The Indian Evidence Act 1872
Evidence Act 1
Evidence Act 1. Short title, extent and commencement.—This Act
may be called the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It extends to the whole of India 1[except the State of Jammu and Kashmir] and
applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial, 2[other than
Courts-martial convened under the Army Act] (44 & 45 Vict., c. 58) 3[the Naval Discipline Act (29 & 30 Vict.,
c. 109) or 4[***] the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934)5 6[or the Air Force Act] (7 Geo. 5, c.
51) but not to affidavits 7presented to any Court or Officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator; and it
shall come into force on the first day of September, 1872.
Evidence Act 2
Evidence Act 2. Repeal of enactments.—[Rep. by the Repealing
Act, 1938 (1 of 1938),
sec. 2 and Sch.]
Evidence Act 3
Evidence Act 3. Interpretation clause. —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 Judges 1 and Magistrates, 2 and all persons, except arbitrators,
legally authorized to take evidence. “Fact”. —“Fact” means and includes—(1) any
thing, 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 certain
place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in
good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified
time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. “Relevant”. —One fact
is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to
in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. “Facts in issue”. —The expression “facts
in issue” means and includes— any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the
existence, non-existence, nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in
any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. Explanation.— Whenever, under the provisions of the law for
the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, 3 any Court records an issue of fact, the
fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue, is a fact in issue. Illustrations A is accused
of the murder of B. At his trial the following facts may be in issue:— That A caused B’s death; That A
intended to cause B’s death; That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B; That A at the time
of doing the act which caused B’s death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its
nature. “Document”. —“Document” 4 means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by
means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may
be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. Illustrations A writing 5 is a document;
Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document; An inscription on
a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document. “Evidence” .— “ Evidence” means and
includes—
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to
be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called
oral evidence;
(2) 6 [all documents including electronic records
produced for the inspection of the Court], such documents are called documentary evidence. “Proved” .—A
fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to
exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. “Disproved”. — A fact is said to be
disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not
exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of
the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. “ Not proved”. — A fact is said
not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. 7 [“ India ”. —“ India ” means the
territory of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir .] 8 [the expressions “Certifying
Authority”, 9 [electronic signature], 9 [Electronic Signature Certificate], “electronic form”,
“electronic records”, “information”, “secure electronic record”, “secure digital signature” and
“subscriber” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Information Technology Act,
2000 (21 of 2000).]
Evidence Act 4
Evidence Act 4. “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. “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.
Evidence Act 5
Evidence Act 5. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and
relevant facts.—Evidence
may be given in any suit or proceedings of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such
other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others. Explanation.—This section shall not
enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for
the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure1..—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; A’s causing B’s death by such beating; A’s intention to cause B’s
death.
(b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at
the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce the
bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the
conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Evidence Act 6
Evidence Act 6. 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, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. Illustrations(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A
or B or the 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 1[Government of India] by taking part
in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken open. The
occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have
been present at all of them.
(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence.
Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the
correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.
(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A.
The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
Evidence Act 7
Evidence Act 7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of
facts in
issue.—Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in
issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for
their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. Illustrations(a) The question is,
whether A robbed B. The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his
possession, and that he showed it, or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A murdered B. Marks on the ground, produced by a
struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.
(c) The question is, whether A poisoned B. The state of B’s health before the
symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the
administration of poison, are relevant facts.
Evidence Act 8
Evidence Act 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conduct.—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. Explanation 2.—When the conduct of any person is relevant, any
statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant. Illustrations
(a) A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew
that A had murdered C, and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge
public, are relevant.
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the
bond. The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular
purpose is relevant.
(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison. The fact that, before the death
of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.
(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the Will of A. The facts
that, not long before the date of the alleged Will, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of
the alleged Will relate, that he consulted vakils in reference to making the Will, and that he caused drafts
or other Wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, either before or at the time of,
or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an
appearance favourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or
procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence
respecting it, are relevant.
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed, C
said in A’s presence—”the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B”, and that immediately
afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000. The facts that A asked C
to lend him money, and that D said to C in A’s presence and hearing—“I advise you not to trust A, for he
owes B 10,000 Rupees”, and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts.
(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The fact that A absconded
after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being made for the criminal and the contents of the
letter, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, after the commission of the
alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the
crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
(j) The question is, whether A was ravished. The facts that, shortly after the
alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in
which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that, without making a complaint, she said that she
had been ravished is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying
declaration under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
(k) The question is, whether A was robbed. The fact that, soon after the
alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and the terms
in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. The fact that he said he had been robbed, without making any
complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration
under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157. COMMENTS Ground for rejection
of testimony of eye witness The conduct of an eye witness in non-disclosing the incident to anybody for a
number of days, is highly unnatural one and is sufficient to reject his testimony; Ganpat Kondiba Chavan v.
State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 38 (Bom). It is well settled that the conduct of a witness in not
disclosing the incident to person(s) whom he must have met after the incident is indicative of the fact that
he had not seen the accident; Ganpat Kondiba Chavan v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 38 (Bom). Role
of motive in an offence If motive is proved, the case of prosecution becomes more easier to connect accused
to the alleged incident; P.V. Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 307 (AP). Normally there
is a motive behind every criminal act; Barikanoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 1 Crimes 500 (All). When
motive is not sine qua non Where the ocular evidence is very clear and convincing and the role of the
accused person in the crime stands clearly established, establishment of motive is not a sine qua non for
proving the prosecution case; Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539. It is well
settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of the credence and can be believed,
the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved and
sometimes the motive is shrouded in the mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however,
the evidence of eye witnesses is credit-worthy and is believed by the court which has placed implicit
reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant; Raja v. State,
(1972) 2 Crimes 175. Motive is a thing primarily known to the accused himself and it may not the possible
for the prosecution in each and every case to find out the real motive behind the crime; Barikanoo v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (1997)1 Crimes 500 (All). It is well established that where there is an eyewitness account
regarding the incident, the motive loses all its importance; Barikanoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 1
Crimes 500 (All).
Evidence Act 9
Evidence Act 9 Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant
facts. —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 anything or person whose
identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which
show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are
necessary for that purpose. Illustrations (a) The question is, whether a given
document is the Will of A. The state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged Will may
be relevant facts.
(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the
matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel
was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. The particulars of a dispute
between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there
was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.
(c) A is accused of a crime. The fact that, soon after the commission of the
crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant, under section 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by
facts in issue. The fact that, at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the place
to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly. The details of the
business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business
was sudden and urgent.
(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A.C
., on leaving A’s service, says to A— “I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer”. This
statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C’s conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.
(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen
to give it to A’s wife. B says, as he delivers it—” A says you are to hide this”. B’s statement is relevant
as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.
(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob.
The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
Evidence Act 10
Evidence Act 10. Things said or done by conspirator in
reference to common
design.—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 so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the
existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Illustration
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the 1[Government
of India]. The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected money in
Calcutta for a like object, D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, E published writings
advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Kabul the money which C had
collected at Calcutta, and the contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy, are each
relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy, and to prove A’s complicity in it, although he may
have been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and
although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it. Comments Existence of
conspiracy If prima facie evidence of existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of acts
and statements made by anyone of the conspirators in furtherance of the common object is admissible against
all; Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 716. Object Section 10 has been
deliberately enacted in order to make acts and statements of a co-conspirator admissible against the whole
body of conspirators, because of the nature of crime; Badri Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 953.
Significance of “common intention” The words “common intention” signify a common intention existing at the
time when the thing was said, done or written by the one of them. It had noting to do with carrying the
conspiracy into effect; Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176.
Evidence Act 11
Evidence Act 11. When facts not otherwise relevant become
relevant.—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. The fact that, near the time when the crime
was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly
improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The circumstances are
such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C or D, every fact which shows that the crime
could have been committed by no one else and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
Evidence Act 12
Evidence Act 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to enable
Court to determine
amount are 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.
Evidence Act 13
Evidence Act 13. Facts relevant when right or custom is in
question.—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. Illustration The question is,
whether A has a right to a fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the
fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the mortgage,
particular instances in which A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was
stopped by A’s neighbours, are relevant facts.
Evidence Act 14
Evidence Act 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or
of body or bodily
feeling.—Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith,
negligence, rashness, ill-will or 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.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 fact.] Illustrations(a) A is accused of receiving
stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen
article. The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as
tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession, to be stolen. 2[(b)
A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin which, at the time when he
delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit. The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a
number of other pieces of counterfeit coin is relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of
delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.]
(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s, which B knew to be ferocious. The
facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y, and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.
(d) The question is, whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that
the name of the payee was fictitious. The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner
before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the payee had been a real person, is
relevant, as showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person.
(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the
reputation of B. The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-will on the part of A
towards B, is relevant, as proving A’s intention to harm B’s reputation by the particular publication in
question. The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A repeated the matter
complained of as he heard it, are relevant, as showing that A did not intend to harm the reputation of B.
