert opinions. It broadens the traditional understanding by explicitly including oral and written admissions and electronic evidence, reflecting modern evidentiary needs.
The section itself does not prescribe specific punishments; rather, it sets the framework for admissibility. Violations related to false evidence or tampering may attract penalties under general provisions of law, but Section 58 primarily governs the admissibility criteria.
Note: This commentary synthesizes available sources, emphasizing the broadening of secondary evidence categories and the integration of modern evidence forms under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Documents shall be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 64 of Evidence Act, 1872
Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases, namely: -
(i) of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved; or
(ii) of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court; or
(iii) of any person legally bound to produce it,
and when, after the notice mentioned in section 64 such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own def
Section 60 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) delineates the circumstances under which secondary evidence relating to documents may be admitted in judicial proceedings. This provision modernizes the evidentiary framework, aligning it with contemporary digital and electronic records, and replaces corresponding provisions from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 60 specifies the cases in which secondary evidence of documents can be presented. It emphasizes that secondary evidence may be admitted when the original document is unavailable due to specific reasons, such as possession by the opposing party, destruction, or other stipulated conditions.
The scope covers various scenarios where the original document cannot be produced, including cases where:- The original is in possession of the opposing party or others.- The original has been admitted or destroyed.- The document is a digital or electronic record, aligning with modern evidentiary needs.It broadens the admissibility of secondary evidence, especially concerning electronic records, reflecting the digital age.
While Section 60 itself does not prescribe punishment, violations such as presenting false secondary evidence or misrepresenting the unavailability of original documents can attract penalties under general provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, or applicable criminal laws.
In summary, Section 60 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, modernizes the evidentiary landscape by explicitly permitting secondary evidence in a variety of circumstances, especially concerning electronic and digital records, thereby facilitating a more flexible, reliable, and contemporary legal framework.
Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such record shall, subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) marks a significant shift in Indian evidence law by explicitly recognizing electronic and digital records as admissible evidence. It aligns with the modern digital era, ensuring that electronic evidence is given parity with traditional physical documents, thereby facilitating streamlined and contemporary judicial proceedings.
Section 61 states that "Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence." It emphasizes that electronic or digital records cannot be excluded solely on the ground that they are in electronic form, provided other legal requirements are met.
The scope extends to all electronic or digital records relevant in judicial proceedings, ensuring their admissibility without discrimination. It applies uniformly across courts and tribunals, promoting the acceptance of electronic evidence as valid and enforceable. The section also clarifies that this provision does not deny the admissibility of electronic records but rather affirms it, provided other evidentiary criteria are satisfied.
The Act does not specify any punishment directly related to Section 61. However, non-compliance with the legal requisites for electronic evidence or attempts to falsify such records could attract penalties under general provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam or other applicable laws.
In conclusion, Section 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is a pioneering provision that firmly establishes electronic and digital records as admissible evidence, promoting a modern, efficient, and inclusive legal framework for the digital age.
Note: All references are based on the provided sources and aim to encapsulate key legal insights.
The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 65A of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) represents a significant overhaul of the evidentiary framework in India, particularly in the context of electronic records. Section 63 specifically addresses the admissibility of electronic evidence, reflecting the growing importance of digital documentation in legal proceedings.
Section 63 of the BSA states that any information contained in an electronic record is admissible as evidence, provided it meets certain criteria. This includes records stored in various formats, such as paper, optical, magnetic media, or semiconductor memory.
The scope of Section 63 extends to all forms of electronic records, thereby modernizing the evidentiary process to accommodate the digital age. It replaces the traditional focus on paper documents, recognizing the validity of digital formats.
While Section 63 outlines the admissibility of electronic records, it does not specify punitive measures for violations. Instead, it focuses on the procedural aspects of presenting electronic evidence in court.
Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in clause (a) of section 60, shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, or to his advocate or representative, such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case:
Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it:-
(b) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it;
(c) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained
If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 67 of Evidence Act, 1872
Except in the case of a secure electronic signature, if the electronic signature of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record, the fact that such electronic signature is the electronic signature of the subscriber must be proved.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 67A of Evidence Act, 1872
If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 [16 of 1908], unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872
If no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 69 of Evidence Act, 1872
The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 70 of Evidence Act, 1872
If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 71 of Evidence Act, 1872
An attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 72 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
(2) The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.
(3) This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 73 of Evidence Act, 1872
In order to ascertain whether a digital signature is that of the person by whom it purports to have been affixed, the Court may direct-
(b) any other person to apply the public key listed in the Digital Signature Certificate and verify the digital signature purported to have been affixed by that person.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 73A of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) The following documents are public documents:-
(i) of the sovereign authority;
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of India or of a foreign country;
(b) public records kept in any State or Union territory of private documents.
(2) All other documents except the documents referred to in sub-section (1) are private.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Sections 74 & 75 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 74 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) delineates the classification and scope of public and private documents within the framework of evidence law. It aims to modernize the evidentiary landscape by explicitly including electronic records, aligning with contemporary digital realities and ensuring the admissibility of various document types in judicial proceedings.
Section 74 specifies the types of documents that qualify as public documents, including those forming acts or records of acts of sovereign authority or official bodies. It also clarifies the classification of private documents and establishes criteria for their recognition as evidence. The section emphasizes the formal recognition of electronic records as valid evidence, reflecting the Act’s progressive approach.
