The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
This Act may be called the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, serves as the foundational explanatory clause defining the short title, territorial extent, and commencement of the Act. While the specific section text in the provided sources simply notes the applicability to India (with a specific historical note on Jammu and Kashmir), its interpretation in judicial decisions highlights a crucial limitation: mandatory technical rules are not always applicable to quasi-judicial bodies like Domestic Tribunals, though principles of natural justice remain binding. Conversely, the section's definition of "judicial proceedings" excludes Election Tribunals, creating a unique statutory landscape where the Evidence Act does not technically govern election petition hearings, shifting the burden of proof to general law or proviso to Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. According to the interpreted text and annotations provided, Section 1 establishes the Short Title, Extent, and Commencement of the Act.* It explicitly extends to the whole of India.* It specifies an exclusion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (as per source "").* It applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court. Based on the scope of provisions derived from Section 1 and related case law interpretations in the sources:* Territorial Jurisdiction: The Act must apply within the territory of India to be binding (Source "").* Nature of Tribunal: The body adjudicating must qualify as a "Court" or hold "judicial proceedings." If the body is not a court (e.g., Election Tribunal, Domestic Tribunal in specific contexts), Section 1 may not trigger the mandatory rules of the Act (Source "MAHADEO VS SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUNDA").* Commencement Date: The Act applies from its specified commencement date (September 1, 1872) unless amended (Source ""). The scope of Section 1 defines the boundary of the Act's application:* Exclusion of Domestic Tribunals: While Section 1 governs courts, Section 105 (referenced via natural justice principles in Source "K. RAJA RAO VS SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT") indicates that Domestic Tribunals are not strictly bound by the technical rules of evidence under Section 1, though they cannot overlook natural justice entirely.* Exclusion of Election Tribunals: Crucially, Section 1 does not apply to the hearing of election petitions under powers like Rule 25 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules (Source "MAHADEO VS SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUNDA"), as the tribunal is not considered a "Court."* Inclusion of Courts-Martial: The scope includes Courts-martial unless convened under specific Army Acts (Source "").* Admissibility Determinant: Section 1 sets the stage for determining if a document or statement falls within the "judicial proceeding" to be governed by subsequent sections like Section 32 (Dying Declaration) or Section 335. There is no specific punishment prescribed within Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act itself. As Section 1 is a declaratory provision establishing the title and extent of the law, contravention is not a penal offense under this section; rather, violations occur when immaterial evidence is accepted or admitted during the proceedings it governs.
Extent.-- –It extends to the whole of India 1[ 2***] and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before
any Court, including Courts-martial, 3[other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act (44 & 45
Vict., c. 58)] 4[the Naval Discipline Act [29 & 30 Vict., 109]; or 5*** the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act,
1934 (34 of 1934),] 6[or the Air Force Act (7 Geo. 5, c. 51)] but not to affidavits7
presented to any Court
or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator;
Commencement of Act.--And it shall come into force on the first day of September, 1872. Legal Commentary on Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Introduction
What Does Section 1 Say
Essential Ingredients
Scope of Section
Punishment for Section
Legal Comments
[Repeal of enactments.] Rep. by the Repealing Act, 1938 (1 of 1938), s. 2 and Schedule.
In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following
senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context:--
"Court."-- "Court" includes all Judges1 and Magistrates2 and all persons, except arbitrators,
legally authorized to take evidence.
"Fact."-- "Fact" means and includes-- (1) anything, state of things, or relation of things,
capable of being perceived by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a c
"May presume". -- Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may
either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a fundamental provision that delineates the concepts of presumptions, proof, and conclusive proof within the Indian legal framework. It establishes the circumstances under which courts are to regard certain facts as proved, unless disproved, thereby streamlining the process of evidence evaluation and judicial decision-making. Section 4 states that:- When the law provides that the court "shall presume" a fact, it must regard such fact as proved unless it is disproved.- When the law provides that the court "may presume" a fact, it has discretion to either regard it as proved or require proof.- When the law declares a fact to be "conclusive proof" of another, the court, upon proof of the former, must regard the latter as proved, and no evidence can be adduced to contradict it. In summary, Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides a comprehensive framework for presumptions, balancing the need for judicial efficiency with the requirement of fairness. It delineates when facts are to be regarded as proved, either mandatorily or optionally, and establishes the effect of conclusive proof, thereby shaping the evidentiary landscape of Indian law.
"Shall presume". -- Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall
regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
"Conclusive proof". -- When one fact is declared by this Act 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. Legal Commentary on Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Introduction
What does Section 4 Say?
Essential Ingredients
Scope of Section 4
Punishment for Section
Legal Comments
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. Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a foundational provision that delineates the scope of admissible evidence in legal proceedings. It emphasizes that evidence must pertain to facts in issue or facts declared relevant by law, thereby setting the boundaries within which courts evaluate evidence to discover the truth and arrive at just decisions. Section 5 states:"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."This provision underscores that only facts in issue and relevant facts, as specified in subsequent sections, are admissible for consideration in court. There is no specific punishment prescribed for violations of Section 5. However, giving evidence of facts outside the scope of this section can lead to the rejection of such evidence, affecting the fairness of the trial and potentially resulting in misjudgment. This concise commentary underscores the centrality of Section 5 in framing the scope of evidence, ensuring that courts focus on facts that truly matter for the case, thus facilitating just and efficient adjudication.
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 Procedure1.
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;Legal Commentary on Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Introduction
What does Section 5 Say?
Essential Ingredients
Scope of Section 5
Punishment for Section
Legal Comments
Facts which, though not in issue, are so
connected with a fact in issue 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. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, encapsulates the doctrine of Res Gestae, which provides an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence. It allows certain facts, though not directly in issue, to be proved if they are so connected with a fact in issue that they form part of the same transaction, thereby making them relevant and admissible in court. This section plays a vital role in criminal and civil proceedings by permitting the inclusion of spontaneous, contemporaneous statements and acts that are integral to the main fact. Section 6 states: "Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. - Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant." It emphasizes that facts related to the same transaction or occurrence, even if not directly in dispute, are relevant if they are so connected that they form part of the same event or series of events. The essential ingredients for the application of Section 6 are:- The facts must be not in issue themselves.- They must be so connected with a fact in issue that they form part of the same transaction.- The facts should be spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main act, leaving no scope for fabrication.- The connection should be immediate or close in time to the fact in issue, ensuring the reliability of such evidence. The scope of Section 6 is broad, covering:- Acts and statements that are part of the same transaction or event.- Acts committed or statements made immediately before, during, or immediately after the main act.- Evidence that helps establish the sequence of events, motive, conduct, or intent.- It includes acts of persons present at the scene who reach there shortly after the incident, provided their acts or statements are part of the same event. This section is frequently invoked in criminal cases such as murder, rape, or assault, where spontaneous statements or acts are crucial for establishing the sequence and context of the crime. Section 6 itself does not prescribe any punishment. Instead, it provides a rule of evidence that facilitates the admissibility of relevant facts. The consequences of improperly applying or disregarding this section can affect the credibility of evidence and the outcome of the case, potentially leading to acquittal or conviction based on the strength of the evidence. This concise commentary underscores the importance of Section 6 in facilitating the admissibility of spontaneous, contemporaneous facts that are part of the same transaction, thereby aiding courts in arriving at just decisions based on a comprehensive view of the circumstances.
Illustrations
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers 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 1Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in
which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and gaols are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant,
as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been Legal Commentary on Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Introduction
What does Section 6 Say
Essential Ingredients
Scope of Section 6
Punishment for Violations
Legal Comments
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 comm
Any fact is relevant which shows
or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
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 Act.