(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent,
whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss. The fact that, at the time when A
represented C to be solvent, C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by persons dealing with him,
is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith.
(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which A is
owner, by the order of C, a contractor. A’s defence is that B’s contract was with C. The fact that A paid C
for the work in question is relevant, as proving that A did, in good faith, make over to C the management of
the work in question, so that C was in a position to contract with B on C’s own account, and not as agent
for A.
(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which he had
found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated it, he believed in good faith that the real owner
could not be found. The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place
where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the
property could not be found. The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given
fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim to it, is
relevant, as showing that the fact that A knew of the notice did not disprove A’s good faith.
(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show
A’s intent, the fact of A’s having previously shot at B may be proved.
(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters
previously sent by A to B may be proved, as showing intention of the letters.
(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife.
Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty, are relevant
facts.
(l) The question is, whether A’s death was caused by poison. Statements made by
A during his illness as to his symptoms, are relevant facts.
(m) The question is, what was the state of A’s health at the time when an
assurance on his life was effected. Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the time
in question are relevant facts.
(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire not
reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured. The fact that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to
the defect of that particular carriage, is relevant. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the
carriages which he let to hire, is irrelevant.
(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. The fact
that A, on other occasions shot at B is relevant, as showing his intention to shoot B. The fact that A was
in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them, is irrelevant.
(p) A is tried for a crime. The fact that he said something indicating an
intention to commit that particular crime is relevant. The fact that he said something indicating a general
disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.
Evidence Act 15
Evidence Act 15. Facts bearing on question whether act was
accidental or
intentional.—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.—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 from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to
make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular
occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was
accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the
false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.
(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit rupee. The
question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the
delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B,
was not accidental.
Evidence Act 16
Evidence Act 16. Existence of course of business when
relevant.—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.
Evidence Act 17
Evidence Act 17. Admission defined.—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. Comment s
Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact admitted
while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence and merely serves
the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness; Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1974 SC
117.
Evidence Act 18
Evidence Act 18. Admission by party to proceeding or his
agent.—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) 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) person from whom interest derived.—persons from whom the parties to the
suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during
the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.
Evidence Act 19
Evidence Act 19. Admissions by persons whose position must be
proved as against
party to suit.—Statements made by persons whose position or liability, it is necessary to prove as against any
party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to
such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making
them occupies such position or is subject to such liability. Illustration A undertakes to collect rents for B.
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B. A denies that rent was due from C to B. A statement by C
that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to
B.
Evidence Act 20
Evidence Act 20. Admissions by persons expressly referred to by
party to
suit.—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. COMMENTS In
eviction suit where person having power of attorney for tenant admits arrears of rent tenant subsequently
cannot resile from such admission; Ram Sahai v. Jai Prakash, AIR 1993 MP 147.
Evidence Act 21
Evidence Act 21. Proof of admissions against persons making
them, and by or on
their behalf.—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 admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it
is relevant otherwise than as an admission. Illustrations
(a) The
question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not forged, A affirms that it is genuine, B
that it is forged. A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A
that the deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B
prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.
(b) A, the Captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. Evidence
is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course. A produces a book kept by him in the
ordinary course of his business, showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day to day,
and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, because
they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under section 32, clause (2).
(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta. He produces a
letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day, and bearing the Lahore post-mark of that day.
The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible
under section 32, clause (2).
(d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.
He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though
they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit
coin which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the
coin, as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that the person did examine it and told him it
was genuine. A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration. Comments
Submission of a letter not containing anything either in favour or against but simply a statement of
original defendant, then such letter cannot be taken as that of a substituted defendant, confronting with
admissions; Salil Kumar Roy v. Badu Den Bhansali, AIR 1999 Cal 270.
Evidence Act 22
Evidence Act 22. When oral admissions as to contents of
documents are
relevant.—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.
Evidence Act 22A
Evidence Act 1[22A. When oral admissions 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.]
Evidence Act 23
Evidence Act 23. Admissions in civil cases, when relevant.—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.
Evidence Act 24
Evidence Act 24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or
promise, when
irrelevant in criminal proceeding.—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 promise,1 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.—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 promise,2 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.”
Evidence Act 25
Evidence Act 25. Confession to police officer not to be
proved.—No confession made
to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.—No confession made to a
police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
Evidence Act 26
Evidence Act 26. Confession by accused while in custody of
police not to be proved
against him.—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.—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
Magistrate2, 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, 1882 (10 of 1882)4].
Evidence Act 27
Evidence Act 27. How much of information received from accused
may be
proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Evidence Act 28
Evidence Act 28. Confession made after removal of impression
caused by inducement,
threat or promise relevant.—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.
Evidence Act 29
Evidence Act 29. Confession otherwise relevant not to become
irrelevant because of
promise of secrecy, etc.—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 practised 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.
Evidence Act 30
Evidence Act 30. Consideration of proved confession affecting
person making it and
others jointly under trial for same offence.—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.] 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 the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C
was murdered by A and B, and that B said—“A and I murdered C”. This statement may not be taken into
consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly tried. COMMENTS Accused’s confession cannot
be used against co-accused The statement of the accused leading to the discovery, or the informatory
statement amounting to confession of the accused, cannot be used against the co-accused with the aid of
section 303; Kamal Kishore v. State (Delhi Administration), (1972) 2 Crimes 169 (Del).
Evidence Act 31
Evidence Act 31. Admissions not conclusive proof, but may
estop.—Admissions are not
conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter
contained.
Evidence Act 32
Evidence Act 32 Cases in which statement of relevant fact by
person who is dead or
cannot be found, etc ., is relevant. —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 person’s 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.
2 or is made in course of business. —When the statement was made by such
person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum
made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or
of an acknowledgment written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any
kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other
document usually dated, written or signed by him.
3 or against interest of maker. —When the statement is against the pecuniary
or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed
him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages.
4 or gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general
interest. —When the statement gives the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any public right
or custom or matter of public or general interest, of the existence of which, if it existed he would have
been likely to be aware, and when such statement was made before any controversy as to such right, custom or
matter had arisen.
5 or relates to existence of relationship. —When the statement relates to the
existence of any relationship 25 [by blood, marriage or adoption] between persons as to whose
relationship 25 [by blood, marriage or adoption] the person making the statement had special
means of knowledge, and when the statement was made before the question in dispute was raised.
6 or is made in will or deed relating to family affairs. —When the statement
relates to the existence of any relationship 25 [by blood, marriage or adoption] between persons
deceased, and is made in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such deceased
person belonged, or in any family pedigree, or upon any tombstone, family portrait, or other thing on which
such statements are usually made, and when such statement was made before the question in dispute was
raised.
7 or in document relating to transaction mentioned in section 13, clause (a).
—When the statement is contained in any deed, will or other document which relates to any such transaction
as is mentioned in section 13, clause (a).
8 or is made by several persons, and expresses feelings relevant to matter in
question. —When the statement was made by a number of persons, and expressed feelings or impressions on
their part relevant to the matter in question. Illustrations
(a) The
question is, whether A was murdered by B; or A dies of injuries received in a transaction in the course of
which she was ravished. The question is, whether she was ravished by B; or The question is, whether A was
killed by B under such circumstances that a suit would lie against B by A’s widow. Statements made by A as
to the cause of his or her death, referring respectively to the murder, the rape, and the actionable wrong
under consideration, are relevant facts.
(b) The question is as to the date of A’s birth. An entry in the diary
of a deceased surgeon, regularly kept in the course of business, stating that, on a given day he attended
A’s mother and delivered her of a son, is a relevant fact.
(c) The question is, whether A was in Calcutta on a given day. A
statement in the diary of a deceased solicitor, regularly kept in the course of business, that, on a given
day, the solicitor attended A at a place mentioned, in Calcutta, for the purpose of conferring with him
upon specified business, is a relevant fact.
(d) The question is, whether a ship sailed from Bombay harbour on a
given day. A letter written by a deceased member of a merchant’s firm, by which she was chartered, to
their correspondents in London to whom the cargo was consigned, stating that the ship sailed on a given
day from Bombay harbour, is a relevant fact.
(e) The question is, whether rent was paid to A for certain land. A
letter from A’s deceased agent to A, saying that he had received the rent on A’s account and held it at
A’s orders, is a relevant fact.
(f) The question is, whether A and B were legally married. The statement
of a deceased clergyman that he married them under such circumstances that the celebration would be a
crime, is relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A, a person who cannot be found, wrote a
letter on a certain day. The fact that a letter written by him is dated on that day, is relevant.
(h) The question is, what was the cause of the wreck of a ship. A
protest made by the Captain, whose attendance cannot be procured, is a relevant fact.
(i) The question is, whether a given road is a public way. A statement
by A, a deceased headman of the village, that the road was public, is a relevant fact.
(j) The question is, what was the price of grain on a certain day in a
particular market. A statement of the price, made by a deceased banya in the ordinary course of his
business is a relevant fact.
(k) The question is, whether A, who is dead, was the father of B. A
statement by A that B was his son, is a relevant fact.