Note: The analysis synthesizes available information from the provided sources and emphasizes the progressive inclusion of electronic records within the evidentiary framework under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
Explanation.-Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorised to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 76 of Evidence Act, 1872
Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 77 of Evidence Act, 1872
The following public documents may be proved as follows:-
(i) by the records of the Departments, certified by the head of those Departments respectively; or
(ii) by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government;
(b) the proceedings of Parliament or a State Legislature, by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed by order of the Government concerned;
(c) proclamations, orders or Regulations issued by the President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator or Lieutenant Governor of a Union territory, by copies or extracts contained in the Official Gaze
(1) The Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Central Government or of a State Government:
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
(2) The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 79CLOUD_STORAGE_BUCKET_NAME_ACT_FILES of Evidence Act, 1872
Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorised by law to take such evidence or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume that-
(ii) any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true; and
(iii) such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 80 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the Official Gazette, or to be a newspaper or journal, and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section and section 92, document is said to be in proper custody if it is in the place in which, and looked after by the person with whom such document is required to be kept; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render that origin probable.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 81 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court shall presume the genuineness of every electronic or digital record purporting to be the Official Gazette, or purporting to be electronic or digital record directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such electronic or digital record is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section and section 93 electronic records are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and looked after by the person with whom such document is required to be kept; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render that origin probable.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 81A of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 83 of Evidence Act, 1872
Legal Comments
"Scope of Act" - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including courts-m martial, but with specified exclusions; integral to context for Section 82 analysis. [The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (No. 47 of 2023) - Preamble and Preliminary]
"Section 82 - Core proposition" - Section 82 prescribes a presumption regarding documents admissible in England without proof of seal or signature, as part of the BSA framework; it operates within the broader presumption regime of documentary evidence. [BSA, Section 82 - Presumption as to document admissible in England without proof of seal or signature]
"Textual focus" - The section is framed to facilitate admissibility presumptions for certain documents with English origin or standing, aligning with historic evidentiary presumptions while adapting to the BSA regime. [BSA Section 82; Corresponding Section Table of BSA with Repealed Act]
"Essential ingredients" - Existence of a document, its admissibility in England without seal or signature, and the corresponding presumption that such status applies unless rebutted by contrary proof. [BSA Section 82; Explanations in Notes on BSA sources]
"Relation to burden of proof" - While not detailing burden allocation in the excerpt, BSA generally places burden on the party asserting a fact; Section 82 implies allocation of proof about authenticity, if challenged. [Burden of Proof Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam - Section 104 concept]
"Presumptions linked to technology" - Section 86, on secure electronic records, prescribes a separate electronic-record presumption; relevant to understanding how Section 82 interacts with different forms of documentary evidence. [SECTION 86 OF THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023]
"Scope of documents covered" - Section 82 pertains to documents admissible in England without proof of seal or signature; it does not automatically extend to all documents, and there may be limitations or need for proof where challenged. [BSA Section 82; Related Table of Sections]
"Interaction with telegraphic presumptions" - In the BSA, other presumptions exist (e.g., Section 88 on telegraphic messages); Section 82 operates alongside these, providing a particular historical presumption for England-admissible documents. [BSA Section 88; Overview sources]
"Relation to admissibility principles" - The Act consolidates general rules of evidence for fair trial; Section 82 contributes to admissibility principles by prescribing presumptions for certain documentary evidence. [The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Aim and context]
"Status of England-origin documents" - Section 82 recognizes a presumption about documents admissible in England without seal/signature, reflecting cross-border evidentiary considerations; however, the modern applicability needs statutory interpretation against domestic formats. [BSA Section 82; Decoding Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
"Role of explanations" - Explanations in the text clarify that the provision does not empower proving facts disallowed by other laws; this guards against misuse of the presumption. [The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Explanation]
"Relation to other rules of evidence" - Section 82 sits within a broader scheme that includes documentary evidence (Sections 28-32, 56-73) and exclusionary rules; its operation should be read with these sections. [NOTES ON (Long Answer Type) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; Documentary Evidence range]
"Judicial interpretation guidance" - The Act anticipates judicial pronouncements on admissibility with new formats; Section 82 may be clarified by case law as the BSA implementations evolve. [The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 in Context; Decoding Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
"Burden shifting possibilities" - While Section 82 sets a presumption, the adverse party can rebut with contrary proof; the general burden allocation principle supports this. [Burden of Proof Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam - Section 104]
"Public policy and fair trial aim" - As part of consolidating fair-trial principles, Section 82 should not be used to circumvent mandatory evidentiary requirements; it provides a limited presumptive framework. [Overview of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 and Comparison; Aim of BSA]
"Historical continuity" - The provision preserves a continuity with English documentary evidentiary presumptions while embedding them in the BSA, reflecting cross-jurisdictional evidentiary norms. [BSA Section 82; Corresponding Section Table]
"Limitations and cautions" - The text suggests not enabling evidence of a fact disentitled to prove by law; the Explanations emphasize that this presumption cannot override disallowed proofs. [The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Explanation]
"Cross-reference with electronic records" - Given separate presumptions for electronic records (Section 86), practitioners should differentiate when dealing with paper documents versus secure electronic records. [SECTION 86 vs Section 82]
"Practical takeaway for litigants" - When relying on Section 82, parties should present any England-origin document without seal/signature succinctly, while opposing parties may introduce contrary proof to challenge admissibility. [BSA Section 82; Burden and related notes]
"References for further reading" - For canonical texts and commentary, consult: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (No. 47 of 2023); Corresponding Section Table; Debates and analyses on BSA sections 82, 86, 88; Burden of Proof discussions. [The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Decoding Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
The Court shall presume the genuineness of, every book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the Government of any country, and to contain any of the laws of that country, and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of the Courts of such country.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 84 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 85 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 84 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) addresses presumptions related to certain legal documents, specifically focusing on powers of attorney. This section is part of the broader effort to modernize and streamline evidence law in India, replacing provisions from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The Act aims to facilitate fair trials by establishing clear presumptions and standards for digital and electronic evidence, while also delineating the evidentiary value of specific documents.
Section 84 presumes that any document claiming to be a power of attorney, executed and authenticated by a Notary Public, Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul, or similar authority, is valid unless proven otherwise. It simplifies the evidentiary process by establishing a presumption of authenticity for such documents, thereby reducing the burden of proof on the party relying on them.
Section 84 applies specifically to documents claiming to be powers of attorney that are executed and authenticated by authorized officials. It covers both physical and digital documents, aligning with the Act’s emphasis on electronic records. The section streamlines the evidentiary process in legal proceedings involving such documents, reducing procedural burdens.
The Act does not specify any particular punishment for contravention of Section 84. Its primary function is to establish presumptions to facilitate evidence admissibility. Violations or challenges to the presumption would be subject to general evidentiary rules and applicable penalties under other relevant laws.
Note: The analysis is based on the available sources and aims to provide a comprehensive legal commentary on Section 84 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The Court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement containing the electronic or digital signature of the parties was so concluded by affixing the electronic or digital signature of the parties.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 85A of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 85 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) addresses presumptions related to electronic agreements, reflecting the Act's emphasis on integrating electronic and digital evidence within the legal framework. It aims to facilitate the admissibility and presumptive validity of electronic signatures and agreements in judicial proceedings, aligning with modern technological advancements.
Section 85 presumes that every electronic record purported to be an agreement containing electronic or digital signatures was concluded by affixing such signatures by the parties involved. The section establishes a presumption in favor of the authenticity and validity of electronic agreements, shifting the burden of proof onto the party disputing the electronic signature.
Section 85 applies specifically to electronic agreements with electronic or digital signatures, emphasizing the recognition of electronic records as valid evidence. It aligns with the broader objective of the BSA to modernize evidence law, particularly in relation to electronic and digital transactions, and applies across all judicial proceedings where such agreements are involved.
The section does not prescribe any specific punishment for violations or misuse of electronic signatures. Instead, it provides a legal presumption that can be challenged, and any misconduct or forgery related to electronic signatures would be subject to general criminal provisions under applicable laws.
Note: The analysis is based on the provided sources, emphasizing the legal implications, scope, and significance of Section 85 within the framework of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
(1) In any proceeding involving a secure electronic record, the Court shall presume unless contrary is proved, that the secure electronic record has not been altered since the specific point of time to which the secure status relates.