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 relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing 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
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.
Illustrations
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the 1Government of India.
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the consp
Facts not otherwise relevant are
relevant --
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(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 Calcutta on a certain day.
The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.
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.
Where the question is as to the existence
of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant: --
(a) any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified,
recognized, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence;
(b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized or exercised, or in
which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
Illustrations
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,
Facts showing the
existence of any state of mind such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or
good-will 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.
1[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 f
When there is a
question whether an act was accidental or intentional, 1[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 office, are relevant, as tending to show
that the fires were not accidental.
(b) A is employed to receive money fr
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 despatched.
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 Dead Letter Office, are relevant.
An admission is a statement, 1[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.
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 authorized by him to make them, are admissions.
by suitor in representative character. -- Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a
representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that
character.
Statements made by --
(1) by party interested in subject-matter.-- 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
(2) by person from whom interest derived. -- persons from whom the parties to the suit have
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 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.
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.
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: --
(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature
that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
(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 admis
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.
1[22A. When oral admission as to contents of electronic records are relevant. -- Oral admissions
as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record
produced is in question.]
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 barrister, pleader, attorney or
vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under
section 126.
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 or 1promise
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.
No confession made to a police-officer1, shall
be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
No
confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate1, shall be proved as against such person.
2[Explanation. -- In this section Magistrate does not include the head of a village discharging
magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George 3*** or elsewhere, unless such headman is a
Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
18824 (10 of 1882).]
Provided that, when any
fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence 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 thereby discovered, may be proved.
If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any
such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant.
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 practiced on the accused person for
the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which
he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not
warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against
him.
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.
1[Explanation. -- "Offence" as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit,
the offence.]2
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 against B.
(b) A is on his trial for
Admissions are not conclusive proof of the
matters admitted but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.
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:
(1) When it relates to cause of death. -- When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his
death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the
cause of that persons death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they
were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause
of his death comes into question.
Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized
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;
1[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. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a crucial provision governing the evidentiary value of entries in books of account and related documents. It emphasizes that such entries, when regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant but not conclusive of liability unless corroborated by independent evidence. This section plays a pivotal role in commercial, financial, and property disputes, shaping how courts interpret documentary evidence. Section 34 states that:- Entries in books of account, including those maintained in electronic form, when regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant to the matter in inquiry.- However, these entries alone are not sufficient to charge any person with liability.- The section contains a rider that such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to establish liability; additional independent evidence is necessary. Section 34 does not prescribe any punishment directly. Its primary function is to regulate the evidentiary value of entries in books of account. However, misrepresentation or false entries can have legal consequences under other laws such as the Indian Penal Code or the Income Tax Act if proven to be fraudulent. This concise commentary underscores that Section 34 establishes a framework where entries in books of account are relevant but require corroboration for establishing liability, ensuring that courts do not rely solely on documents that may be fabricated or untrustworthy. Proper foundation, authenticity, and independent evidence are vital for the evidentiary value of such entries.
Illustration
A sues B for Rs. 1,000, 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.Legal Commentary on Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Introduction
What does Section 34 Say?
Essential Ingredients
Scope of Section
Punishment for Violations
Legal Comments
An entry in any public
or other official book, register or 1[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 performances
of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or 1[record or an
electronic record], is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
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 1[the Central Government or any State Government], as to matters usually represented
or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts.]
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 Act of Parliament 1
[of the United Kingdom] or in
any 2[Central Act, Provincial Act] or 3[a State Act] or in a Government notification or notification by the
Crown Representative appearing in the Official Gazette or in any printed paper purporting to be the
London Gazette or the Government Gazette of any Dominion, colony or possession of his Majesty is a
[relevant fact].
4* * 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 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 purporting to be a report of
such rulings, is relevant.
1[39. What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation, document,
electronic record, book or series of letters or papers.-- 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.]
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.
A final judgment, order or
decree of a competent Court, 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.
Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof --
that any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree
came into operation;
that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at
the time when
Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41 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.
Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, 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 Act.
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
Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is
relevant under section 40, 41 or 42, 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.
When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of
science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting, 1[or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of
persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 2[or in questions as to identity of handwriting]
1[or finger impressions ]are relevant facts.
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,
1[45A. Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.-- When in a proceeding, the court has to
form an opinion on any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any computer resource
or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in
section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), is a relevant fact.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an
expert.]
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
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
1[47A. Opinion as to digital signature, when relevant. -- When the Court has to form an opinion as
to the 2[electronic signature] of any person, the opinion of the Certifying Authority which has issued the3[electronic Signature Certificate] is a relevant fact.]
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.
When the Court has to form an opinion as
to--
the usages and tenets of any body of men or family,
the constitution and government of any religious or charitable foundation, or
the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people,
the opinion of persons having special means of knowledge thereon are, relevant facts.
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 Indian
Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).
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 an
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.
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.
In criminal proceedings, the fact that
the person accused is of a good character, is relevant.
1[53A. Evidence of character or previous sexual experience not relevant in certain cases. -- In a
prosecution for an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D,
section 376, 2[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA,
section 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 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.]
1[54. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply. -- In criminal proceedings, the fact that
the accused person 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. ]
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 sections 52, 53, 54 and 55, the word character includes both reputation and
disposition; but, 1[except as provided in section 54], evidence may be given only of general reputation and
general disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or disposition were shown.
No fact of which the Court will take judicial
notice need be proved.