(l) The question is, what was the date of the birth of A. A letter from
A’s deceased father to a friend, announcing the birth of A on a given day, is a relevant fact.
(m) The question is, whether, and when, A and B were married. An entry
in a memorandum-book by C, the deceased father of B, of his daughter’s marriage with A on a given date, is
a relevant fact.
(n) A sues B for a libel expressed in a painted caricature exposed in a
shop window. The question is as to the similarity of the caricature and its libellous character. The
remarks of a crowd of spectators on these points may be proved.
Evidence Act 33
Evidence Act 33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in
subsequent
proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated.—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; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first
as in the second proceeding. Explanation.—A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding
between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.
Evidence Act 34
Evidence Act 34. 1[Entries in books of account including those
maintained in an
electronic form] when relevant.—1[Entries in books of accounts including those maintained in an electronic
form], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the
Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with
liability. Illustration A sues B for 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. COMMENTS Admissibility Entries in account books regularly kept in the course of business are
admissible though they by themselves cannot create any liability; Ishwar Dass v. Sohan Lal, AIR 2000 SC 426.
Unbound sheets of paper are not books of account and cannot be relied upon; Dharam Chand Joshi v. Satya
Narayan Bazaz, AIR 1993 Gau 35. Books of account being only corroborative evidence must be supported by other
evidence; Dharam Chand Joshi v. Satya Narayan Bazaz, AIR 1993 Gau 35.
Evidence Act 35
Evidence Act 35. Relevancy of entry in public 1[record or an
electronic record]
made in performance of duty.—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 performance 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.
Evidence Act 36
Evidence Act 36. Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and
plans.—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.—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 2[the Central Government or any State Government], as to matters
usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts.”
Evidence Act 37
Evidence Act 37. Relevancy of statement as to fact of public
nature, contained in
certain Acts or notifications.—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.]—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 3[of the United Kingdom], or in any
4[Central Act, Provincial Act, or 5[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[***]
Evidence Act 38
Evidence Act 38. Relevancy of statements as to any law
contained in law-books.—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.
Evidence Act 39
Evidence Act 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.]2[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.]”
Evidence Act 40
Evidence Act 40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second
suit or trial.—The
existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts 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.
Evidence Act 41
Evidence Act 41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate,
etc., jurisdiction.—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 such judgment, 1[order or decree] declares it to have accrued to that person; 3[order
or decree] declares it to have accrued to that person;” that any legal character which it takes away from any
such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, 1[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or
should cease; 3[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or should cease;” and that anything to which it
declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment,
1[order or decree] declares that it had been or should be his property. 3[order or decree] declares that it
had been or should be his property.”
Evidence Act 42
Evidence Act 42. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or
decrees, other than
those mentioned in section 41.—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.
Evidence Act 43
Evidence Act 43. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in
sections 40 to 42,
when relevant.—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 provisions 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 prosecutes B for adultery with C, A’s wife. B denies that C is A’s wife,
but the court convicts B of adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A’s
lifetime. C says that she never was A’s wife. The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.
(c) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him, B, is convicted. A afterwards
sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against
B is irrelevant.
(d) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B, C, B’s son,
murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime. 1[(e) A
is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is
relevant as a fact in issue.
(f) A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and
that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.]
———————–
(1) Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 5.
Evidence Act 44
Evidence Act 44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or
incompetency of
Court, may be proved.—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.
Evidence Act 45
Evidence Act 45. Opinions of experts.—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 35 [or finger
impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or
art, 36 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 35 [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, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or that he was doing what was
either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by
A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable
of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary
to law, are relevant.
(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another
document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the
question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.
Comments Conflict of opinion of Experts When there is a conflict of opinion between the experts, then the
Court is competent to form its own opinion with regard to signatures on a document; Kishan Chand v. Sita
Ram, AIR 2005 P&H 156. Expert opinion admissibility Requirement of expert evidence about test firing to find
out whether double barrel gun is in working condition or not, not necessary; Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 321. The evidence of a doctor conducting post mortem without producing any authority in
support of his opinion is insufficient to grant conviction to an accused; Mohd Zahid v. State of Tamil Nadu,
1999 Cr LJ 3699 (SC). Opinion to be received with great caution The opinion of a handwriting expert given in
evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such
evidence has to be received with great caution; Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2200.
Evidence Act 45A
Evidence Act 37 [ 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;]
Illustrations (a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by
poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have
died are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or that he was doing what was
either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by
A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable
of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary
to law, are relevant.
(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another
document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the
question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.
Evidence Act 46
Evidence Act 46. Facts bearing upon opinions of experts.—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 person, exhibited certain symptoms
which experts affirm or deny to be the symptoms of that poison, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether an obstruction to a harbour is caused by a certain
sea-wall. The fact that other harbours similarly situated in other respects, but where there were no such
sea-walls, began to be obstructed at about the same time, is relevant. COMMENTS tc “COMMENTS” Admissibility
The science of identification of footprints is not a fully developed science and therefore if in a given
case, evidence relating to the same is found satisfactory it may be used only to reinforce the conclusions
as to the identity of a culprit already arrived at on the basis of other evidence; Mohd. Aman v. State of
Rajasthan, (1997) 4 Supreme 635.
Evidence Act 47
Evidence Act 47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.—When
the Court has to
form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person
acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or
was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Explanation.—A person is said to be acquainted
with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents
purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and
addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by
that person have been habitually submitted to him. Illustration The question is, whether a given letter is in
the underwriting of A, a merchant in London. B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to
A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C is B’s clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file
B’s correspondence. D is B’s broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A
for the purpose of advising him thereon. The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in
the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.
Evidence Act 47A
Evidence Act 38 [ 47A Opinion as to 38 [electronic signature]
when relevant .—When
the Court has to form an opinion as to the 39 [electronic signature] of any person, the opinion of
the Certifying Authority which has issued the 40 [Electronic Signature Certificate] is a relevant
fact.]
Evidence Act 48
Evidence Act 48. Opinion as to existence of right or custom,
when relevant.—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.
Evidence Act 49
Evidence Act 49. Opinions as to usages, tenets, etc., when
relevant.—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 opinions of persons having special means of knowledge
thereon, are relevant facts.
Evidence Act 50
Evidence Act 50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.—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, or 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 section 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 and wife, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The fact that A
was always treated as such by members of the family, is relevant. Comments Contradiction in evidence of
relationship of witness of triffle nature, not material in a partition suit; Gowhari Das v. Santilata Singh,
AIR 1999 Ori 61.
Evidence Act 51
Evidence Act 51. Grounds of opinion, when relevant.—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.
Evidence Act 52
Evidence Act 52. In civil cases character to prove conduct
imputed, irrelevant.—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.
Evidence Act 53
Evidence Act 53. In criminal cases, previous good character
relevant.—In criminal
proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is relevant.
Evidence Act 54
Evidence Act 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.]
Evidence Act 55
Evidence Act 55. Character as affecting damages.—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.In sections 52, 53, 54 and 55, the
word “character” includes both reputation and disposition; but 2[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.”
Evidence Act 56
Evidence Act 56. Fact judicially noticeable need not be
proved.—No fact of which
the Court will take judicial notice need to be proved.
Evidence Act 57
Evidence Act 57. Facts of which Court must take judicial
notice.—The Court shall
take judicial notice of the following facts:— 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 3[the 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 law for the time being in force in a Province or in
the State;]
(5) The accession and the sign manual of the Sovereign for the time being of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;
(6) All seals of which English Courts take judicial notice: the seals of all
the 6[Courts in 7[India]], and all Courts out of 5[India] established by the authority of 8[the Central
Government or the Crown Representative]: the seals of Courts of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction and of
Notaries Public, and all seals which any person is authorized to use by 9[the Constitution or an Act of
Parliament of the United Kingdom or an] Act or Regulation having the force of law in 7[India];
(7) The accession to office, names, titles, functions, and signatures of the
persons filling for the time being any public office in any State, if the fact of their appointment to such
office is notified in 10[any Official Gazette];
(8) The existence, title and national flag of every State or Sovereign
recognized by 11[the Government of India];
(9) The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world, and public
festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the Official Gazette;
(10) The territories under the dominion of 11[the Government of India];
(11) The commencement, continuance, and termination of hostilities between
11[the Government of India] and any other State or body of persons;
(12) The names of the members and officers of the Court and of their deputies
and subordinate officers and assistants, and also of all officers acting in execution of its process, and of
all advocates, attorneys, proctors, vakils, pleaders and other persons authorized by law to appear or act
before it;
(13) The rule of the road, 12[on land or at sea]. In all these cases, and also
on all matters of public history, literature, science or art, the Court may resort for its aid to
appropriate books or documents of reference. If the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial
notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so, unless and until such person produces any such book or document
as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so.
Evidence Act 58
Evidence Act 58 Facts admitted need not be proved. —No fact
need to be proved in
any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the
hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at
the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion,
require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
Evidence Act 59
Evidence Act 59. Proof of facts by oral evidence.—All facts,
except the 1[contents
of documents or electronic records], may be proved by oral evidence.—All facts, except the 1[contents of
documents or electronic records], may be proved by oral evidence.”