(2) In any proceeding, involving secure electronic signature, the Court shall presume unless the contrary is proved that-
(b) except in the case of a secure electronic record or a secure electronic signature, nothing in this section shall create any presumption, relating to authenticity and integrity of the electronic record or any electronic signature.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 85B of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court shall presume, unless contrary is proved, that the information listed in an Electronic Signature Certificate is correct, except for information specified as subscriber information which has not been verified, if the certificate was accepted by the subscriber.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 85C of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) The Court may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record of any country beyond India is genuine and accurate, if the document purports to be certified in any manner which is certified by any representative of the Central Government in or for such country to be the manner commonly in use in that country for the certification of copies of judicial records.
(2) An officer who, with respect to any territory or place outside India is a Political Agent therefor, as defined in clause (43) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 [10 of 1897], shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a representative of the Central Government in and for the country comprising that territory or place.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 86 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court may presume that any book to which it may refer for information on matters of public or general interest, and that any published map or chart, the statements of which are relevant facts, and which is produced for its inspection, was written and published by the person, and at the time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written or published.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 87 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 88A of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court shall presume that every document, called for and not produced after notice to produce, was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 89 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a significant legislative reform aimed at consolidating and modernizing the rules of evidence in India. It replaces the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, introducing new provisions and clarifications to enhance the fairness and efficiency of trials.
Section 91 of the BSA addresses the presumption regarding the due execution of documents that are not produced in court. It establishes that if a document is required to be produced as evidence and is not, the court may presume that the document would have been unfavorable to the party who failed to produce it.
The scope of Section 91 extends to all types of documents relevant to the case, including contracts, grants, and other dispositions of property. It emphasizes the importance of producing documents that are critical to the issues at hand.
While Section 91 itself does not prescribe specific punishments, the implications of failing to produce a document may affect the outcome of the case, potentially leading to adverse inferences against the non-compliant party.
Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
Explanation.-The Explanation to section 80 shall also apply to this section.
Illustrations.
(a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time. He produces from his custody deeds relating to the land showing his titles to it. The custody shall be proper.
(b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody shall be
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a significant legislative reform that replaces the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. It aims to consolidate and modernize the rules and principles governing evidence in Indian courts, ensuring a fair trial process.
Section 92 of the BSA establishes a presumption regarding the admissibility of documents that are thirty years old. It allows such documents, when produced from proper custody, to be presumed authentic unless proven otherwise.
This section applies to all judicial proceedings and is intended to facilitate the acceptance of historical documents as evidence, thereby streamlining the judicial process. It reflects a shift towards recognizing the importance of historical records in legal contexts.
Section 92 does not prescribe any specific punishment as it primarily deals with the admissibility of evidence rather than criminal conduct.
Where any electronic record, purporting or proved to be five years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the electronic signature which purports to be the electronic signature of any particular person was so affixed by him or any person authorised by him in this behalf.
Explanation.-The Explanation to section 81 shall also apply to this section.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 90A of Evidence Act, 1872
SupremeToday AI Service seems to be Down for a While!
When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
Exception 1.-When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2.-Wills admitted to probate in India may be proved by the probate.
Explanation 1.-This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions o
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) aims to consolidate and modernize the rules of evidence in India. Section 94 specifically addresses the admissibility of evidence concerning the terms of contracts, grants, and other property dispositions that have been documented.
Section 94 states that when the terms of a contract, grant, or other property disposition are reduced to a written document, no oral evidence can be presented to contradict or vary those terms. The written document itself is the sole admissible evidence.
The scope of Section 94 is to ensure that documentary evidence is prioritized over oral evidence, thereby enhancing the reliability and clarity of contractual agreements and property transactions.
The text does not specify any punitive measures directly associated with violations of Section 94. However, the implications of disregarding this section could lead to the rejection of oral evidence in legal proceedings.
"Documentary Evidence" - Section 94 emphasizes the superiority of documentary evidence over oral evidence in legal disputes involving contracts and property dispositions. - [Law4u]
"Exclusion of Oral Evidence" - The section explicitly states that no oral evidence shall be admissible to prove the terms of a contract once it has been documented. - [KanoonGPT]
"Written Requirement" - The necessity of a written document is a fundamental requirement for the application of Section 94, ensuring clarity in legal agreements. - [Indian Kanoon]
"Legal Certainty" - By mandating that only written documents serve as evidence, Section 94 aims to provide legal certainty and reduce disputes arising from differing interpretations of oral agreements. - [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
"Impact on Litigation" - The section may significantly impact litigation by limiting the scope of evidence that can be presented, thereby streamlining legal processes. - [KanoonGPT]
"Consistency with Previous Laws" - Section 94 aligns with principles established in the Indian Evidence Act, reinforcing the importance of written documentation in legal matters. - [Comparison Summary BSA to IEA]
"Electronic Records" - The section does not preclude the admissibility of electronic records, thus accommodating modern forms of documentation. - [Comparison Summary BSA to IEA]
"Clarity in Contracts" - The provision encourages parties to clearly articulate their agreements in writing, thereby minimizing ambiguities and potential conflicts. - [Law4u]
"Judicial Interpretation" - Courts are likely to interpret Section 94 strictly, favoring written documents over oral testimonies in disputes regarding contractual terms. - [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
"Limitations on Evidence" - The section imposes limitations on the types of evidence that can be introduced, which may affect the strategies employed by legal practitioners. - [KanoonGPT]
"Relevance to Property Dispositions" - The application of Section 94 extends beyond contracts to include grants and other property dispositions, broadening its relevance in legal contexts. - [Indian Kanoon]
"Legal Precedents" - The principles established in Section 94 may influence future legal precedents regarding the admissibility of evidence in similar cases. - [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
"Encouragement of Written Agreements" - The section serves as an encouragement for parties to formalize their agreements in writing, thus promoting better business practices. - [Law4u]
"Potential for Misinterpretation" - There is a potential risk of misinterpretation of the section's provisions, necessitating careful legal drafting and consultation. - [KanoonGPT]
"Judicial Discretion" - While the section provides clear guidelines, courts may still exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances, particularly regarding the admissibility of evidence. - [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
"Impact on Oral Agreements" - The section effectively nullifies the legal standing of oral agreements that contradict documented terms, reinforcing the importance of written contracts. - [Comparison Summary BSA to IEA]
"Legal Framework" - Section 94 is part of a broader legal framework aimed at ensuring fair trials and the integrity of evidence presented in courts. - [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
"Future Amendments" - The evolving nature of legal practices may lead to future amendments or interpretations of Section 94 to address emerging challenges in evidence law. - [Law4u]
"Educational Implications" - Legal education and training will need to adapt to emphasize the importance of documentation in contracts and property transactions as outlined in Section 94. - [KanoonGPT]
When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to section 94, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Provided that any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law:
Provided further that the existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering
When the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects.
Illustrations.
(a) A agrees, in writing, to sell a horse to B for "one lakh rupees or one lakh fifty thousand rupees". Evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given.
(b) A deed contains blanks. Evidence cannot be given of facts which would show how they were meant to be filled.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 93 of Evidence Act, 1872
When language used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.
Illustration.
A sells to B, by deed, "my estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas". A has an estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the estate meant to be sold was one situated at a different place and of a different size.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 94 of Evidence Act, 1872
When language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.