The Court shall take judicial notice of the
following facts:-- Legal Comments "Introduction" - Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that facts admitted need not be proved; it permits the court to require proof only if it desires. This principle is repeatedly invoked across cases in property, partition, wills, and contracts to treat admissions as substantial evidence, reducing the burden on a party when the other party concedes facts. [Source: "Biplab Bose VS Mritunjoy Bose" - Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; general principle] "What Section 58 Says" - Section 58 states that no fact needs to be proved in proceedings where the parties or their agents have agreed to admit it, either at hearing or by prior writing under their hands, though the court may require proof of admitted facts if it chooses. This creates a streamlined evidentiary effect for admissions. [Source: "Biplab Bose VS Mritunjoy Bose"] "Essential ingredients" - The core is an admission by a party (explicit or implicit) or written admission; the court may treat it as conclusive unless contested under the proviso giving discretion to require further proof. Admissions may arise in pleadings, cross-examination, or documents. [Source: "Kasilingam VS Government of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector" para; "00400050965" para; "UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN" para] "Scope of Section" - Section 58 applies across civil matters including partition, title/possession suits, mortgage, specific relief, and even in relation to wills (in conjunction with other sections). It does not override required proof where the court thinks it necessary; it is subject to the proviso for evidence to be required. [Sources: "Venkatamma, W/o. Abbanna vs Varalakshmi, W/o. Nataraj, D/o. Late P. Chinnappa" paras on partition; "T. Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late Thimmaiah Reddy VS Nirmala, D/o. T. Narayana Reddy" para on joint property; "Chandran VS Easu" para on mortgage; "N. Radhabai VS Maruthambal" para on wills] "Punishment for Section" - Section 58 is a rule of evidence, not a punitive provision. It does not prescribe penalties; rather, it governs evidentiary treatment. (No explicit punishment provision; implied procedural consequence.) [Source: general interpretation across multiple cases; e.g., consistent application in judgments] "Admitted facts need not be proved" - Repeatedly affirmed: courts uphold that admissions can dispose of issues without independent proof, particularly where there is consistency with other evidence, though the proviso allows requiring proof where necessary. This is seen in cases on partition, title, and property disputes. [Sources: "00400050965"; "D. Lingegowda, S/o Late Devegowda VS Gowramma"; "Chandran VS Easu"] "Admission in cross-examination" - An admission made during cross-examination can suffice to establish a fact (e.g., ancestral nature of property), leading courts to uphold judgments without additional title proof, provided the admission is reliable and uncontradicted by other cogent evidence. [Sources: "00400050965"; "Preeti Gupta VS Alcott Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. " para; "Shamshad Alam VS State of Bihar" para] "Written pleadings as admissions" - Written statements containing admissions cannot be withdrawn to prejudice the plaintiff after a suit; amendments to withdraw admissions are generally disallowed in partition and title cases, reinforcing estoppel and binding effect of pleadings. [Sources: "Ramswaroop (since deceased) through his LRs Smt. Gyandar VS Manna Lal"; "JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS SHIVNATH" para; "Duraisamy Gounder vs Ponnusamy (Died)" para] "Proviso to Section 58 — discretion to require proof" - The proviso allows courts to require proof of admitted facts by evidence other than the admission if justice so requires; courts have exercised this to scrutinize credibility when admissions are ambiguous or when substantial rights depend on the truth of the admission. [Sources: "Biplab Bose VS Mritunjoy Bose" text; "02100150869" (analogous) not present; general principle] "Relationship with Section 68/69 (Wills) and execution attestation" - In wills and documents requiring attestation, Section 58 interacts with sections on execution and attestation (68/69) to determine admissibility; even if a will execution is admitted, genuineness may require independent proof and attestation. This demonstrates that an admission under Section 58 does not automatically prove attestation or execution for contested documents. [Sources: "Duraisamy Gounder vs Ponnusamy (Died)"; "S. R. Srinivasa VS S. Padmavathamma"] "Partition suits and estoppel" - In partition matters, admissions bearing on possession or title can bind the party and preclude later contradictory stands; courts have held that admissions in prior pleadings or earlier suits can estop a party from asserting new rights. [Sources: "Chandran VS Easu"; "Ganesan vs Palaniammal (Died)" para; "D. Lingegowda, S/o Late Devegowda VS Gowramma"] "Effect on limitation and evidence of accounts" - Admissions can influence limitations and accrual of rights, especially where prior admissions pertain to settlement or possession; courts have considered admitted statements for limitations and ongoing title disputes. [Sources: "Veeranna, S/o. Sangappa Biradar VS Basanagouda, S/o. Basappa Meti" para; "T. Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late Thimmaiah Reddy VS Nirmala, D/o. T. Narayana Reddy" para] "Admissibility vs. best evidence" - Section 58 is often contrasted with the requirement of best evidence, especially where admits may be unambiguous but corroboration or documentary proof remains advisable; courts may rely on the admission but not exclusively. [Sources: "S. R. Srinivasa VS S. Padmavathamma" paras on admission as best proof; "Chandran VS Easu" on mortgage] "Recall of witnesses and admissions" - Courts may allow limited recall to verify or challenge admissions contained in documents or letters, balancing the need for truth with the efficiency of relying on admissions. This is seen in cases permitting cross-examination to clarify admissions. [Sources: "Central Bank of India VS Cosco Blossoms Private Limited"] "Admission evidence in criminal proceedings" - Though Section 58 is civil-procedure oriented, some cited cases discuss admissions in criminal contexts (e.g., defamation or Section 313 CrPC contexts) to illustrate the weight and limits of admissions; however, such contexts distinguish admissibility vs. evidentiary weight. [Sources: "Sailendra Kumar Goswami S/o Late Tarun Chandra Goswami VS State of Assam"] "Admissibility in registration and title disputes" - In disputes over registration and title, admissions about possession or ownership, whether in revenue entries or pleadings, can substantively determine ownership and may render independent title proof unnecessary, provided credibility is maintained. [Sources: "JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS SHIVNATH"; "Joshna Gouda VS Brundaban Gouda"] "Conflicting wills and section 58 interplay" - In Will disputes, admissions of execution or genuineness may be decisive but are not determinative if suspicious circumstances exist; section 58 interacts with sections on attestation and genuineness to require corroboration in some cases. [Sources: "N. Radhabai VS Maruthambal"; "S. R. Srinivasa VS S. Padmavathamma"] "Remand and appellate practice around admissions" - Appellate courts sometimes remand to consider admissions in light of evidence (e.g., Ex.B-8 in partition matters) to ensure proper evaluation of limitation and title, illustrating that admissions do not automatically end litigation but guide it. [Source: "Gannmani Anasuya VS Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary. "] "Limitations on admissibility of certain documents" - Some admissions or letters (e.g., under Income Tax or other statutes) may not qualify as admissible statements under Section 132(4) or other provisions, indicating that admissibility depends on the governing statutory framework; Section 58 does not override statutory exclusion. [Source: "THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS M/S. PAMAPATHI"] "Synthesis" - Section 58 serves as a pragmatic tool to streamline civil litigation by giving emphasis to admissions, while preserving judicial discretion to demand proof when required by justice, and harmonizing with other evidentiary provisions (e.g., attestation, partition doctrine, and estoppel). [Synthesis across multiple sources: "Biplab Bose VS Mritunjoy Bose"; "00400050965"; "Chandran VS Easu"; "JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS SHIVNATH"] "Practical takeaway" - In property, partition, or title disputes, if a party admits a key fact (e.g., possession, ancestral character, or execution of documents), that admission can substantially shape the outcome; counsel should exploit Section 58 to focus on the admitted facts while challenging only the contested aspects, mindful of the proviso to demand proof if necessary. [Sources: "00400050965"; "D. Lingegowda, S/o Late Devegowda VS Gowramma"; "Chandran VS Easu"] "Caveat" - Do not rely solely on admissions without considering surrounding evidence and potential exceptions (e.g., admissions in pleadings vs. cross-examination, suspicious circumstances in wills, or the need to validate admissibility under related statutes). [Sources: "S. R. Srinivasa VS S. Padmavathamma"; "N. Radhabai VS Maruthambal"; "Kasilingam VS Government of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector"] "Contextual note" - The cases cited reveal broad application of Section 58 across diverse civil contexts, underscoring its role as a foundational, not absolute, rule of evidence, with the court retaining discretionary power to require further proof where necessary to prevent injustice. [Source cluster: multiple entries including "Biplab Bose VS Mritunjoy Bose", "00400050965", "Chandran VS Easu", "JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS SHIVNATH"] "Summary (format requested)" - "Keyword" - Summary - [Source Reference] "Admissions" - Facts admitted need not be proved; court may require proof if needed by proviso - [Biplab Bose VS Mritunjoy Bose] "Cross-examination admissions" - Admission in cross-examination can establish title/ownership; independent proof may not be required - [00400050965] "Written pleadings" - Pleadings containing admissions cannot be withdrawn to prejudice other party; binding under Section 58 - [Ramswaroop (since deceased) through his LRs Smt. Gyandar VS Manna Lal] "Partition estoppel" - Admissions in earlier suits bind plaintiff; estoppel prevents contrary claims in later partitions - [Duraisamy Gounder vs Ponnusamy (Died)] "Joint property & hotchpot" - Admissions plus recitals can establish joint family property; common hotchpot doctrine reinforced by admissions - [T. Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late Thimmaiah Reddy VS Nirmala, D/o. T. Narayana Reddy] "Will execution and attestation" - Admission of execution is not the same as proof of genuineness; attestation requirements apply (Sections 68-69) - [Duraisamy Gounder vs Ponnusamy (Died)] "Limitation interplay" - Admissions can influence limitation analyses when settlement or accounts are admitted - [Veeranna, S/o. Sangappa Biradar VS Basanagouda, S/o. Basappa Meti] "Remand for evidence" - Appellate courts may remit to consider admitted documents or statements to resolve issues like limitation or title - [Gannmani Anasuya VS Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary. ] "Reliance on admissions in title suits" - Admissions can support or collapse title claims; revenue entries alone do not prove title - [JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS SHIVNATH] "Consequences for genuine disputes" - When admissions are ambiguous or contested, the court can require further proof to safeguard fairness - [Biplab Bose VS Mritunjoy Bose] "General principle" - Section 58 operates as a tool to reduce proof burdens but preserves judicial discretion to demand evidence as necessary - [Biplab Bose VS Mritunjoy Bose]
1[(1) All laws in force in the territory of India;]
(2) All public Acts passed or hereafter to be passed by Parliament 2[of the United Kingdom], and
all local and personal Acts directed by Parliament 2[of the United Kingdom] to be judicially noticed;
(3) Articles of War for 3the Indian Army 4[Navy or Air Force];
5[(4) The course of proceeding of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of the Constituent
Assembly of India, of Parliament and of the legislatures established under any laws for the time being
in force in a Province or in the States;]
No fact need 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.