Evidence Act 60
Evidence Act 60. Oral evidence must be direct.—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 of experts expressed in any treatise
commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of
such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot
be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable: Provided
also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document,
the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.
Evidence Act 61
Evidence Act 61. Proof of contents of documents.—The contents
of documents may be
proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
Evidence Act 62
Evidence Act 62. Primary 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.
Illustration A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time
from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of
them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.
Evidence Act 63
Evidence Act 63. Secondary evidence.—Secondary evidence means
and includes— (1) Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter
contained1;1;”
(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 has
himself seen it. Illustrations
(a) A photograph of an original is
secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing
photographed was the original.
(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine
is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying
machine was made from the original.
(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the
original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original,
although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original.
(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor
an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.
COMMENTS Admissibility Application moved for permission to lead secondary evidence based on ground of loss
of document. Presence of document proved from the facts pleaded – Allowing secondary evidence not illegal;
Sobha Rani v. Ravikumar, AIR 1999 P&H 21. Tape-recorded statements are admissible in evidence; K.S. Mohan
v. Sandhya Mohan, AIR 1993 Mad 59. Certified copies of money lender’s licences are admissible in evidence;
K. Shivalingaiah v. B.V. Chandrashekara Gowda, AIR 1993 Kant 29.
Evidence Act 64
Evidence Act 64. Proof of documents by primary
evidence.—Documents must be proved
by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.
Evidence Act 65
Evidence Act 65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to
documents may be
given.—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, or 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;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved
to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering
evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce
it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by
this Act, or by any other law in force in 1[India] to be given in evidence2; 1[India] to be given in
evidence2;”
(g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole
collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible.
In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but
no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general
result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such
documents.
Evidence Act 65A
Evidence Act 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.]
Evidence Act 65B
Evidence Act 1[65B. Admissibility of electronic records.—(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
of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer
output shall be the following, namely:—
(a) the computer output
containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used
regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over
that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the
electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into
the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was
operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was
out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the
accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or
is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information
for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of
sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether—
(a) by a
combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period;
or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession
over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that
period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the
computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as
constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed
accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by
virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and
describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production
of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was
produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned
in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official
position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities
(whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes
of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and
belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section,—
(a) infomation shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate
form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any
appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official
information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities
by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly
supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a
computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any
appropriate equipment. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section any reference to information being
derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation,
comparison or any other process.]
Evidence Act 66
Evidence Act 66. Rules as to notice to produce.—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:—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\:” 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;
(2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that
he will be required to produce it;
(3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained
possession of the original by fraud or force;
(4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court;
(5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the
document;
(6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of,
or not subject to, the process of the Court.
Evidence Act 67
Evidence Act 67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person
alleged to have
signed or written document produced.—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.
Evidence Act 67A
Evidence Act 59 [ 67A Proof as to [electronic signature].
—Except in the case of a
secure [electronic signature], if the [electronic signature] of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed
to an electronic record the fact that such [electronic signature] is the [electronic signature] of the
subscriber must be proved.]
Evidence Act 68
Evidence Act 68. Proof of execution of document required by law
to be attested.—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: 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.]
Evidence Act 69
Evidence Act 69. Proof where no attesting witness found.—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 handwriting of that person.
Evidence Act 70
Evidence Act 70. Admission of execution by party to attested
document.—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.
Evidence Act 71
Evidence Act 71. Proof when attesting witness denies the
execution.—If the
attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by
other evidence.
Evidence Act 72
Evidence Act 72. Proof of document not required by law to be
attested.—An attested
document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.
Evidence Act 73
Evidence Act 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with
others admitted or
proved.—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.]
Evidence Act 73A
Evidence Act 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—2[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.]
Evidence Act 74
Evidence Act 74. Public documents.—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; 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.
Evidence Act 75
Evidence Act 75. Private documents.—All other documents are
private.
Evidence Act 76
Evidence Act 76. Certified copies of public documents.—Every
1public officer having
the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a
copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy
that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be
dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such
officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified
copies.—Every 3public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to
inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a
certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the
case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official
title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is 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.
Evidence Act 77
Evidence Act 77. Proof of documents by production of certified
copies.—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.
Evidence Act 78
Evidence Act 78. Proof of other official documents.—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,— 4[the Central Government] in any of its departments, 5[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 2[or, as the case may be, of the Crown Representative];5[or, as
the case may be, of the Crown Representative];”
(2) The proceedings of the Legislatures,— by the journals of those bodies
respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed 3[by order of the
Government concerned]; 6[by order of the Government concerned];”
(3) Proclamations, orders or regulations issued by 4[Her Majesty] or by the
Privy Council, or by any department of 4[Her Majesty’s] Government,— 7[Her Majesty] or by the Privy Council,
or by any department of 7[Her Majesty’s] Government,—” by copies or extracts contained in the London
Gazette, or purporting to be printed by the Queen’s printer;
(4) The acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the Legislature of a
foreign country,— by journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or
by a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in some
5[Central Act];1[Central Act];”
(5) The proceedings of a municipal body in 6[a State],2[a State],” by a copy
of such proceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book purporting to be published
by the authority of such body;
(6) Public documents of any other class in a foreign country,— by the
original, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a certificate under the seal of a Notary
Public, or of 7[an Indian Consul] or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having
the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of
the foreign country. 3[an Indian Consul] or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer
having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the
law of the foreign country.” STATE AMENDMENT tc “STATE AMENDMENT” West Bengal.—After section 78, insert the
following section, namely:—
Evidence Act 78A
Evidence Act 78A. Copies of public documents, to be as good as
original documents
in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force,
where any public documents concerning any areas within West Bengal have been kept in Pakistan, then copies of
such public documents shall, on being authenticated in such manner as may be prescribed from time to time by
the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, be deemed to have taken the place of and to be,
the original documents from which such copies were made and all references to the original documents shall be
construed as including references to such copies.” [Vide West Bengal Act 29 of 1955, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 6-10-1955)
as amended by West Bengal Act 20 of 1960, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 5-1-1961)].
Evidence Act 79
Evidence Act 79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified
copies.—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 officer 3[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.
Evidence Act 80
Evidence Act 80. Presumption as to documents produced as record
of
evidence.—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.
Evidence Act 81
Evidence Act 81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers,
private Acts of Parliament
and other documents.—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 of 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.
Evidence Act 81A
Evidence Act 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.]3[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.]”
Evidence Act 82
Evidence Act 82. Presumption as to document admissible in
England without proof of
seal or signature.—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.
Evidence Act 83
Evidence Act 83. Presumption as to maps or plans made by
authority of
Government.—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 that maps or plans purporting to be made by
the authority of 4[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.”
Evidence Act 84
Evidence Act 84. Presumption as to collections of laws and
reports of
decisions.—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.
Evidence Act 85
Evidence Act 85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.—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.
Evidence Act 85A
Evidence Act 83 [ 85A Presumption as to electronic
agreements.— The Court shall
presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement containing the [electronic signature] of
the parties was so concluded by affixing the [electronic signature] of the parties.]
Evidence Act 85B
Evidence Act 84 [ 85B Presumption as to electronic records and
6 [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 [electronic signature], the Court
shall presume unless the contrary is proved that—
(a) the secure
[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
[electronic signature], nothing in this section shall cerate any presumption, relating to authenticity and
integrity of the electronic record or any [electronic signature.]]
Evidence Act 85C
Evidence Act 85 [ 85C Presumption as to 86 [Electronic
Signature Certificates].
—The Court shall presume, unless contrary is proved, that the information listed in a 86
[Electronic Signature Certificate] is correct, except for information specified as subscriber information
which has not been verfied, if the certificate was accepted by the subscriber.]
Evidence Act 86
Evidence Act 86. Presumption as to certified copies of foreign
judicial
records.—The Court may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record of
1[2[***] 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 3[***] the
4[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 therefore, 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 representative of the 12[Central Government] 13[in and for the country] comprising
that territory or place].
Evidence Act 87
Evidence Act 87. Presumption as to books, maps and charts.—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.
Evidence Act 88
Evidence Act 88. Presumption as to telegraphic messages.—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.
Evidence Act 88A
Evidence Act 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.3[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.]
Evidence Act 89
Evidence Act 89. Presumption as to due execution, etc., of
documents not
produced.—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.
Evidence Act 90
Evidence Act 90. Presumption as to documents thirty years
old.—Where any document,
purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular
case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which
purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case
of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports
to be executed and attested. Explanation.—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. This Explanation applies also to section 81. Illustrations (a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time. He produces from his custody
deeds relating to the land showing his titles to it. The custody is proper.
(b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee.
The mortgagor is in possession. The custody is proper.