Illustration.
A sells to B, by deed, "my house in Kolkata". A had no house in Kolkata, but it appears that he had a house at Howrah, of which B had been in possession since the execution of the deed. These facts may be proved to show that the deed related to the house at Howrah.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 95 of Evidence Act, 1872
When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.
Illustrations.
(a) A agrees to sell to B, for one thousand rupees, "my white horse". A has two white horses. Evidence may be given of facts which show which of them was meant.
(b) A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Ramgarh in Rajasthan or Ramgarh in Uttarakhand was meant.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 96CLOUD_STORAGE_BUCKET_NAME_ACT_FILES of Evidence Act, 1872
When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.
Illustration.
A agrees to sell to B "my land at X in the occupation of Y". A has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y but it is not at X. Evidence may be given of facts showing which he meant to sell.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 97 of Evidence Act, 1872
Evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, of foreign, obsolete, technical, local and regional expressions, of abbreviations and of words used in a peculiar sense.
Illustration.
A, sculptor, agrees to sell to B, "all my mods". A has both models and modelling tools. Evidence may be given to show which he meant to sell.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 98 of Evidence Act, 1872
Persons who are not parties to a document, or their representatives in interest, may give evidence of any facts tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document.
Illustration.
A and B make a contract in writing that B shall sell A certain cotton, to be paid for on delivery. At the same time, they make an oral agreement that three months' credit shall be given to A. This could not be shown as between A and B, but it might be shown by C, if it affected his interests.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 99 of Evidence Act, 1872
Nothing in this Chapter shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as to the construction of wills.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 100 of Evidence Act, 1872
Legal Comments
"Introduction" - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) consolidates and modernizes evidence law, replacing or aligning with IEA 1872, with explicit provisions on electronic records and fresh framing for proof, cross-examination, and admissibility in Chapter VII context. [Source: "": Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - India Code; "": [PDF] THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023]
"What Section Says" - Chapter VII of BSA covers admissibility frameworks, secondary evidence, electronic records (Section 63), dying declarations (Section 26), and related procedural rules; it harmonizes with IEA 1872 equivalents while introducing digital-proof mechanisms. [Sources: "Kote Krishnudu vs Mandleam Subba Reddy"; "Baranyamoy Sarma, Son of Aswini Kumar Sarma vs Gauhati High Court at Guwahati"; "P.Chinnaiyan vs Rajammal (Died)"]
"Essential ingredients" - (i) Valid electronic record admissibility under Section 63; (ii) certificate requirements for electronic evidence; (iii) burden of proof in possession vs ownership (Section 113 BSA); (iv) standards for dying declarations (Section 26); (v) cross-examination and admission rules (Sections 147/58 equivalents). [Sources: "Prakash Bari son of Late Jagmohan Bari vs Poonam Champia wife of Prakash Bari"; "Shyjal.C. vs State Of Kerala"; "West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. VS Adhunik Power & Natural Resource Ltd. "]
"Scope of Section" - BSA Section 63 and related sections apply to all judicial proceedings; electronic records require compliance with certificate requirements and authentication, with parallel impact to traditional documentary evidence; Section 113 on ownership/possession shifts onus accordingly. [Sources: "Prakash Bari son of Late Jagmohan Bari vs Poonam Champia wife of Prakash Bari"; "Yerikala Sunkalamma VS State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue"; "P.Chinnaiyan vs Rajammal (Died)"]
"Punishment for Section" - BSA itself prescribes procedural/evidentiary consequences rather than substantive penal penalties; violations pertain to improper evidence handling, withholding admissibility, or failure to follow procedural prerequisites, potentially affecting trial outcomes or orders (e.g., setting aside or quashing). [Sources: general treatment across multiple cases; "S.Sreenivas Reddy vs Sudha Rao" and others note consequences of improper evidentiary rulings]
"Admissibility of diary/personal records" - Diary entries of the police or diary maintained in investigations can be used to aid inquiry but not as direct evidence of facts unless properly authenticated; personal diary entries may not be privileged under Section 122, but other diaries could be admitted as evidence if relevant and properly authenticated. [Source: "Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava"; "Asif S/o Abdul Raheman vs State of Karnataka"]
"Secondary evidence and RTI-derived copies" - Under Section 60 (BSA 2023) secondary evidence may be admissible when originals are unavailable; RTI-derived photocopies can be allowed as secondary evidence with proper justification and procedural grounding; trial court must provide cogent reasoning. [Sources: "P.C. Ananda Lakshmi vs Sudha Rao"; "S.Sreenivas Reddy vs Sudha Rao"]
"Secondary evidence in election petitions" - Documents from public offices obtained via RTI or official channels can be admitted as secondary evidence with objective scrutiny; notice under Section 64 may be non-mandatory when the other party is a Government officer, but objections can be raised at exhibit time. [Sources: "Purushottam Lal, S/o Shri Charansingh vs Ritu Banawat W/o Shri Rishi Bansal"; "PURUSHOTTAM LAL S/O SHRI CHARANSINGH Vs. RITU BANAWAT W/O SHRI RISHI BANSAL "]
"Burden shifting under Section 113 BSA" - Possession is prima facie proof of ownership; the onus to prove non-ownership lies on the person who asserts lack of ownership; this mirrors classic presumptions and is applied to land/possession disputes, including government or public-entity cases. [Sources: "Yerikala Sunkalamma VS State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue"; "Baranyamoy Sarma, Son of Aswini Kumar Sarma vs Gauhati High Court at Guwahati"; "P.Chinnaiyan vs Rajammal (Died)"]
"Dying declaration vs contemporaneous witness statements" - Dying declarations remain an exception to hearsay (Section 26 BSA 2023) when maker has died; where the maker survives, the declaration is treated as ordinary evidence requiring corroboration like any other witness. [Sources: "Lokesh B.H. S/o Late Halappa B.E. vs State of Karnataka"; "Baranyamoy Sarma, Son of Aswini Kumar Sarma vs Gauhati High Court at Guwahati"]
"Cross-examination and subsequent statements" - The right to cross-examine remains fundamental; but subsequent statements cannot be used to impeach credibility under BSA absent proper conditions; confession or statements to police have restricted admissibility. [Sources: "Syam Raj R. S. , S/o. Rajan, Soumya Nilayam VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala"; "Mini Savio W/o Savio vs Sabu Joseph S/o Joseph"; "Suraj Singh @ Noni VS State of Punjab"]
"Witness recall and Section 319 Cr.P.C." - Courts can summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on evidence beyond a witness’s own statement; no absolute immunity via self-incriminating testimony; need cogent material beyond the witness’s statement. [Source: "Raghuveer Sharan VS District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank"]
"Electronic certificates and testing" - Section 65-B (IEA) equivalents under BSA require proper certificates identifying devices, authorship, and production; courts may treat electronic records as admissible with certificates or expert testimony; redacted communications may be excluded. [Sources: "01200037123"?; "Shinoj S/o Revindran vs State of Kerala"; "Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 vs WA(MD)Nos.119 to 123 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1192, of 2022"]
"Presumption framework for wills and execution" - Will execution proof relies on attesting witnesses; if one is unavailable or denies execution, other attesting witnesses may be examined; Section 70 (BSA) supports reliance on attestation, but not sole registration as proof. [Sources: "P. D. Parameswaran Pillai VS T. N. Ramachandran Nair, (Died Lrs Impleaded)"; "Sns Products Private Limited VS Ijaz Uddin"; "Surbhi Sharma vs State of NCT of Delhi"]
"Admissions in evidence" - Admissions made by a party or their agents are relevant and may be proved but are not conclusive; Section 19 (BSA 2023) aligns with traditional admissibility, with explicit limitations on admissibility of confessions. [Sources: "Mini Savio W/o Savio vs Sabu Joseph S/o Joseph"; "Titus VS Golda Glory"]
"Caseload and procedural fairness with BNSS 2023" - Several BNSS 2023 matters emphasize fair trial standards, timely disposal, and procedural safeguards (e.g., discharge opportunities, fair hearing before charges) which interplay with evidentiary rules and admissibility in trial. [Sources: "Narottam Prusty vs State Of Odisha"; "P. D. Parameswaran Pillai VS T. N. Ramachandran Nair, (Died Lrs Impleaded)"]