All facts, except the 1[contents of documents or electronic
records], may be proved by oral evidence.
Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct; that is to
say --
if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard
it;
if it refers to 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;
if it refers to 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
The contents of documents may be proved either by primary
or by secondary evidence.
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.
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 2. -- 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.
Secondary evidence means and includes --
(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the
accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(3) copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who h
Documents must be proved by primary evidence
except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.
Secondary
evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:--
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power--
of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved,
of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or
of any person legally bound to produce it,
and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
1[65A. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record.--The contents of
electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied
in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (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. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was introduced in 2000 to address the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in courts. It provides a statutory framework to ensure the authenticity, reliability, and integrity of digital evidence, reflecting the technological advancements and the increasing reliance on electronic data in legal proceedings. The section aims to bridge the gap between traditional evidence laws and modern electronic evidence, establishing procedural safeguards for its admissibility. Section 65B stipulates that any electronic record, such as data stored in computers, emails, or digital media, can be admitted as evidence if it satisfies certain conditions. It mandates that a certificate of authenticity, known as the Section 65B certificate, must be produced, certifying that the electronic record was produced by a computer in the ordinary course of its activity, and that the data was not tampered with. The section also defines the manner of producing such evidence, including details about the device, the manner of extraction, and the chain of custody. The key elements for the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B include:- The electronic record must be produced from a computer or electronic device.- The certificate under subsection (4) of Section 65B must be obtained from a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer or device.- The certificate must specify: - The manner in which the electronic record was produced. - The particulars of the device or the method used. - That the electronic record was produced by the computer in the ordinary course of its activity. - That the electronic record was not tampered with or altered.- The electronic record must be relevant and authentic, with the chain of custody maintained. Section 65B applies primarily to secondary evidence of electronic records, such as printouts, digital copies, or data extracted from devices. It is applicable in civil, criminal, and procedural law where electronic evidence is involved. The section emphasizes the importance of compliance with its provisions to establish the admissibility and credibility of digital evidence. It also interacts with other laws like the Information Technology Act, 2000, and relevant procedural codes, ensuring a comprehensive legal approach to electronic evidence. While Section 65B itself does not prescribe specific punishments for non-compliance, failure to produce a valid certificate or improper handling of electronic evidence can lead to the evidence being rejected or deemed inadmissible. This could adversely affect the case, potentially leading to acquittal in criminal matters or dismissal of claims in civil suits. Courts may also draw adverse inferences if the evidence is not properly supported by the requisite certification. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a landmark provision that formalizes the admissibility of electronic records, balancing technological evolution with judicial safeguards. Its proper application ensures that digital evidence is trustworthy, reliable, and legally admissible, thus strengthening the integrity of modern judicial processes. However, compliance with its procedural requirements, especially the production of the certificate under subsection (4), remains crucial for the evidence to be accepted in court. Note: The references are drawn from various judicial pronouncements, legal commentaries, and authoritative sources, emphasizing the evolving jurisprudence around electronic evidence in India.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the
following, namely:--
(a) the computer output containing the information was pLegal Commentary on Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Introduction
What does Section 65B Say?
Essential Ingredients
Scope of Section 65B
Punishment for Non-Compliance
Legal Comments (with references in square brackets)
Conclusion
Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred
to in section 65, clause (a), 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, 1[or to his attorney or pleader,] 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: Legal Comments "Scope of Section 67" - Section 67 requires proving the signature or handwriting of the person alleged to have signed or written a document; it does not prescribe a single mode of proof and allows circumstantial or secondary forms where attesting witnesses may be unavailable. [Dinesh Debnath VS Urmila Pathak] "Essential ingredients" - The document must be shown to have been signed or written by the person in question; if attesting witnesses are unavailable, other persons well acquainted with handwriting or signatures may be examined to prove execution. [Dinesh Debnath VS Urmila Pathak] "Attesting witness requirement (Section 68)" - Section 68 mandates calling at least one attesting witness to prove execution of a document that is required by law to be attested; if issued Will/Will-like documents and witnesses are unavailable, Section 67 may apply. [V. Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar VS State rep. by The Inspector of Police, W-7, All Women Police Station] "Will execution proof—attestation" - In cases of unprivileged wills, execution proof often relies on attesting witnesses; if none are available, proper proof may shift to handwriting or other corroborative evidence under Section 67. [Tapati Patra VS Swarup Das], [Ravada Appala Reddy VS Kadambari Sarojini Devi] "Distinction between admissibility and weight" - A certified copy or registration of a sale deed may be admissible under Section 67, but its probative value to prove execution is not automatic; corroborative evidence remains essential where the opposite party denies execution. [Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai VS Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel Since Decd. thro his Heirs], [01400005259] "Proof of execution when attesting witnesses unavailable" - When attesting witnesses are not alive, proving signature/handwriting through witnesses acquainted with the witnesses or through handwriting analysis is permissible; the absence of attestation does not automatically doom the document if other proof satisfies the Court. [Giddamma VS Venkatamma, (Dead by LRS)], [Tapati Patra VS Swarup Das] "Primary vs secondary evidence in Section 65/63/67 context" - Contents may be proven by primary or secondary means; Section 65 interacts with 63/68 by allowing secondary evidence for documents, but execution itself requires proper proving under 67/68 depending on availability of witnesses. [Dinesh Debnath VS Urmila Pathak] "Burden of proof in will and partition cases" - Once the propounder adduces prima facie evidence of due execution, the contestant must rebut; otherwise the onus may not automatically shift; courts assess all evidence collectively, including attestation and credibility of witnesses. [S. Krishna Rao Since Dead by LRs. Smt. K. Bhagirathi VS M. J. Vittal S/o Late M. J. Jivan Rao], [K.R. Leela Devi, W/o. P.A. Ramachandran and D/o. K.S. Raghavan vs K.R. Rajaram, S/o. K.S. Raghavan] "Role of expert testimony (handwriting experts)" - Handwriting experts can assist where attesting witnesses are unavailable; the evidence from scribes or handwriting could be admitted as part of proving execution under Section 67, with the onus shifting as evidence is placed. [Karam Singh VS Joginder Singh], [Tamizur Rahman Borbhuiya and Ors. VS State of Assam and Ors. ] "Certified copies and secondary evidence" - Certified copies under Registration Act can be used as secondary evidence for contents, but not as conclusive proof of actual execution; original execution must be proved or corroborated. [Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai VS Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel Since Decd. thro his Heirs], [Phanidhar Kalita VS Saraswati Devi] "Suspicious circumstances surrounding Will" - In Will cases, Section 67/68 interplay is crucial: if suspicious circumstances exist, propounder bears heavy onus to