(c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B’s possession,
which were deposited with him by B for safe custody. The custody is proper. STATE AMENDMENTS Uttar
Pradesh.—(a) Renumber section 90 as sub-section (1) thereof;
(b) in sub-section (1) as so renumbered, for the words “thirty years”,
substitute the words “twenty years”;
(c) after sub-section (1) as so renumbered, insert the following
sub-section, namely:— “(2) Where any such document as is referred to in sub-section (1) was registered in
accordance with the law relating to registration of documents and a duly certified copy thereof is produced,
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, it is that person’s handwriting, and in the case of a document
executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to have been
executed or attested”.
(d) After section 90, insert the following section, namely:— “90A. (1) Where
any registered document or a duly certified copy thereof or any certified copy of a document which is part
of the record of a Court of Justice, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case
considers proper, the Court may presume that the original was executed by the person by whom it purports to
have been executed.
(2) This presumption shall not be made in respect of
any document which is the basis of a suit or of defence or is relied upon in the plaint or written
statement.” The Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 90 will also apply to this section; [Vide Uttar
Pradesh Act 24 of 1954, sec. 2 and Sch. (w.e.f. 30-11-1954).] COMMENTS Presumption Assuming that the
document is more than thirty years old and comes from proper custody, there would be no presumption that
contents of the same are true; Mohinuddin v. President, Municipal Committee, Khargone, AIR 1993 MP 5.
Evidence Act 90A
Evidence Act 97 [ 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 98 [electronic signature]
which purports to be the 98 [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 Explanation applies also to section 81A.]
Evidence Act 91
Evidence Act 91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and
other dispositions of
property reduced to form of documents.—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 evidence1 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.—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 evidence2 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 2[admitted to probate in 3[India]] may be proved by the probate. Explanation 1.—This
section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are
contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one. Explanation.
2.—Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved. Explanation 3.—The statement, in
any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the
admission of oral evidence as to the same fact. Illustrations(a) If a contract
be contained in several letters, all the letters in which it is contained must be proved.
(b) If a contract is contained in a bill of exchange, the bill of exchange must
be proved.
(c) If a bill of exchange is drawn in a set of three, one only need be proved.
(d) A contracts, in writing, with B, for the delivery of indigo upon certain
terms. The contract mentions the fact that B had paid A the price of other indigo contracted for verbally on
another occasion. Oral evidence is offered that no payment was made for the other indigo. The evidence is
admissible.
(e) A gives B receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered of the
payment. The evidence is admissible.
Evidence Act 92
Evidence Act 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.—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: (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, 3[want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in
fact or law\:” Proviso (2).—The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a
document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or
not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document: Proviso
(3).—The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of
any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved: Proviso (4).—The
existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or
disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of
property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the
time being as to the registration of documents: Proviso (5).—Any usage or custom by which incidents not
expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express
terms of the contract: Proviso (6).—Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a
document is related to existing facts. Illustrations
(a) A policy of
insurance is effected on goods “in ships from Calcutta to London”. The goods are shipped in a particular
ship which is lost. The fact that that particular ship was orally excepted from the policy, cannot be
proved.
(b) A agrees absolutely in writing to pay B Rs. 1,000 on the 1st March,
1873. The fact that, at the same time, an oral agreement was made that the money should not be paid till
the thirty-first March, cannot be proved.
(c) An estate called “the Rampure tea estate” is sold by a deed which
contains a map of the property sold. The fact that land not included in the map had always been regarded
as part of the estate and was meant to pass by the deed, cannot be proved.
(d) A enters into a written contract with B to work certain mines, the
property of B, upon certain terms. A was induced to do so by a misrepresentation of B’s as to their value.
This fact may be proved.
(e) A institutes a suit against B for the specific performance of a
contract, and also prays that the contract may be reformed as to one of its provisions, as that provision
was inserted in it by mistake. A may prove that such a mistake was made as would by law entitle him to
have the contract reformed.
(f) A orders goods of B by a letter in which nothing is said as to the
time of payment, and accepts the goods on delivery. B sues A for the price. A may show that the goods were
supplied on credit for a term still unexpired.
(g) A sells B a horse and verbally warrants him sound. A gives B a
paper in these words “Bought of A a horse for Rs. 500”. B may prove the verbal warranty.
(h) A hires lodgings of B, and gives B a card on which is
written—“Rooms, Rs. 200 a month”. A may prove a verbal agreement that these terms were to include partial
board. A hires lodgings of B for a year, and a regularly stamped agreement, drawn up by an attorney, is
made between them. It is silent on the subject of board. A may not prove that board was included in the
term verbally.
(i) A applies to B for a debt due to A by sending a receipt for the
money. B keeps the receipt and does not send the money. In a suit for the amount, A may prove this.
(j) A and B make a contract in writing to take effect upon the
happening of a certain contingency. The writing is left with B, who sues A upon it. A may show the
circumstances under which it was delivered. Comments Deed of collateral security: manner of execution If
it is a deed of collateral security of defendant, then the defendant would have had to execute a deed in
favour of plaintiff and not vice versa, where the plaintiff has executed the mortgage the plea of evidence
of collateral security offered by defendant appears not to fit into a situation; Ishwar Dass v. Sohan Lal,
AIR 2000 SC 426. Inference can be drawn regarding proof of document by admission of parties either oral or
other evidence; B.B. Lohar v. P.P. Goyal, AIR 1999 Sikkim 11. Position of stranger The rule as to
exclusion of oral by documentary evidence governs the parties to the deed in writing. A stranger to the
document is not bound by the terms of the document and is, therefore, not excluded from demonstrating the
untrue or collusive nature of the document or the fraudulent or illegal purpose for which it was brought
into being; Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam, (2004) 4 SCC 794.
Evidence Act 93
Evidence Act 93. Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend
ambiguous document.—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.
Evidence Act 94
Evidence Act 94. Exclusion of evidence against application of
document to existing
facts.—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.
Evidence Act 95
Evidence Act 95. Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference
to existing
facts.—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 of Howrah.
Evidence Act 96
Evidence Act 96. Evidence as to application of language which
can apply to one only
of several persons.—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 given 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 Haidarabad in Sindh was meant.
Evidence Act 97
Evidence Act 97. Evidence as to application of language to one
of two sets of
facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies.—When the language used applies partly to one set
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. Illustrations 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 Act 98
Evidence Act 98. Evidence as to meaning of illegible
characters, etc.—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, 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.
Evidence Act 99
Evidence Act 99. Who may give evidence of agreement varying
term of
document.—Persons who are not parties to a document, or their representatives in interest, may give evidence
of any facts tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document. Illustration A and
B make a contract in writing that B shall sell A certain cotton, to be paid for on delivery. At the same time
they make an oral agreement that three months’s 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.
Evidence Act 100
Evidence Act 100. Saving of provisions of Indian Succession
Act relating to
Wills.—Nothing in this Chapter contained shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Indian
Succession Act (10 of 1865)1 as to the construction of Wills.
Evidence Act 101
Evidence Act 101. Burden of proof.—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. Illustrations (a) A desires a Court to give judgment that
B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in
the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the
existence of those facts. COMMENTS Joint family property Merely because some of properties continue to stand
in the name of plaintiff that by itself cannot lead to any conclusion that the property purchased by any one
member of the family would necessarily be a part of joint family property and when evidence shows that the
person who has purchased property had been engaged in an independent business for a sufficient long period;
Baban Girju v. Namdeo Girju Bangar, AIR 1999 Bom 46. Reasonable proof of ownership In absence of any
reasonable proof that defendant was the actual owner of the property, and plaintiff was only a name given
does not prove that respondent was owner and plaint maker was only a name given to the property; Rama Kanta
Jain v. M.S. Jain, AIR 1999 Del 281. What to be proved by prosecution It is well settled that the
prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the very story it alleges. It must stand on its own legs.
It cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. Nor can the court on its own make out a new case
for the prosecution and convict the accused on that basis; Narain Singh v. State, (1997) 2 Crimes 464 (Del).
Evidence Act 102
Evidence Act 102. On whom burden of proof lies.—The burden of
proof in a suit or
proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts,
was left to A by the will of C, B’s father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to
retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted,
but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would
succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B.
Evidence Act 103
Evidence Act 103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.—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 wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he
was elsewhere. He must prove it. COMMENTS Plea of alibi Plea of alibi taken by accused, it is he who has to
prove it; State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021: 1981 SC Cr R 317: 1981 Cr LJ 714: (1981) 2 SCC
300.
Evidence Act 104
Evidence Act 104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make
evidence
admissible.—The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give
evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. Illustrations(a) A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B’s death.
(b) A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document.
A must prove that the document has been lost.
Evidence Act 105
Evidence Act 105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes
within
exceptions.—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. Illustrations (a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the
nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A.
(b) A, accused of murder, alleges, that by grave and sudden provocation, he
was deprived of the power of self-control. The burden of proof is on A.
(c) Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), provides that
whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be subject
to certain punishments. A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325. The burden of
proving the circumstances bringing the case under section 335 lies on A. COMMENTS Plea of self-defence When
the prosecution has established its case, it is incumbent upon the accused, under section 105 to establish
the case of his private defence by showing probability; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Mad). The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and
the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis
of material on record; Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976.