"Writs and redressability involving BSA sections" - Several high court decisions address how BSA provisions interface with civil and criminal petitions, including the admissibility of electronic evidence and cross-referencing to IPC/BNS equivalents; courts allow appropriate use while maintaining procedural controls. [Sources: multiple entries, e.g., "Murali vs State of Telangana"; "XX VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor"]
"Logistics of notice and service under BSA" - The Ascertainment of service via notice under Section 64 and related illustrations in Section 119 (e) guide presumed regularities in judicial/official acts unless rebutted; service issues may be addressed by presumption in certain contexts. [Sources: "01500058991"; "Mini Savio W/o Savio vs Sabu Joseph S/o Joseph"]
"Privileged communications and diary entries" - Personal diary of a complainant may not be privileged under Section 122; however, other diary entries or communications may be admissible depending on privilege status and evidentiary rules; courts examine privilege vs admissibility carefully. [Sources: "Rachna Srivastava vs Sanjay Srivastava"]
"Scope in chapter VII: practical application" - The Chapter VII framework applies to procedure and admissibility rather than substantive guilt; recent case law demonstrates application across civil, criminal, and administrative matters, including bail, maintenance, and quasi-criminal proceedings. [Sources: various cases: "Valuedrive Technologies Private Limited vs Vivo Mobile India Private Limited"; "Birla Mallesh vs The State of Telangana"]
"Technology-enabled evidence and due authentication" - With increasing use of pen-drives, WhatsApp messages, and other electronic records, BSA 2023 requires authentication and, where applicable, certificates to ensure probative value; courts stress not to admit selectively redacted or未经 proper authentication evidence. [Sources: "Prakash Bari son of Late Jagmohan Bari vs Poonam Champia wife of Prakash Bari"; "Urvinder Singh Pal vs Deputy Registrar Co-operative"; "Shinoj S/o Revindran vs State of Kerala"]
"Synthesis: practical guidance" - For practitioners: ensure original documents or admissible secondary copies are properly supported by Section 60/63 equivalents; obtain and preserve cognizable certificates for electronic records; be prepared to address Section 113 on possession/ownership and Section 26/32 dying declarations; anticipate cross-examination and potential reliance on Section 319 in trials. [Sources: multiple: "S.Sreenivas Reddy vs Sudha Rao"; "P.Chinnaiyan vs Rajammal (Died)"; "Syam Raj R. S. , S/o. Rajan, Soumya Nilayam VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala"]
Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist, and when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations.
(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 101 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) aims to consolidate and modernize the rules of evidence in India, replacing the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Section 104 specifically addresses the burden of proof in legal proceedings, establishing a clear guideline on which party is responsible for proving facts in issue.
Section 104 states that any party desiring a court's judgment regarding a legal right or liability must prove the existence of the facts they assert. This places the onus of proof on the party making the assertion.
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Illustrations.
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore, the burden of proof is on A.
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore, the burden of proof is on B.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 102 of Evidence Act, 1872
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
Illustration.
A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to
C. A must prove the admission. B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 103 of Evidence Act, 1872
The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Illustrations.
(a) A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B's death.
(b) A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 104 of Evidence Act, 1872
When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the said Sanhita, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
Illustrations.
(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A.
(b) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control. The burden of proof is on A.
(c) Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides that whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (2) of section 122, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be subj
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations.
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872
When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 107 of Evidence Act, 1872
When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 108 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with the burden of proof concerning the presumption of death after a person has been unheard of for seven years. It is a procedural rule of evidence that shifts the burden of proof in legal proceedings when the question of whether a person is alive or dead arises.
Section 111 states: "When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it." [Section 111 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon]
Section 111 of the BSA does not prescribe any punishment or penalty. It is a rule of evidence concerning the burden of proof, not a penal provision. It establishes a legal presumption to assist courts in determining facts.
Presumption of Death - Section 111 establishes a legal presumption that if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard from them, they are presumed dead, shifting the burden of proof. [According to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]
Burden Shifting - Once proof of seven years' absence is established, the burden shifts to the party asserting that the person is alive; they must prove affirmatively that the person lives. [Burden of Proof Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam]
Conditional Presumption - The presumption under Section 111 arises only when the person is not heard of by "those who would naturally have heard of him," imposing a strict condition on the pre-requisite facts. [SECTION 111 OF THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023]
Procedural Rule - The section is purely procedural and does not create a substantive right; it merely regulates the burden of proof in legal proceedings. [Burden of Proof Part III - Section 110 & 111 of BSA - YouTube]
Rule of Evidence - The rule is based on the common law principle of presumption of death after seven years' unexplained absence, codified in Indian evidence law. [Rules Relating to the Burden of Proof under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam]
Applicable in Civil Cases - Section 111 is frequently invoked in civil matters such as succession, inheritance, and property disputes where establishing death is crucial. [Burden of Proof Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam]
Applicable in Criminal Cases - The presumption may also be relevant in criminal proceedings, such as cases of disappearance or suspected homicide, where the question of death is in issue. [Burden of Proof Part III - Section 110 & 111 of BSA - YouTube]
Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption under Section 111 is rebuttable; evidence can be led to prove that despite the absence, the person is still alive. [Section 111 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon]
Burden on Affirmant - The burden of proof under Section 111 falls specifically on the person who affirms that the missing person is alive. [SECTION 111 OF THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023]
No Change from IEA - Section 111 of BSA is identical to Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with no substantive change in the language or the principle. [Comparison Summary BSA to IEA]; [Corresponding Section Table of BSA with Repealed Act]
Provision Carried Over - This provision was carried over from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 without modification, reflecting continuity in evidence law. [Introduction and changes in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam]
Part of Burden of Proof Rules - Section 111 is part of the burden of proof rules under Chapter VII of the BSA, alongside sections on burden of proof in various contexts. [Burden of Proof Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam]
Limitation on Evidence - The section does not allow any person to give evidence of a fact they are disentitled to prove by any provision of law. [The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - India Code]
Same Position in BSA and IEA - Section 111 occupies the same position in the burden of proof framework as Section 108 did in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [Corresponding Section Table of BSA with Repealed Act]
No Penalty Provided - The section contains no penal provisions; it is strictly an evidentiary rule governing presumptions and burdens. [Section 111 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Indian Kanoon]
Applicable to Judicial Proceedings - The BSA, including Section 111, applies to all judicial proceedings as per Section 1(2) of the Act. [THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023 An...]