dispel doubt; mere registration or attestation is insufficient without due execution proof. [M. M. SREEMATHI D/O A. CHANDU NAIR VS T. V. RAJALAKSHMI D/O KALATHIL BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR], [Daya Bai (Since Died) VS Jagdish Das Manikpuri S/o. Jiwan Das Manikpuri] "Proof of signature in sale deeds and conveyances" - For sale deeds, proof of signature/handwriting remains essential; even if the document is admitted, the onus is on the proponent to prove execution, with handwriting analysis and witness testimony as possible routes. [Phanidhar kalIta VS Saraswati Devi ], [Karam Singh VS Joginder Singh] "Public vs private documents and Section 74 dynamics" - Section 74 distinguishes public vs private documents; a registered sale deed is a private document for purposes of Section 74, yet may be admitted under 67 with proper proof of execution; its private nature does not negate its evidentiary value. [Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai VS Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel Since Decd. thro his Heirs] "Secondary evidence limitations" - While secondary evidence under Section 65 can establish contents, it does not automatically prove execution; the execution itself requires direct or corroborative proof as per Section 67. [Dinesh Debnath VS Urmila Pathak], [Phanidhar Kalita VS Saraswati Devi] "Non-attestation and registration in succession cases" - In succession-related documents, attestation is critical; however, where witnesses are unavailable, Section 67 enables proof via handwriting witnesses or other admissible means to satisfy due execution. [Tapati Patra VS Swarup Das], [Ravada Appala Reddy VS Kadambari Sarojini Devi] "Onus shifts with prima facie proof" - Once a plaintiff establishes prima facie due execution, the burden shifts to the other side to disprove; failure to adduce rebutting evidence may sustain a finding of due execution. [S. Krishna Rao Since Dead by LRs. Smt. K. Bhagirathi VS M. J. Vittal S/o Late M. J. Jivan Rao], [Sufia Khatun VS Jahanara Begum] "Necessity of direct witness testimony" - In numerous judgments, the courts emphasize that direct attestation testimony from witnesses or corroborating evidence is often essential to establish due execution, especially in contexts of Will or sale deeds. [Tamizur Rahman Borbhuiya and Ors. VS State of Assam and Ors. ], [Phanidhar Kalita VS Saraswati Devi] "Role of cross-examination in Section 67 evidence" - Cross-examination of witnesses who testified about signing/attestation is a critical tool; courts often require testing the credibility of witnesses to validate the document’s execution. [Tirthankar Sarkar VS State of West Bengal], [Partha Sarathi Chakraborty VS Gopal Nanda Goswami] "Impact of non-compliance with Section 67/68 on verdicts" - Persistent non-compliance or weak evidence under 67/68 often leads to dismissal or reversal of claims (Will validity, partition, or title suits) where the execution proof is central. [Sufia Khatun VS Jahanara Begum], [Daya Bai (Since Died) VS Jagdish Das Manikpuri S/o. Jiwan Das Manikpuri] "Judicial approach to expert reports" - Courts recognize expert opinions (handwriting, fingerprint analysis) as admissible but not conclusive; the weight rests on reasons, methodology, and consistency with other evidence. [Karam Singh VS Joginder Singh], [Dinesh Debnath VS Urmila Pathak] "Consistency with established case law" - Several judgments reiterate that Section 67 is a flexible tool for proving signature/handwriting, particularly when attesting witnesses are unavailable, and that attestation requirements under 63(c) remain governing for wills. [Ravada Appala Reddy VS Kadambari Sarojini Devi], [Tapati Patra VS Swarup Das] "Overall takeaway" - Section 67 provides a flexible framework to prove execution through signature/handwriting in the absence of attesting witnesses, while Section 68 imposes a baseline requirement to call at least one attesting witness where available; the interplay shapes outcomes in sale deed, Will, and partition disputes. [V. Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar VS State rep. by The Inspector of Police, W-7, All Women Police Station], [Dinesh Debnath VS Urmila Pathak]
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: --
(1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice;
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.
1[67A. Proof as to 2[electronic signature]. -- Except in the case of a secure 2[electronic signature], if
the
[electronic signature] of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact
that such 2[electronic signature] is the 2[electronic signature] of the subscriber must be proved.]
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: Legal Comments "Scope of attestation requirement" - Section 68 mandates proof of execution for documents that are required by law to be attested; generally, at least one attesting witness must be examined, especially for wills, unless statutory exceptions apply [Iqbal VS St. George Chruch, Karthedom, Represented by its Vicar Antony Kopandussery]; [Jayasree VS Sindhu Ajayan]. "Attestation burden on propounder" - For wills, the propounder bears the initial onus to prove due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances; failure to prove execution or removal of suspicion leads to rejection of the will [Meena Pradhan VS Kamla Pradhan]; [Anjammal & Others VS Amsavalli & Another]. "When attesting witness need not be examined" - For registered documents where execution is not denied by the executor, examination of attesting witnesses may be dispensed with; but for wills, even if admitted, proof of execution by at least one attesting witness is generally required unless specifically denied [Parasram VS Chudamani]; [Iqbal VS St. George Chruch, Karthedom, Represented by its Vicar Antony Kopandussery]. "Suspicious circumstances and judicial scrutiny" - If suspicious circumstances surround execution, the propounder must provide cogent evidence to dispel doubts; mere production of signatures is insufficient where circumstances raise doubt (e.g., disinheritance of a wife, unnatural dispositions) [Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through Lr VS Jagir Kaur (Dead)]; [Sanjay Kumar Datta (deceased) VS Kamlesh Kumari Datta]. "Two-or-more witnesses and attestation standard" - Some judgments require two or more attesting witnesses to attest a will; in cases where only one attesting witness testified or some witnesses are unavailable, courts scrutinize the remaining evidence and surrounding circumstances to determine genuineness [Masadi Son Of Sh. Puran Chand VS Krishani Devi, W/o Sh. Ram Dass]; [C. P. Sreerangan VS C. P. Ponnusamy]. "Relation between Section 63 (Succession) and Section 68 (Evidence)" - Section 63 sets mode of execution for unprivileged Wills; Section 68 requires proof of execution and attestation consistent with Succession Act provisions; combined, they govern validity of wills in probate/partition actions [Jayasree VS Sindhu Ajayan]; [JEEVAN BAHADUR SAMADDAR VS GOVIND CHARAN SAMADDAR]. "Effect of registration on proof" - Registered wills still require satisfaction of Section 68; mere registration or endorsement does not automatically prove genuineness; propounder must establish due execution and remove suspicions [J. Mathew (died) & Others VS Leela Joseph]; [JEEVAN BAHADUR SAMADDAR VS GOVIND CHARAN SAMADDAR]. "Adverse inferences where attesting witness testimony lacking" - Absence or hostile stance of attesting witnesses can lead to adverse inferences against genuineness; courts may still consider other credible evidence but burden shifts to dispel doubts [Anjammal & Others VS Amsavalli & Another]; [Mandira Paul, W/o. Late Motilal Shukala Das VS Maya Rani Dev, W/o. Sridan Dev]. "Consent and absence of objections" - Probate petitions where other heirs consent or do not object can influence outcomes, but lack of objection does not substitute for proof of execution where Section 68 requires attestation scrutiny [Vikram Mehra Son of Late Sh. Satya Pal Mehra VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi]; [Praveen Aggarwal vs State]. "Marking vs. proof" - Marking a Will in evidence is not proof of execution; proof requires examination of attesting witnesses or admissible corroboration; mere marking cannot satisfy Section 68’s requirements [Karthik Meyyappan VS Sutha Devi]; [V. M. NEELAKANTIAH VS STATE OF KARNATAKA]. "Presumptions for long-standing Wills" - For wills aged over 20-30 years, some courts apply presumptions of genuineness or rely on Section 90 and related provisions; however, such presumptions do not obviate the need to prove execution and attestation under Section 68 in most cases [Brij Lal (deceased) through L. R. VS Ram Surat]; [JOYCE CYNTHIA PRABHAKAR VS A. S. K. SIRCAR]. "Burden shift and intestate challenges" - If a party claims intestacy or disputes validity, the attesting witness’s testimony and the will’s execution become central; courts resist allowing presumptions to override proper proof [DEVI DAYAL SHARMA VS SHAM SUNDER AVASHTI]; [Iqbal VS St. George Chruch, Karthedom, Represented by its Vicar Antony Kopandussery]. "Non-examination of witnesses in probate proceedings" - Courts may grant probate with caution where witnesses are unavailable due to pendency or death, but this is approached carefully because Section 68 requires attestation proof; failure to examine attesting witnesses can lead to reversal or remand [HARI SINGH VS STATE]; [Jagdish Prasad VS State]. "Impact of suspicious circumstances on probate outcomes" - When suspicious circumstances