Evidence Act 106
Evidence Act 106. Burden of proving fact especially within
knowledge.—When any
fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that
which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of
proving that he had a ticket is on him.
Evidence Act 107
Evidence Act 107. Burden of proving death of person known to
have been alive
within thirty years.—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.
Evidence Act 108
Evidence Act 108. Burden of proving that person is alive who
has not been heard of
for seven years.—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.—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.”
Evidence Act 109
Evidence Act 109. Burden of proof as to relationship in the
cases of partners,
landlord and tenant, principal and agent.—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.
Evidence Act 110
Evidence Act 110. Burden of proof as to ownership.—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.
Evidence Act 111
Evidence Act 111. Proof of good faith in transactions where
one party is in
relation of active confidence.—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.
Evidence Act 111A
Evidence Act 1[111A. Presumption as to certain offences.—(1) Where a person is accused of having committed any offence specified in
sub-section (2),
in—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 areas 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 maintenance of public order acting in the
discharge of their duties, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that such person had
committed such offence.
(2) The offences referred to in sub-section (1) are the following, namely:—
(a) an offence under section 121, section 121A section 122 or section
123 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) criminal conspiracy or attempt to commit, or abatement of, an
offence under section 122 or section 123 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
Evidence Act 112
Evidence Act 112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of
legitimacy.—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.
Evidence Act 113
Evidence Act 113. Proof of cession of territory.—A
notification in the Official
Gazette that any portion of British territory has 1[before the commencement of Part III of the Government of
India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5, ch. 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.—A notification
in the Official Gazette that any portion of British territory has 2[before the commencement of Part III of the
Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5, ch. 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.”
Evidence Act 113A
Evidence Act 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.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).]
Evidence Act 113B
Evidence Act 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 has
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).]
Evidence Act 114
Evidence Act 114 Court may presume existence of certain facts.
—The Court may
presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common
course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the
particular case. Illustrations The Court may presume—(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, was accepted or endorsed
for good consideration;
(d) That a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence
within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist, is
still in existence;
(e) That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f) That the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;
(g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be
unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
(h) That if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to
answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;
(i) That when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the
obligor, the obligation has been discharged.
But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the
following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it:— As to
illustration(a) — A shop-keeper has in his till a marked rupee soon after it
was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the
course of his business; As to illustration (b)—A, a person of the highest character, is tried for causing a
man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character,
who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common
carelessness of A and himself; As to illustration (b)—A crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C,
three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of
the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous
concert highly improbable; As to illustration (c)— A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of
business. B, the acceptor, was young and ignorant person, completely under A’s influence; As to illustration
(d)—It is proved that a river ran in a certain course five years ago, but it is known that there have been
floods since that time which might change its course; As to illustration (e)—A judicial act, the regularity
of which is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances; As to illustration (f)—The question
is, whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was
interrupted by disturbances; As to illustration (g)—A man refuses to produce a document which would bear on
a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure the feelings and reputation
of his family; As to illustration (h)—A man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled by law to
answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to
which it is asked; As to illustration (i)—A bond is in possession of the obligor, but the circumstances of
the case are such that he may have stolen it.
(i) There would be
presumption in favour of wedlock if the partners lived together for long spell as husband and wife; but it
would be rebuttable and heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal
origin to prove that no marriage took place; Tulsa v. Durghatiya, 2008 (1) SCR 709: 2008 (4) SCC 520.
(ii) Presumption is rebuttable. If there is any such circumstance
weakening such presumption, it cannot be ignored by the court; Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy, AIR 2005 SC 800.
(iii) When oral and other reliable evidences are satisfactorily
giving evidence that the pair lived together as husband and wife, merely because family register does not
show them as husband and wife is not a clinching evidence to deny their relationship of husband and wife;
Lalta v. District IVth upper Distt. Judge Basti, AIR 1999 All 342.
(iv) Genuine and correctness of document have to be proved by a person
believes upon it by cogent and direct evidence; Ashok Kumar Uttam Chand Shah v. Patel Mohmad Asmal
Chanchad, AIR 1999 Guj 108.
(v) A court may legitimately draw a presumption not only of the fact
that the person in whose possession the stolen articles were found committed the robbery but also that he
committed the murder; Mukund alias Kundu Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 4 Supreme 359.
(vi) The recovery made some days after the dacoity does not raise a
presumption under section 114(a) in respect of the offence of dacoity; Vasant alias Roshan Sogaji Bhosale
v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 104 (Bom).
Evidence Act 114A
Evidence Act 1[114A. Presumption as to absence of consent in
certain prosecutions
for rape.—In a prosecution for rape under clause(a) or clause (b) or clause
(c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) 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 she states in her evidence before the Court that she
did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent.]
Evidence Act 115
Evidence Act 115 Estoppel. —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.
Evidence Act 116
Evidence Act 116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of
person in possession.—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 thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time
when such licence was given.
Evidence Act 117
Evidence Act 117. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange,
bailee or licensee.—No
acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or
to endorese 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.
Evidence Act 118
Evidence Act 118 Who may testify. —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.
Evidence Act 119
Evidence Act 119. Dumb witnesses.—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.
Evidence Act 120
Evidence Act 120. Parties to civil suit, and their wives or
husbands. Husband or
wife of person under criminal trial.—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.
Evidence Act 121
Evidence Act 121. Judges and Magistrates.—No Judge or
Magistrate shall, except
upon the special order of some Court to which he is subordinate, be compelled to answer any question as to his
own conduct in Court as such Judge or Magistrate, or as to anything which came to his knowledge in Court as
such Judge or Magistrate; but he may be examined as to other matters which occurred in his presence whilst he
was so acting. Illustrations (a) A, on his trial before the Court of Sessions,
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 Sessions of having given false evidence
before B, a Magistrate. B cannot be asked what A said, except upon the special order of the superior Court.
(c) A is accused before the Court of Sessions of attempting to murder a
police officer whilst on his trial before B, a Sessions Judge. B may be examined as to what occurred.
Evidence Act 122
Evidence Act 122. Communications during marriage.—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.
Evidence Act 123
Evidence Act 123. Evidence as to affairs of State.—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.
Evidence Act 124
Evidence Act 124. Official communications.—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.
Evidence Act 125
Evidence Act 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 Revenue officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any
offence against the public revenue.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
Revenue officer 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 an officer employed in or
about the business of any branch of the public revenue.]
Evidence Act 126
Evidence Act 126. Professional communications.—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; 2[illegal] purpose;”
(2) Any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the
course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement
of his employment. It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, 2[pleader], attorney or vakil
was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client. Explanation.—The obligation stated in
this section continues after the employment has ceased. Illustrations
(a) A, a client, says to B, an attorney—“I have committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me”. As the
defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected from
disclosure.
(b) A, a client, says to B, an attorney—“I wish to obtain possession
of property by the use of a forged deed on which I request you to sue”. This communication, being made in
furtherance of a criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure.
(c) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an attorney, to
defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been made in A’s account-book,
charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement
of his employment. This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment, showing that a fraud
has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure.
Evidence Act 127
Evidence Act 127. Section 126 to apply to interpreters,
etc.—The provisions of
section 126 shall apply to interpreters, and the clerks or servants of barristers, pleaders, attorneys, and
vakils.
Evidence Act 128
Evidence Act 128. Privilege not waived by volunteering
evidence.—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.—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.”
Evidence Act 129
Evidence Act 129. Confidential communications with legal
advisers.—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.
Evidence Act 130
Evidence Act 130. Production of title-deeds of witness not a
party.—No witness who
is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property, or any document in
virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee, or any document the production of which might
tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production
of such deeds or some person through whom he claims.
Evidence Act 131
Evidence Act 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.]2[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.]”
Evidence Act 132
Evidence Act 132. Witness not excused from answering on ground
that answer will
criminate.—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.
Evidence Act 133
Evidence Act 133. Accomplice.—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.
Evidence Act 134
Evidence Act 134. Number of witnesses.—No particular number of
witnesses shall in
any case be required for the proof of any fact.
Evidence Act 135
Evidence Act 135. Order of production and examination of
witnesses.—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.
Evidence Act 136
Evidence Act 136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of
evidence.—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 be given of the second fact before
evidence is given of the first fact. Illustrations (a) It is proposed to prove
a statement about a relevant fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section
32. The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to prove the statement, before
evidence is given of the statement.
(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to be
lost. The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to produce the copy, before
the copy is produced.
(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.
It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. The relevancy of the denial depends
on the identity of the property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the property to be
identified before the denial of the possession is proved, or permit the denial of the possession to be
proved before the property is identified.
(d) It is proposed to prove a fact (A) which is said to have been the cause
or effect of a fact in issue. There are several intermediate facts (B, C and D) which must be shown to exist
before the fact (A) can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit
A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A.
Evidence Act 137
Evidence Act 137. Examination-in-chief.—The examination of a
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.
Evidence Act 138
Evidence Act 138. Order of examinations.—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.