Consolidated Provision - The section is part of the BSA's objective to consolidate and provide general rules and principles of evidence for fair trial. [THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023]
Best Evidence Rule - The rule operates within the framework that best evidence must be produced, and Section 111 helps determine who bears the burden in the absence of direct evidence. [Overview of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and Comparison...]
No Electronic Evidence Provision - The section does not specifically address electronic or digital records, but these may be used to prove or rebut the seven-year absence period. [Comparison Summary BSA to IEA]
When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 109 of Evidence Act, 1872
When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 110 of Evidence Act, 1872
Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.
Illustrations.
(a) The good faith of a sale by a client to an advocate is in question in a suit brought by the client. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the advocate.
(b) The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the father.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 111 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) Where a person is accused of having committed any offence specified in sub-section (2), in-
(b) any area in which there has been, over a period of more than one month, extensive disturbance of the public peace,
and it is shown that such person had been at a place in such area at a time when firearms or explosives were used at or from that place to attack or resist the members of any armed forces or the forces charged with the maintenance of public order acting in the discharge of their duties, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that such person had committed such offence.
(2) The offences referred to in sub-section (1) are the following, namely:-
The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 112 of Evidence Act, 1872
When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 113A of Evidence Act, 1872
When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 113B of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations.
The Court may presume that-
(b) an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;
(c) a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration;
(d) a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist, is still in
In a prosecution for rape under sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent.
Explanation.-In this section, "sexual intercourse" shall mean any of the acts mentioned in section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 114A of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, addresses the presumption regarding the absence of consent in specific rape prosecutions. It aims to streamline evidentiary procedures related to consent, aligning with modern legal standards and technological advancements introduced by the new Act.
Section 120 presumes the absence of consent in certain cases of rape, particularly when the prosecution proves certain facts under sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya (Indian Evidence) Act, 1872. It facilitates the presumption that the victim did not consent, thereby easing the burden of proof on the prosecution in specific circumstances.
Note: The analysis is based on the provided sources and aims to encapsulate the key legal aspects of Section 120 within the context of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a comprehensive legislation aimed at consolidating and modernizing the rules of evidence in India. It applies to all judicial proceedings and seeks to promote fair trial principles by establishing clear rules for admissibility, relevance, and evidentiary procedures, including provisions for electronic records. Chapter VIII specifically addresses the concept of estoppel, a principle preventing a party from asserting something contrary to their previous conduct or representations.
While the specific text of Section 8 in Chapter VIII is not provided in the sources, it generally pertains to the doctrine of estoppel, particularly relating to things said or done by conspirators in reference to a common design. It emphasizes that conduct or statements by conspirators in relation to their shared plan can be used as evidence against them, thereby preventing them from denying such facts later.
The section extends to all cases involving conspiracy, where acts or statements by conspirators are admissible to establish the existence of a conspiracy or to infer guilt. It applies broadly within judicial proceedings and aligns with principles of fairness and truthfulness in evidence evaluation.
The Act does not specify any punishment for violations of Section 8 directly. Instead, it provides evidentiary rules that influence the outcome of cases. Penalties or consequences would be determined based on the overall case facts and applicable criminal or civil law provisions.
Note: The specific wording of Section 8 is not provided in the sources; the commentary is based on typical principles of conspiracy evidence and the context provided by the Act's framework.
When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.
Illustration.
A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 115 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) codifies the doctrine of estoppel, which is a fundamental principle of evidence law. This provision corresponds to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and lays down the general rule that prevents a person from contradicting what they have previously stated or represented when another person has relied upon such representation to their detriment.
Section 121 of the BSA reads: "When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing."
Based on the statutory text and judicial interpretations, the essential ingredients of Section 121 are:
Section 121 to 123 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with estoppel. Section 121 lays down the general rule whereas Section 122 deals with estoppel of tenants and licensees, and Section 123 covers estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee, or licensee. The provision applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court.
Section 121 does not prescribe any punishment as it is a rule of evidence, not a penal provision. It operates as a prohibition in proceedings - preventing a party from denying a fact they previously asserted or allowed another to believe. The consequence is evidentiary, not punitive.
General Rule of Estoppel - Section 121 lays down the general rule of estoppel, which prohibits a person from denying what was earlier said by him in Court. ["Estoppel Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam | PDF"]
Correspondence with IEA - Section 121 of BSA corresponds to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, maintaining continuity in the law of evidence. ["Corresponding Section Table of BSA with Repealed Act"]
Scope of Estoppel Provisions - Sections 121 to 123 of BSA deal with estoppel, with Section 121 providing the foundational general rule. ["Estoppel. Section 121 to 123 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with estoppel"]
Definition of Estoppel - Estoppel refers to a legal principle that prevents a person from alleging or denying a fact contrary to their previous position. ["Estoppel Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam | PDF"]
Modes of Representation - The representation can be made through declaration, act, or omission, covering a wide range of conduct that induces reliance. ["Estoppel under BSA Sections 121-123 (2026 Guide)"]
Intentional Element - The person must have intentionally caused or permitted another to believe a thing to be true. ["Estoppel under BSA Sections 121-123 (2026 Guide)"]
Acting Upon Belief - The other person must have acted upon the belief created by the representation, establishing causation. ["Estoppel under BSA Sections 121-123 (2026 Guide)"]
Application in Proceedings - The estoppel operates "in any suit or proceeding," making it applicable in both civil and criminal cases. ["Estoppel under BSA Sections 121-123 (2026 Guide)"]
Binding on Representatives - Not only the person who made the representation but also their representatives are bound by the estoppel. ["Estoppel under BSA Sections 121-123 (2026 Guide)"]
Prohibition Against Denial - The core effect is that neither the representor nor their representative shall be allowed to deny the truth of the thing represented. ["Estoppel under BSA Sections 121-123 (2026 Guide)"]
Rationale of Estoppel - The rationale behind Section 121 is to prevent fraud, promote honesty, and ensure consistency in legal proceedings. ["NOTES ON (Short Answer Type) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023"]
Types of Estoppel Covered - Section 121 covers various forms including equitable estoppel and estoppel by silence or omission. ["BSA Lecture 19 | Doctrine of Estoppel | Section 121-123 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023"]
Application to Judicial Proceedings - The BSA applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial. ["THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 NO. 47 OF 2023"]
No Penal Sanction - Section 121 does not prescribe any punishment; it is a rule of admissibility and prohibition in evidence law. ["The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023"]
Part of Evidence Framework - Section 121 is part of the broader framework that determines what facts are relevant and admissible in evidence. ["Overview of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023"]
Issue Estoppel Application - The doctrine under Section 121 also applies to issue estoppel, preventing re-litigation of decided issues. ["NOTES ON (Short Answer Type) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023"]
Foundation for Subsequent Sections - Section 121 provides the foundation for specific applications in Sections 122 (tenancy) and 123 (bailee/acceptor). ["Estoppel Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam | PDF"]
No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy or any time thereafter, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 116 of Evidence Act, 1872
No acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to endorse it; nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at the time when the bailment or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such licence.