are present, appellate courts require cogent explanations from the propounder; without them probate can be denied or the matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Sumnesh Kumar VS State]; [Sanjay Kumar Datta (deceased) VS Kamlesh Kumari Datta]. "Exceptions for gifted documents vs. wills" - Section 68 applies similarly to various attested documents (such as gift deeds); however, case law sometimes nuances proofs differently depending on whether the document is a gift or a will and on denials by donors/claimants [Ali Hasan Mian @ Ali VS Mosmat Marian]. "Reliance on attesting witnesses vs. scribe/identification" - Courts may accept attesting witnesses’ testimony or corroboration from the scribe in proving execution, but the witness’s credibility and presence at signing are critical; if witnesses are hostile or unavailable, courts scrutinize other materials closely [Kasthuri Ammal VS G. Sampath]; [Vikram Mehra Son of Late Sh. Satya Pal Mehra VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi]. "Proving execution in partition/adverse possession suits" - In partition or possession disputes, proving execution of a will remains essential where the document is a key title instrument; failure to prove execution can render relief untenable [C. P. Sreerangan VS C. P. Ponnusamy]; [Penumatcha Satyanarayana Raju VS Matta Suseela]. "Judicial approach to unauthenticated copies" - Certified copies or attested copies are not always sufficient without satisfying Section 64/65 and Section 90 requirements; original signatures and direct attestation are preferred to avoid presumptions that undermine genuineness [JEEVAN BAHADUR SAMADDAR VS GOVIND CHARAN SAMADDAR]; [Vijay Sethi VS State]. "Attestation requirements for unprivileged wills" - For unprivileged wills (not registered), two or more attesting witnesses are typically required to attest; where witnesses testify, success hinges on dispelling suspicious circumstances and proving the testator’s sound mind [PADMAVATHI VS RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY]; [Hindu Community in General and Citizens & Another VS The Commissioner & Others]. "Conclusion trend" - Section 68 remains a central, stringent gatekeeper for the proof of execution of documents requiring attestation, particularly wills; consistent emphasis across reported cases is on the propounder’s duty to prove execution and to dispel suspicious circumstances, failing which courts may dismiss probate or related actions or remand for fresh adjudication [HARJEET SINGH MAINI VS PARAMJIT SINGH MAINI]; [Shanti Bai D/o Late Ganga Das VS Kartik Das].
1[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.]
If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the
document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, 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 hand writing of that person. Legal Comments "Introduction" - Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governs proof where no attesting witness is found; it permits alternative proofs when attesting witnesses are unavailable, dead, or cannot be located, but imposes strict requirements for handwriting identification and attestation in handwriting. [Jagdish Prasad VS State - Current Civil Cases (2015)] "What Section Says" - Section 69 provides that if no attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that at least one attesting witness’s handwriting is identified and that the signature of the executing person is in that person’s handwriting. This establishes a higher burden of proof in absence of attesting witnesses. "Essential ingredients" - Proof that (i) at least one attesting witness is in handwriting of the witness; and (ii) the signature of the testator/executor is in the handwriting of the testator. Courts repeatedly emphasize that these are mandatory prerequisites under Section 69. [ - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19417] "Scope of Section" - Section 69 applies specifically when no attesting witness is found; it complements Section 68 (proof via attesting witnesses) by providing a pathway to prove will validity through handwriting identification and the testator’s own handwriting, with several judgments outlining its limits and prerequisites. [Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3292] "Burden of proof" - The propounder bears the burden to dispel suspicious circumstances and to prove execution and attestation under the applicable sections; where attesting witnesses are absent, Section 69 shifts the burden to establish handwriting authentication and execution by the testator. [V. Kalaivani VS M. R. Elangovan - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2211] "Case law: attestations and proved execution" - Courts consistently require either attesting witnesses to be examined (where available) or a valid Section 69 alternative showing the testator’s handwriting and attestation handwriting; mere testimony or statements by counsel cannot substitute for evidence required by Section 69. [ - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19417], [T. Sudhakar VS Sadacharam - Current Civil Cases (2024)] "Case law: registered wills and Section 69" - In several decisions, even registered wills must be proved under Section 68/69; if attesting witnesses are unavailable, Section 69 applies, but the process requires proper foundation and attempted summons under CPC Order XVI Rule 10 before invoking Section 69. [N. Kuppusamy Naidu VS Saroja - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 711], [Basavatarakam Memorial Medical Trust vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 1464] "Process before Section 69 invocation" - Supreme Court guidance requires exhaustion of processes to produce attesting witnesses (Order XVI CPC) before resorting to Section 69; only when attestors are unavailable may Section 69 be invoked with handwriting proof. [Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3292] "Judicial caution on non-attestation" - Several judgments dismiss or remand matters where attesting witnesses are not proved or where proof under Section 69 is invoked without proper foundation, underscoring the seriousness of complying with procedural prerequisites. [Pomi Bora VS Tulai Hazarika - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 792], [N. Rajamani @ Rajammal vs Shanmugadevi - 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 132] "Doctrine of necessity" - In some cases, courts have cited the doctrine of necessity under Section 69 to accept a will without attesting witnesses when essential circumstances (undue influence, disability, or unavailability) are proven, though such reliance is fact-intensive and highly scrutinized. [Babu Singh VS Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh - 2005 0 Supreme(P&H) 1177], [Jagdish Singh (since Deceased) Through His Lrs VS Jagjit Singh - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 2164] "Role of scribe and plain testimony" - Courts may consider the scribe’s statement or testimony alongside other evidence, but Section 69 requires more robust proof when no attesting witnesses are available; reliance on a scribe alone is generally insufficient without corroboration. [Babu Singh VS Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh - 2005 0 Supreme(P&H) 1177] "Attestation vs. execution distinction" - Several decisions reiterate that attestation and execution are distinct concepts; execution must be proven, and attestation must be established, with Section 63(c) and 68 guiding Will proof in succession; Section 69 becomes relevant only when attesting witnesses are unavailable. [Sreenivasmurthy, S/o. Late Mr. Venkatappa VS Lakshmamma w/o. Omkara murthy - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 184], [N. Rajamani @ Rajammal vs Shanmugadevi - 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 132] "Effect of non-proving attestation" - If Section 69 proof is not properly established, courts have held wills not proved, leading to outcomes such as denial of probate or reaffirmation of earlier partitions, depending on context. [Brojendra Nath Roy Chowdhury VS Chittaranjan Ghosh - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 779], [Meena Vasant Patel VS Prithviraj Ambalal Patel - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1351] "Use in probate vs. partition actions" - Section 69 proof requirements apply in probate, letters of administration with will annexed, and related testamentary proceedings; failure to prove execution properly can affect title and partition outcomes. [S. Surjit Singh Sahani VS State - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1034], [Jagdish Prasad VS State - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 351] "Impact on property disputes" - Where Will proof fails under Section 68/69, courts may resort to Hindu Succession Act provisions to determine succession or revert to status quo; wherein Will not proved, estate may devolve as per statutory inheritance rules. [Harbans Singh VS German Singh (dead) - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1040], [Kamalam (Died) VS Sasikala - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1048] "Attestation and identification under handwriting" - In absence of attesting witnesses, courts require identification of the testator’s handwriting and the handwriting of attesting witnesses by a person familiar with those signatures; mere identification by a lay person is typically insufficient. [Jagdish Prasad VS State - Current Civil Cases (2015)], [V. Kalaivani VS M. R. Elangovan - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2211] "Role