Evidence Act 139
Evidence Act 139. Cross-examination of person called to
produce a document.—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.
Evidence Act 140
Evidence Act 140. Witnesses to character.—Witnesses to
character may be
cross-examined and re-examined.
Evidence Act 141
Evidence Act 141. Leading questions.—Any question suggesting
the answer which the
person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question.
Evidence Act 142
Evidence Act 142. When they must not be asked.—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.
Evidence Act 143
Evidence Act 143. When they may be asked.—Leading questions
may be asked in
cross-examination.
Evidence Act 144
Evidence Act 144. Evidence as to matters in writing.—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. Illustration The question is, whether A assaulted B. C deposes
that he heard A say to D—”B wrote a letter accusing me of theft, and I will be revenged on him”. This
statement is relevant as showing A’s motive for the assault, and evidence may be given of it, though no other
evidence is given about the letter.
Evidence Act 145
Evidence Act 117145. Cross-examination as to
previous statements in
writing.—A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into
writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but,
if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be
called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.1145. Cross-examination
as to previous statements in writing.—A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in
writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him,
or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the
writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting
him.”
Evidence Act 146
Evidence Act 146. Questions lawful in cross-examination.—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 rape or attempt to
commit rape, it shall not be permissible to put questions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix as to
her general immoral character.]
Evidence Act 147
Evidence Act 147. When witness to be compelled to answer.—If
any such question
relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions of section 132 shall apply thereto.
Evidence Act 148
Evidence Act 148. Court to decide when question shall be asked
and when witness
compelled to answer.—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
would affect in a slight degree, the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter
to which he testifies;
(3) Such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion between the
importance of the imputation made against the witness’s character and the importance of his evidence;
(4) The Court may, if it sees fit, draw, from the witness’s refusal to
answer, the inference that the answer if given would be unfavourable.
Evidence Act 149
Evidence Act 149. Question not to be asked without reasonable
grounds.—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 asked at random whether
he is a dakait. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question.
(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his
mode of life and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a reasonable ground for asking
him if he is a dakait.
Evidence Act 150
Evidence Act 150. Procedure of Court in case of question being
asked without
reasonable grounds.—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 the subject in the
exercise of his profession.
Evidence Act 151
Evidence Act 151. Indecent and scandalous questions.—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.
Evidence Act 152
Evidence Act 152. Questions intended to insult or annoy.—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.
Evidence Act 153
Evidence Act 153. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers
to questions testing
veracity.—When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in
so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict
him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence. Exception 1.—If a
witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of
his previous conviction. Exception 2.—If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality,
and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted. Illustrations (a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud. The claimant is asked
whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it. Evidence is offered to
show that he did make such a claim. The evidence is inadmissible.
(b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for
dishonesty. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. The evidence is
not admissible.
(c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Lahore. A is asked whether he
himself was not on that day at Calcutta. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at
Calcutta. The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as
contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Lahore. In each of these cases the
witness might, if his denial was false, be charged with giving false evidence.
(d) A is asked whether his family has not had a blood feud with the family of
B against whom he gives evidence. He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends
to impeach his impartiality.
Evidence Act 154
Evidence Act 154. Question by party to his own witness.—1[(1) ] The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to
put any question
to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.—1[(1)] The Court may, in its
discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in
cross-examination by the adverse party.” 2[(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.]
Evidence Act 156
Evidence Act 156. Questions tending to corroborate evidence of
relevant fact,
admissible.—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.
Evidence Act 157
Evidence Act 157. Former statements of witness may be proved
to corroborate later
testimony as to same fact.—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.
Evidence Act 158
Evidence Act 158. What matters may be proved in connection
with proved statement
relevant under section 32 or 33.—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 of the truth the matter suggested.
Evidence Act 159
Evidence Act 159. Refreshing memory.—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 original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to
professional treatises.
Evidence Act 160
Evidence Act 160. Testimony to facts stated in document
mentioned in section
159.—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.
Evidence Act 161
Evidence Act 123161. 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.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.”
Evidence Act 162
Evidence Act 162. Production of documents.—A witness summoned
to produce a
document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to the 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).
Evidence Act 163
Evidence Act 163. Giving, as evidence, of document called for
and produced on
notice.—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.
Evidence Act 164
Evidence Act 164. Using, as evidence, of document, production
of which was refused
on notice.—When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards
use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court. Illustration A
sues B on an agreement and gives B notice to produce it. At the trial, A calls for the document and B refuses
to produce it. A gives secondary evidence of its contents. B seeks to produce the document itself to
contradict the secondary evidence given by A, or in order to show that the agreement is not stamped. He cannot
do so.
Evidence Act 165
Evidence Act 165. Judge’s power to put questions or order
production.—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 sections 121 to 131, both inclusive, if the questions were asked
or the documents were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be
improper for any other person to ask under section 148 or 149; nor shall he dispense with primary evidence of
any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.
Evidence Act 166
Evidence Act 166. Power of jury or assessors to put
questions.—In cases tried by
jury or with assessors, the jury or assessors may put any question to the witnesses, through or by leave of
the Judge, which the Judge himself might put and which he considers proper.
Evidence Act 167
Evidence Act 167. No new trial for improper admission or
rejection of
evidence.—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.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Schedule Enactments repealed.—[Rep. by the Repealing Act, 1938 (1 of 1938) sec. 2 and Sch.]
1. Cf. the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), sec. 2, the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860),
sec. 19; and, for a definition of “District Judge,” the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), sec. 3 (17).
2. Cf. the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), sec. 3 (32) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act
2 of 1974).
3. See now the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as to the settlement of issues, see Sch. I, Order
XIV.
4. Cf. the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), sec. 29 and the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), sec.
3 (18).
5. Cf. definition of “writing in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), sec. 3 (65).
6. Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II–1(a), for “all documents produced for the inspection of the
Court” (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
7. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for the definitions of “State“ and “States”. Earlier the
definitions of “State” and “States” were inserted by the A.O. 1950.
8. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II–1(b) (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
9. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, sec. 52(a), for “digital signature” and “Digital Signature Certificate”
respectively (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).
10. See now the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). tc” 1. See now the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908).”
11. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “Queen”. tc” 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “Queen”.”
12. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “Queen”. tc” 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “Queen”.”
13. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 1, for the original Explanation. tc” 1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 1, for
the original Explanation.”
14. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 1, for Illustration (b). tc” 2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 1, for
Illustration (b).”
15. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 2. tc” 1. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 2.”
16. Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for “oral or documentary” (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 1.
Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for “oral or documentary” (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
17. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 1. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92
and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
18. For prohibition of such inducements, etc., see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section
316. tc” 2. For prohibition of such inducements, etc., see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
section 316.”
19. As to statements made to a police officer investigating a case, see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974), section 162. tc” 1. As to statements made to a police officer investigating a case, see the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 162.”
20. A Coroner has been declared to be Magistrate for the purposes of this section, see the Coroners Act,
1871 (4 of 1871), section 20.
21. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 3. tc” 3. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 3.”
22. The words “or in Burma” omitted by the A.O. 1937. tc” 4. The words \”or in Burma\” omitted by the A.O.
1937.”
23. See now the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). tc” 5. See now the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974).”
24. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 4. tc” 1. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 4.”
25. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 2.
26. Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for “Entries in the books of account” (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
27. Subs. by the Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for “record” (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
28. Subs. by the A.O. 1948, for “any Government in British India.”
29. Ins. by the A.O. 1950. tc” 3. Ins. by the A.O. 1950.”
30. The original words were “Act of the Governor General of India in Council or of the Governors in Council
of Madras or Bombay, or of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Bengal, or in a notification of the
Government appearing in the Gazette of India, or in the Gazette of any L.G. or in any printed paper
purporting to be the London Gazette or the Government Gazette of any colony or possession of the Queen, is a
relevant fact”. This was amended first by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1914 (10 of 1914) and then by the
A.O. 1937, the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950 to read as above. tc” 4. The original words were \”Act of the
Governor General of India in Council or of the Governors in Council of Madras or Bombay, or of the
Lieutenant Governor in Council of Bengal, or in a notification of the Government appearing in the Gazette of
India, or in the Gazette of any L.G. or in any printed paper purporting to be the London Gazette or the
Government Gazette of any colony or possession of the Queen, is a relevant fact\”. This was amended first by
the Repealing and Amending Act, 1914 (10 of 1914) and then by the A.O. 1937, the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950
to read as above.”
31. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951 sec. 3 and Sch., for “an Act of the Legislature of Part A State or a Part C
State”. tc” 5. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951 sec. 3 and Sch., for \”an Act of the Legislature of Part A State or a
Part C State\”.”
32. The last para added by Act 5 of 1899, sec. 2, and omitted by Act 10 of 1914, sec. 3 and Sch. II. tc” 1.
The last para added by Act 5 of 1899, sec. 2, and omitted by Act 10 of 1914, sec. 3 and Sch. II.”
33. Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for section 39 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 2. Subs. by Act 21
of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for section 39 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
34. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 3. tc” 3. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 3.”
35. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, sec. 3. For discussion in Council as to whether “finger impressions” include
“thumb impressions”, see Gazette of India, 1898, Pt. VI, p. 24. tc” 2. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, sec. 3. For
discussion in Council as to whether \”finger impressions\” include \”thumb impressions\”, see Gazette of
India, 1898, Pt. VI, p. 24.”
36. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 4. tc” 3. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 4.”
37. Ins. by Act 10 of 2009, sec. 52(b) (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).
38. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II–7 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
39. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, sec. 52(c)(i), for “digital signature” (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).
40. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, sec. 52(c)(ii), for “Digital Signature Certificate” (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).
41. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 6, for section 54. tc” 1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 6, for section 54.”
42. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 7. tc” 2. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 7.”
43. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for para (1).
44. Ins. by the A.O. 1950.
45. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “Her Majesty’s”.
46. Subs. by Act 10 of 1927, sec. 25 and Sch. I, for “or Navy”.
47. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for para 4.
48. Subs. by the A.O. 1948, for “Courts of British India”.
49. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for “the States”.
50. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for the “the G.G. or any L.G. in Council”.
51. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, “any Act of Parliament or other”.
52. Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for “contents of documents” (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 1.
Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for “contents of documents” (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
53. See section 76 infra. tc” 1. See section 76 infra.”
54. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for “the States”. tc” 1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and
Sch., for “the States”.”
55. Cf. the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), section 4. tc” 2. Cf. the Bankers’ Books
Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), section 4.”
56. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 3. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92
and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
57. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 3. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92
and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
58. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 6. tc” 1. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 6.”
59. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II–10 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
60. Ins. by Act 31 of 1926, sec. 2.
61. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, sec. 3.
62. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 2. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92
and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
63. The original words “whether of British India, or of any other part of Her Majesty’s dominions” have
successively been amended by the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950 to read as above. tc” 1. The original words
“whether of British India, or of any other part of Her Majesty’s dominions” have successively been amended
by the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950 to read as above.”
64. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “in any province”. tc” 2. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “in any province”.”
65. A Village-officer in the Punjab has been declared for the purposes of this Act to be a public officer
having the custody of a public document—see the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), section 151(2).
tc” 3. A Village-officer in the Punjab has been declared for the purposes of this Act to be a public officer
having the custody of a public document—see the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), section 151
(2).”
66. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “the Executive Government of British India”. tc” 4. Subs. by the A.O. 1937,
for “the Executive Government of British India”.”
67. Ins. by the A.O. 1937. tc” 5. Ins. by the A.O. 1937.”
68. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “by order of Government”. tc” 6. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “by order of
Government”.”
69. The words “Her Majesty” stand unmodified see the A.O. 1950. tc” 7. The words “Her Majesty” stand
unmodified see the A.O. 1950.”
70. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “public Act of the Governor General of India in Council”. tc” 1. Subs. by
the A.O. 1937, for “public Act of the Governor General of India in Council”.”
71. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “a Province”. tc” 2. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “a Province”.”
72. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “a British Consul”. tc” 3. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “a British Consul”.”
73. Ins. by the A.O. 1948. tc” 4. Ins. by the A.O. 1948.”
74. The original word beginning from “in British India” and ending with the words “to be genuine” have been
successively amended by the A.O. 1937, A.O. 1948 and A.O. 1950 to read as above. tc” 5. The original word
beginning from “in British India” and ending with the words “to be genuine” have been successively amended
by the A.O. 1937, A.O. 1948 and A.O. 1950 to read as above.”
75. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for “in a Part B State”. tc” 6. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3
and Sch., for “in a Part B State”.”
76. Subs. by A.O. 1937, for “the Gazette of India or the Government Gazette of any L.G., or”. tc” 1. Subs.
by A.O. 1937, for “the Gazette of India or the Government Gazette of any L.G., or”.”
77. Ins. by the A.O. 1950. tc” 2. Ins. by the A.O. 1950.”
78. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 3. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92
and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
79. The original word “Government” has successively been amended by the A.O. 1937, A.O. 1948, Act 40 of
1949, A.O. 1950, to read as above. tc” 4. The original word “Government” has successively been amended by
the A.O. 1937, A.O. 1948, Act 40 of 1949, A.O. 1950, to read as above.”
80. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “British”. tc” 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “British”.”
81. The words “of Her Majesty, or” omitted by the A.O. 1950. tc” 2. The words “of Her Majesty, or” omitted
by the A.O. 1950.”
82. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “Government of India”. tc” 3. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “Government of
India”.”
83. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II–13 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
84. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II–13 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
85. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II–13 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
86. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, sec. 52(g), for “Digital Signature Certificates” (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).
87. Subs. by A.O. 1950, for “any country not forming part”. tc” 5. Subs. by A.O. 1950, for “any country not
forming part”.”
88. The words “a Part B State or of” omitted by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch.
89. The words “Her Majesty or of” omitted by the A.O. 1950. tc” 7. The words “Her Majesty or of” omitted by
the A.O. 1950.”
90. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “Government of India”. tc” 8. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “Government of
India”.”
91. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, sec 8, for “resident in”. tc” 9. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, sec 8, for “resident
in”.”
92. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for “such Part B State or country”.
93. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for “that State or country”.
94. Subs. by Act 5 of 1899, sec. 4, for the para added by Act 3 of 1891, sec. 3.
95. The words “a Part B State or” which were ins. by the A.O. 1950, omitted by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and
Sch.
96. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 3. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92
and Sch. II (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
97. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II–15 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
98. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, sec. 52(h), for “digital signature” (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).
99. Where, however, a criminal court finds that a confession or other statements of an accused person has
not been recorded in the manner prescribed, evidence may be taken that the recorded statement was duly made
see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 463. tc” 2. Where, however, a criminal court
finds that a confession or other statements of an accused person has not been recorded in the manner
prescribed, evidence may be taken that the recorded statement was duly made see the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 463.”
100. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 7, for “under the Indian Succession Act”. tc” 1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872,
sec. 7, for “under the Indian Succession Act”.”
101. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for “the States”. tc” 2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and
Sch., for “the States”.”
102. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 8, “for want of failure”. tc” 3. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 8, “for
want of failure”.”
103. See now the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Pt. VI, Ch. VI. tc” 1. See now the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Pt. VI, Ch. VI.”
104. Sic. In the Act as published in Gazette of India, 1872, Pt. IV, p. 1, there is no illustration (b). tc”
1. Sic. In the Act as published in Gazette of India, 1872, Pt. IV, p. 1, there is no illustration (b).”
105. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 9, for “When”. tc” 1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 9, for \”When\”.”
106. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 9, for “on”. tc” 2. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 9, for \”on\”.”
107. Ins. by Act 61 of 1984, sec. 20 (w.e.f. 14-7-1984). tc” 1. Ins. by Act 61 of 1984, sec. 20 (w.e.f.
14-7-1984).”
108. Ins. by the A.O. 1937, (Pt. III of the Government of India Act, 1935 came into force on the 1st April,
1937). tc” 2. Ins. by the A.O. 1937, (Pt. III of the Government of India Act, 1935 came into force on the
1st April, 1937).”
109. Ins. by Act 46 of 1983, sec. 7. tc” 1. Ins. by Act 46 of 1983, sec. 7.”
110. Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 12 (w.e.f. 19-11-1986). tc” 2. Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 12 (w.e.f.
19-11-1986).”
111. Ins. by Act 43 of 1983, sec. 6. tc” 1. Ins. by Act 43 of 1983, sec. 6.”
112. Subs. by Act 3 of 1887, sec. 1, for section 125. tc” 1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1887, sec. 1, for section
125.”
113. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 10, for “criminal”. tc” 2. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 10, for
\”criminal\”.”
114. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 10. tc” 3. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 10.”
115. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 10. tc” 1. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 10.”
116. Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for section 131 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). tc” 2. Subs. by Act
21 of 2000, sec. 92 and Sch. II, for section 131 (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).”
117. As to the application of section 145 to police-diaries, see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), section 172. tc” 1. As to the application of section 145 to police-diaries, see the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 172.”
118. Ins. by Act 4 of 2003, sec. 2 (w.r.e.f. 31-12-2002). tc” 2. Ins. by Act 4 of 2003, sec. 2 (w.r.e.f.
31-12-2002).”
119. Section 154 renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof by Act 2 of 2006, sec. 9 (w.e.f. 16-4-2006).
120. Ins. by Act 2 of 2006, sec. 9 (w.e.f. 16-4-2006).
121. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 11, for “had”. tc” 1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 11, for \”had\”.”
122. Clause (4) omitted by Act 4 of 2003, sec. 3 (w.r.e.f. 31-12-2002). Clause (a), before omission, stood
as under: tc” 2. Clause (4) omitted by Act 4 of 2003, sec. 3 (w.r.e.f. 31-12-2002). Clause (a), before
omission, stood as under\:”
123. As the application of section 161 to Police-Diaries, see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), section 172. tc” 1. As the application of section 161 to Police-Diaries, see the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 172.”