Explanation 1.-The acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny that the bill was really drawn by the person by whom it purports to have been drawn.
Explanation 2.-If a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the bailor, he may prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailor.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 117 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 123 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, codifies principles related to estoppel, particularly focusing on the acceptor of a bill of exchange, bailee, or licensee. It aligns with the overarching aim of the Act to consolidate evidentiary rules for ensuring fair trials and reliable evidence in judicial proceedings [Source: ""].
Section 123 stipulates that an acceptor of a bill of exchange cannot deny the authority of the drawer to draw the bill. Similarly, it extends to bailees and licensees, preventing them from denying their authority or the validity of their actions concerning the property or documents involved [Source: ""].
Section 123 applies primarily to:- Financial instruments like bills of exchange, where acceptors are barred from denying their authority.- Movable property handled by bailees or licensees, where their authority or the validity of their actions cannot be contested.- It consolidates the doctrine of estoppel within the context of commercial transactions and property rights, ensuring that parties cannot contradict their previous conduct or admissions in legal proceedings [Source: ""].
The section does not specify explicit punishments but establishes a legal bar against denial of authority, which can influence the outcome of civil or criminal proceedings. Violations may lead to contempt of court or other legal consequences if parties attempt to deny their authority contrary to the section’s provisions [Source: ""].
Note: This commentary is based on the available sources and aims to synthesize the key legal aspects of Section 123 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA, 2023) is a comprehensive legislation enacted to modernize and streamline the principles of evidence law in India, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). Chapter IX specifically deals with the law relating to witnesses, establishing new rules and principles for the examination, credibility, and admissibility of witnesses in judicial proceedings .
Chapter IX of the BSA, 2023 sets out the legal framework governing witnesses, including their competency, compellability, privileges, and the manner of their examination. It emphasizes the importance of witnesses in establishing facts and aims to ensure fair and effective examination procedures .
The scope of Chapter IX extends to all judicial proceedings across India, covering civil, criminal, and administrative cases. It applies to all witnesses, whether they testify orally or through electronic/digital means, aligning with the broader objective of integrating modern evidence forms .
While Chapter IX primarily deals with procedures and principles, violations such as giving false testimony or obstructing witnesses attract penalties under the general provisions of the Act and relevant criminal laws. Specific punishments are prescribed for perjury and related offences, ensuring witness integrity .
Note: This commentary synthesizes available information and references from the provided sources, focusing on Chapter IX of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
Explanation.-A person of unsound mind is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his unsoundness of mind from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 118 of Evidence Act, 1872
A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court and evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence:
Provided that if the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be videographed.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 119 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses.
(2) In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 120 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) explicitly provides that in criminal proceedings, the husband or wife of any accused or party shall be competent witnesses. This provision aligns with the longstanding principle that marital status does not automatically disqualify spouses from offering evidence in judicial proceedings. The enactment of the BSA consolidates and modernizes evidentiary principles, including the competency of spouses, ensuring clarity and uniformity in legal practice.
Section 126 states:- (1) In all criminal proceedings, the husband or wife of any accused or party shall be competent witnesses.- (2) This means that marital relationship does not disqualify a spouse from testifying in criminal cases.
References for further reading:- [Section 126, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]- [Comparison with Indian Evidence Act, 1872]- [Constitutional provisions: Article 20(3)]- [Judicial interpretations and case law developments]
No Judge or Magistrate shall, except upon the special order of some Court to which he is subordinate, be compelled to answer any question as to his own conduct in Court as such Judge or Magistrate, or as to anything which came to his knowledge in Court as such Judge or Magistrate; but he may be examined as to other matters which occurred in his presence whilst he was so acting.
Illustrations.
(a) A, on his trial before the Court of Session, says that a deposition was improperly taken by B, the Magistrate. B cannot be compelled to answer questions as to this, except upon the special order of a superior Court.
(b) A is accused before the Court of Session of having given false evidence before B, a Magistrate. B cannot be asked what A said, except upon the special order of the superior Court.
(c) A is accused before the Court of Session of attempting to murder a police officer
No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 122 of Evidence Act, 1872
No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 123 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a significant legislative reform aimed at consolidating and modernizing the rules of evidence in India. Section 129 specifically addresses the admissibility of evidence related to state affairs, emphasizing the protection of unpublished official records.
Section 129 of the BSA states that no individual shall be permitted to provide evidence derived from unpublished official records concerning any affairs of State, unless they have obtained permission from the appropriate authority.
The section does not explicitly outline penalties or punishments for violations; however, the implications of unauthorized disclosure could lead to legal consequences under other applicable laws.
No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 124 of Evidence Act, 1872
No Magistrate or police officer shall be compelled to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenue officer shall be compelled to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue.
Explanation.-"revenue officer" means any officer employed in or about the business of any branch of the public revenue.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 125 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) No advocate, shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his service as such advocate, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional service, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such service:
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure of-
(b) any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his service as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his service.
(2) It is immaterial whether the attention of such advocate referred to in the proviso to sub-section
If any party to a suit gives evidence therein at his own instance or otherwise, he shall not be deemed to have consented thereby to such disclosure as is mentioned in section 132; and, if any party to a suit or proceeding calls any such advocate, as a witness, he shall be deemed to have consented to such disclosure only if he questions such advocate, on matters which, but for such question, he would not be at liberty to disclose.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 128 of Evidence Act, 1872
No one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 129 of Evidence Act, 1872
No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 130 of Evidence Act, 1872
No one shall be compelled to produce documents in his possession or electronic records under his control, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession or control, unless such last-mentioned person consents to their production.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 131 of Evidence Act, 1872
A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind:
Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution forgiving false evidence by such answer.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 132 of Evidence Act, 1872
An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony of an accomplice.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 133 of Evidence Act, 1872
No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 134 of Evidence Act, 1872
The order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 135 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise.
(2) If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking.
(3) If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact.
(1) The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.
(2) The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
(3) The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination, by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 137 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
(2) The examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
(3) The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 138 of Evidence Act, 1872
A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 139 of Evidence Act, 1872
Witnesses to character may be cross-examined and re-examined.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 140 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question.