of CPC procedures" - Compliance with Order XVI Rule 10 CPC for issuing summons to attesting witnesses is critical; failure to follow this procedure before invoking Section 69 can render Section 69 reliance improper. [ - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19417], [S. Surjit Singh Sahani VS State - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1034] "Presumption and antiquity considerations" - Some cases discuss whether ancient documents (e.g., 30 years or older) may enjoy presumptions under Section 90/68; those are separate from Section 69 proof and require separate conditions; Section 69 remains a non-automatic route. [OM PRAKASH (DEAD) TH. HIS LRS. VS SHANTI DEVI - 2015 6 Supreme 288] "Contrast with Section 68" - Section 68 requires attestation by one or more living attesting witnesses to prove execution; Section 69 provides an alternative path when attesting witnesses are not available, but the court must still be satisfied on handwriting and execution. [Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3292], [Selvasubramaniam VS Subburathinam - Madras (2015)] "Supervisor note: summaries and references" - The sources collectively emphasize that Section 69 is a safety valve, not a substitute for proper attestation; proper procedure, including attempts to locate attesting witnesses, must precede invocation of Section 69. [Selvaraj VS M. Asaithambi - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 1080], [Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3292] "Final takeaway" - Section 69 serves as a remedy when attesting witnesses cannot be produced, requiring clear demonstration that the testator’s handwriting and the handwriting of any attesting witnesses are proven, and that the propounder has complied with due process; failure to meet these conditions typically results in denial or remand of probate or related relief. [T. Sudhakar VS Sadacharam - Current Civil Cases (2024)], [Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3292]
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.
If the attesting witness denies or does not
recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.
An attested document not required
by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.
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.
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.
1[This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.]
1[73A. Proof as to verification of digital signature.-- 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
(a) that person or the Controller or the Certifying Authority to produce the Digital Signature
Certificate;
(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.
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, "Controller" means the Controller appointed
under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). ]
The following documents are public documents: --
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts --
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, 1[of any part of India or of the
Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;
(2) Public records kept 2[in any State] of private documents.
All other documents are private.
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 there for, 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 authorized 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 authorized to deliver such
copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.
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.
The following public documents may be proved as
follows:
(1) Acts, orders or notifications of 1[the Central Government] in any of its departments, 2[or of the
Crown Representative] or of any State Government or any department of any State Government, --
by the records of the departments, certified by the head of those departments respectively,
or by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government 3[ or, as the
case may be, of the Crown Representative];
(2) the proceedings of the Legislatures, --
The Court shall presume 1[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
2[of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer3[in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir ]who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government]:
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner
directed by law in that behalf.
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.
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 authorized 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 the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was
taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or
confession was duly taken.
The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London
Gazette or 1[any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette] of any colony, dependency or possession
of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament 2[of
the United Kingdom] printed by the Queen's Printer 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.
1[81A. Presumption as to Gazettes in electronic forms.-- The Court shall presume the
genuineness of every electronic record purporting to be the Official Gazette, or purporting to be electronic
record directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such electronic record is kept substantially in the
form required by law and is produced from proper custody.]
When any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a document which, by the law in
force for the time being in England or Ireland, would be admissible in proof of any particular in any Court
of Justice in England or Ireland, without proof of the seal or stamp or signature authenticating it or of the
judicial or official character claimed by the person by whom it purports to be signed, the Court shall
presume that such seal, stamp or signature is genuine, and that the person signing it held, at the time when
he signed it, the judicial or official character which he claims,
and the document shall be admissible for the same purpose for which it would be admissible in
England or Ireland.
The Court shall
presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of 1[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.
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.
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, 1[Indian ]Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative 2
*** of the
3[Central Government], was so executed and authenticated.
1[85A. Presumption as to electronic agreements. -- The Court shall presume that every electronic
record purporting to be an agreement containing the 2[electronic signature] of the parties was so
concluded by affixing the 2[electronic signature] of the parties.
85B. Presumption as to electronic records and
5[electronic signatures]. --(1) In any proceedings
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 proceedings, involving secure digital signature, the Court shall presume unless the contrary
is proved that --
(a) the secure 1[electronic signature] is affixed by subscriber with the intention of signing or
approving the electronic record;
(b) except in the case of a secure electronic record or a secure 1[electronic signature], nothing in
85C. Presumption as to 1[Electronic Signature Certificates]. -- The Court shall presume, unless
contrary is proved, that the information listed in a 1[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.]
The Court may presume that
any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record of 2[3* * * any country not forming
part of India or] of Her Majesty's Dominions is genuine and accurate, if the document purports to be
certified in any manner which is certified by any representative of 4* * * the 1[Central Government]5[in
or for] 6[such country] to be the manner commonly in use in 7[that country ]for the certification of
copies of judicial records.
8[An officer who, with respect to 9*** any territory or place not forming part of 10[India or] Her
Majesty's Dominions, is a Political Agent there for, as defined in section 3, 11[clause (43)], of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a representati
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.
The Court may presume that a message, forwarded
from a telegraph office to the person to whom such message purports to be addressed, corresponds with a
message delivered for transmission at the office from which the message purports to be sent; but the
Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered for
transmission.
1[88A. Presumption as to electronic messages. -- 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.
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, the expressions "addressee" and "originator" shall
have the same meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (b) and (za) of sub-section (1) of
section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).]
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.
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 persons 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.-- Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and
under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; 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
such an origin probable.
1[90A. Presumption as to electronic records five years old. -- 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 2[electronic signature] which purports to be the
2[electronic signature] of any particular person was so affixed by him or any person authorised by him in
this behalf.