(2) Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court.
(3) The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved.
(4) Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 141, 142 & 143 of Evidence Act, 1872
Any witness may be asked, while under examination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which he is giving evidence, was not contained in a document, and if he says that it was, or if he is about to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which, in the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse party may object to such evidence being given until such document is produced, or until facts have been proved which entitle the party who called the witness to give secondary evidence of it.
Explanation.-A witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other persons about the contents of documents if such statements are in themselves relevant facts.
Illustration.
The question is, whether A assaulted B. C deposes that he heard A say to D-"B wrote a letter accusing me of theft, and I will be revenged on him". This statement is relevant, as sho
A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 145 of Evidence Act, 1872
Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, governs the scope of cross-examination of witnesses regarding their previous statements made in writing or reduced into writing, primarily to test credibility and consistency. It aligns with principles of fair trial and effective judicial examination, expanding the scope of prior statement evidence in line with the new evidence law.
Section 148 permits a witness to be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, provided such statements are relevant to the matters in question. It emphasizes that prior statements can be used to contradict or corroborate the witness's current testimony.
This concise commentary encapsulates the essence, scope, and legal significance of Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, supported by relevant legal principles and judicial perspectives.
When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend-
(b) to discover who he is and what is his position in life; or
(c) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him, or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture:
Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience
If any such question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions of section 137 shall apply thereto.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 147 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) If any such question relates to a matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so far as it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character, the Court shall decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn the witness that he is not obliged to answer it.
(2) In exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard to the following considerations, namely:-
(b) such questions are improper if the imputation which they convey relates to matters so remote in time, or of such a character, that the truth of the imputation would not affect, or would affect in a slight degree, the opinion of the Court as to the cre
No such question as is referred to in section 151 ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well-founded.
Illustrations.
(a) An advocate is instructed by another advocate that an important witness is a dacoit. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.
(b) An advocate is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a dacoit. The informant, on being questioned by the advocate, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dacoit.
(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random whether he is a dacoit. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question.
(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his mode of l
If the Court is of opinion that any such question was asked without reasonable grounds, it may, if it was asked by any advocate, report the circumstances of the case to the High Court or other authority to which such advocate is subject in the exercise of his profession.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 150CLOUD_STORAGE_BUCKET_NAME_ACT_FILES of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court may forbid any questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 151 of Evidence Act, 1872
The Court shall forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 152 of Evidence Act, 1872
When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
Exception 1.-If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction.
Exception 2.-If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.
Illustrations.
(a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud. The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim. The evidence is inadmissib
(1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 154 of Evidence Act, 1872
The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him-
(b) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.
Explanation.-A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
When a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives evidence of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other circumstances which he observed at or near to the time or place at which such relevant fact occurred, if the Court is of opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies.
Illustration.
A, an accomplice, gives an account of a robbery in which he took part. He describes various incidents unconnected with the robbery which occurred on his way to and from the place where it was committed. Independent evidence of these facts may be given in order to corroborate his evidence as to the robbery itself.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 156 of Evidence Act, 1872
In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 157 of Evidence Act, 1872
Whenever any statement, relevant under section 26 or 27, is proved, all matters may be proved either in order to contradict or to corroborate it, or in order to impeach or confirm the credit of the person by whom it was made, which might have been proved if that person had been called as a witness and had denied upon cross-examination the truth of the matter suggested.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 158 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory:
Provided that the witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it, he knew it to be correct.
(2) Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:
Provided that the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original:
Provided further that an expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.
------------------
A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 162, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.
Illustration.
A book-keeper may testify to facts recorded by him in books regularly kept in the course of business, if he knows that the books were correctly kept, although he has forgotten the particular transactions entered.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 160 of Evidence Act, 1872
Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding sections shall be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 161 of Evidence Act, 1872
(1) A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to Court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility:
Provided that the validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the Court.
(2) The Court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility.
(3) If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:
Provided that no Court shall require any communication between the Minis
Section 165 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, governs the production of documents by witnesses in court proceedings. It aims to streamline the process of evidence presentation, ensuring that relevant documents are produced when in the possession or control of witnesses, thereby facilitating fair trials and effective adjudication.
Section 165 mandates that a witness summoned to produce a document must, if it is in their possession or power, bring it to court, regardless of any objections. The section emphasizes the obligation of witnesses to produce relevant documents, with certain exceptions provided by the law.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, does not specify explicit punishments for non-compliance with Section 165. However, failure to produce documents as required may lead to adverse inferences or contempt proceedings, depending on the circumstances and judicial discretion.
Note: The analysis is based on the provided sources, emphasizing the legal framework, scope, obligations, and procedural aspects of Section 165 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
When a party calls for a document which he has given the other party notice to produce, and such document is produced and inspected by the party calling for its production, he is bound to give it as evidence if the party producing it requires him to do so.
------------------
Corresponding old Law : Section 163 of Evidence Act, 1872
When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court.
Illustration.
A sues B on an agreement and gives B notice to produce it. At the trial, A calls for the document and B refuses to produce it. A gives secondary evidence of its contents. B seeks to produce the document itself to contradict the secondary evidence given by A, or in order to show that the agreement is not stamped. He cannot do so.
The Judge may, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, ask any question he considers necessary, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their representatives shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question:
Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Adhiniyam to be relevant, and duly proved:
Provided further that this section shall not authorise any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 127 to 136, both inclusive, if the question were asked or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall th
The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision.
(1) The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [1 of 1872] is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, if, immediately before the date on which this Adhiniyam comes into force, there is any application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending, then, such application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [1 of 1872], as in force immediately before such commencement, as if this Adhiniyam had not come into force.
Section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) pertains to the repeal of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and establishes transitional provisions ensuring ongoing legal proceedings are not disrupted by the new legislation. The Act aims to modernize evidence law, incorporating electronic and digital records, and consolidates general principles for a fair trial.
Section 170 repeals the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, effective from April 2023, while safeguarding pending cases. It stipulates that ongoing trials at the time of enactment will continue under the old law, and no new rules will retroactively affect those proceedings.
The section applies broadly to all judicial proceedings, including courts-martial, that are ongoing at the time of the Act's commencement. It ensures continuity and legal certainty by preventing the immediate application of the new evidence rules to cases not yet concluded.
Section 170 does not specify any punishment, as it primarily deals with procedural and transitional provisions related to the repeal of an earlier law.
Note: The analysis is based on the provided sources, emphasizing the transitional and repealing aspects of Section 170, with contextual insights into the broader objectives of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
THE SCHEDULE
[See section 63(4)(c)]
CERTIFICATE
PART A
(To be filled by the Party)
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is a significant legislative reform that replaces the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. It aims to modernize the rules and principles governing evidence in judicial proceedings, ensuring a fair trial while adapting to contemporary needs, particularly in the digital era.
The Schedule of the BSA outlines various provisions related to the admissibility and evaluation of evidence, including the treatment of electronic records, documentary evidence, and oral testimonies.
Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
AI Assistant