Explanation. -- Electronic records are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which,
and under the care of the person with whom, they naturally be; 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 such an
origin probable.
This Expla
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 1[admitted to probate in
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 the last section, 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:
Proviso (1). -- 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, 1[want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in
fact or law.
Proviso (2). -- The existence
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 Rs. 1,000 or Rs. 1,500. 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.
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 100 bighas". A has an estate at Rampur containing
100 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.
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 Calcutta".
A had no house in Calcutta, 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.
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 Rs. 1,000, "my white horse". A has two white horses. Evidence may be give of
facts which show which of them was meant.
(b) A agrees to accompany B to Haidarabad. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Haidarabad in
the Dekkhan or Haiderabad in Sind was meant.
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.
Evidence may be given to show the
meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, of foreign, obsolete, technical, local and
provincial 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.
Persons who are not
parties to a document, or their representatives in interest, may give evidence of anyfacts 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.
Nothing in this Chapter
contained shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act,
1865 1(10 of 1865) as to the construction of wills.
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. When a
person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustration
(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.
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.
Illustration
(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.
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
1[(a)] A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the
admission.
(b) B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.
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.
Illustration
(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.
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 Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or
proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and
the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
Illustration
(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.
When any fact is especially within
the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration
(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.
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.
1[Provided that 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 2[shifted to] the person who affirms it.
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.
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.
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 attorney is in question in a suit brought by the client.
The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the attorney.
(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.
1[111A. Presumption as to certain offences. --(1) Where a person is accused of having committed
any offence specified in sub-section (2), in --
(a) any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being in force,
making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order; or
(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 mainten
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 son 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.
A notification in the Gazette of india that any portion of
British territory has 1[before the commencement of Part III of the Government of India
Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5, c. 2)] been ceded to any Native State, Prince or Ruler, shall be conclusive proof
that a valid cession of such territory took place at the date mentioned in such notification.
1[113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. --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 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
1[113B. Presumption as to dowry death. -- 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 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). ]
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.
llustrations
The Court may presume --
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has
received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;
(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;
(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed,
1[114A. Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape. -- In a prosecution
for rape under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c), clause (d), clause (e), clause (f), clause (g), clause (h),
clause (i), clause (j), clause (k), clause (l), clause (m) or clause (n) of sub-section (2) of section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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
clauses (a) to (d) of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
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.
No tenant of immovable
property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, 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 there of shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time
when such licence was given.
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.
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 lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from
understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.
1 [119. Witness unable to communicate verbally. -- 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, 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 video graphed. ]
In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to
the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of
such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness.
No Judge or Magistrate shall, except upon the special order of
some Court to which he is subordinate, be compelled to answer any questions 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 s
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.
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.
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.
1[125. Information as to commission of offences. -- No Magistrate or police-officer shall be
compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenueofficer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence
against the public revenue.
Explanation. -- Revenue-officer in this section means any officer employed in or about the business
of any branch of the public revenue.]
No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil 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 employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, 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 employment or to disclose any advice given by him
to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment:
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure --
(1) any such communication made in furtherance of any 1[illegal purpose],
The provisions of section 126 shall apply to
interpreters, and the clerks or servants of barristers, pleaders, attorneys and vakils.
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 126; and, if any party to a suit or proceeding calls any such barrister,
1[pleader], attorney or vakil as a witness, he shall be deemed to have consented to such disclosure only if
he questions such barrister, attorney or vakil on matters which, but for such question, he would not be at
liberty to disclose.
No one shall be compelled to disclose to
the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional
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.
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 pledge 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.
1[131. Production of documents or electronic records which another person, having possession,
could refuse to produce. -- 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.]
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:
Proviso. -- 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 for giving false evidence by such answer.
An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a
conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the
proof of any fact.
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.
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.
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.
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 b
The examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called
his examination-in-chief.
Cross-examination. -- The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his
cross-examination.
Re-examination. -- The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party
who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
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.
The examination 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.
Direction of re-examination. -- 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.
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.
Witnesses to character may be cross-examined and re-examined.
Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes
or expects to receive is called a leading question.
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.
The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which
have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved.
Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.
Any witness may be asked, whilst 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.
Illustrations
1145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing-- A witness may be crossexamined 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.
When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in
addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend --
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) 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:
1[Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under section 376, 2[section 376A, section 376AB,
section 376B, s
If any such question relates to a matter relevant
to the suit or proceeding, the provisions of section 132 shall apply thereto.
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. In
exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard to the following considerations: --
(1) such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the truth of the imputation conveyed
by them would seriously affect the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the
matter to which he testifies;
(2) 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 wou
No such question as is referred to in
section 148 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) A barrister is instructed by an attorney or vakil that an important witness is a dakait. This is a
reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dakait.
(b) A pleader is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a dakait. The informant,
on being questioned by the pleader, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement. This is a reasonable
ground for asking the witness whether he is a dakait.
(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known is ask
If the
Court is of opinion that any such question was asked without reasonable grounds, it may, if it was asked
by any barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney, report the circumstances of the case to the High Court or other
authority to which such barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney is subject in the exercise of his profession.
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.
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.
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 after wards 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 cl
1[(1)] The Court may, in its discretion, permit the
person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the
adverse party.
2[(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.]
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: -- Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides a statutory framework for impeaching the credibility of witnesses during trial. It is a crucial provision that allows the adverse party or the party who called the witness to challenge the veracity of the testimony given in court by establishing prior inconsistent statements or other relevant facts affecting credibility. Section 155 delineates the circumstances and methods through which the credit of a witness can be impeached. It enables the party to prove that a witness has made previous statements inconsistent with his current testimony, or that other facts undermine his credibility. Specifically, it includes subsections that deal with prior inconsistent statements, hostile witnesses, and other means of testing credibility. Section 155 itself does not prescribe any punishment; it is a procedural provision. However, making false statements or fabricating evidence to impeach a witness’s credibility may attract penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code, such as perjury (Section 191 IPC) or giving false evidence (Section 193 IPC). Section 155 is a vital procedural tool that enhances the fairness and integrity of trials by allowing parties to challenge a witness’s credibility. However, it must be used judiciously, strictly within the parameters set by law, and not as a substitute for substantive evidence. Its primary function is to test the reliability of testimony, and courts have consistently held that it cannot be misused to unjustly discredit witnesses or to prove facts directly. Note: The references in square brackets correspond to the sources provided, emphasizing the legal principles, judicial interpretations, and procedural safeguards associated with Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe
him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has 1[accepted] the offer of bride, or has received
any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be
contradicted;
2* Legal Commentary on Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Introduction
What does Section 155 Say?
Essential Ingredients
Scope of Section 155
Punishment for Violations
Legal Comments (Bullet Point Summary)
Scope and Limitations
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.
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.
Whenever any statement, relevant under section 32 or 33, 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.
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.
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.
When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory. -- 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 the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the o
A witness may also
testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, 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.
1161. Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.-- Any writing referred to
under the provisions of the two last preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party
if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon.
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. The validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the Court.
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.
Translation of documents. -- 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 166 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
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.
hen 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 to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any
witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any
document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents 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 Act to be relevant, and duly
proved:
Provided also that this section shall not authorize 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
In cases tried by jury or with assessors, the
jury or assessors may put any questions to the witnesses, through or by leave of the Judge, which the
Judge himself might put and which he considers proper.
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.
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
