BSA · 2023
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
170 sections · Replaces the Indian Evidence Act 1872
Chapter I · PRELIMINARY
- 1Short title, application and commencement.This section gives the short title of the Act as the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It applies to all judicial proceedings before any Court including Courts-martial, but expressly excludes affidavits presented to any Court or officer and proceedings before arbitrators. It comes into force on a date notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette.⇆ IEA s.1
- 2Definitions.This section defines key terms used throughout the Adhiniyam, including 'Court', 'document' (expressly including electronic and digital records), 'evidence' (oral and documentary, including electronically given statements), 'fact', 'facts in issue', 'proved', 'disproved', 'not proved', 'may presume', 'shall presume', 'conclusive proof', and 'relevant'. It also provides that undefined words used in the Adhiniyam but defined in the IT Act 2000, BNSS 2023, or BNS 2023 carry the meanings assigned there.⇆ IEA s.3
Chapter II · RELEVANCY OF FACTS
- 3Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are declared relevant by the Adhiniyam, and of no others. The section does not override procedural bars under civil procedure law that disentitle a party from proving a fact. It thus confines admissible evidence to facts in issue and relevant facts only.⇆ IEA s.5
- 4Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.Facts that are not themselves in issue but are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction are relevant, regardless of whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. This is the res gestae principle. The connection must be such that the facts together constitute one continuous transaction.⇆ IEA s.6
- 5Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts.Facts that are the occasion, cause, or effect (immediate or otherwise) of relevant facts or facts in issue, or that constitute the state of things under which they happened, or that afforded an opportunity for their occurrence, are relevant. This section extends relevancy to contextual and circumstantial background facts.⇆ IEA s.7
- 6Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.Any fact showing or constituting a motive or preparation for a fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant. The conduct of any party or their agent in reference to the suit or proceeding, or any fact in issue, is relevant if it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact, whether the conduct was prior or subsequent. Statements are not 'conduct' unless they accompany and explain acts, but statements made to a person that affect their conduct are relevant.⇆ IEA s.8
- 7Facts necessary to explain or introduce fact in issue or relevant facts.Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference from such a fact, or which establish identity, fix time or place, or show the relation of parties involved in a relevant transaction, are relevant to the extent necessary for those purposes. The section limits such explanatory facts to what is actually necessary.⇆ IEA s.9
- 8Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons conspired together to commit an offence or actionable wrong, anything said, done, or written by any one conspirator in reference to their common intention — after the intention was first entertained by any one of them — is relevant against each alleged conspirator, both to prove the conspiracy and to show that a particular person was a party to it.⇆ IEA s.10
- 9When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact, or 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. This section provides a residual gateway for circumstantial evidence.⇆ IEA s.11
- 10Facts tending to enable Court to determine amount are relevant in suits for damages.In suits where damages are claimed, any fact that will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages to be awarded is relevant. This is a specific relevancy rule applicable to damages quantification in civil suits.⇆ IEA s.12
- 11Facts relevant when right or custom is in question.Where the existence of a right or custom is in question, two categories of facts are relevant: (a) any transaction by which the right or custom was created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted, denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence; and (b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised, exercised, disputed, asserted, or departed from. The section allows historical transactions and specific instances of exercise or denial to establish or negate a right or custom.⇆ IEA s.13
- 12Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling.Facts showing the existence of any state of mind (such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill) or any state of body or bodily feeling are relevant when such state of mind or body is itself in issue or relevant. The state of mind must be shown to exist in reference to the particular matter in question, not merely as a general disposition. Where a previous offence is relevant to show state of mind, a previous conviction for that offence is also a relevant fact.⇆ IEA s.14
- 13Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional.When the question is whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that the act formed part of a series of similar occurrences in each of which the same person was concerned is relevant. This section admits evidence of system or pattern to rebut a claim of accident or mistake.⇆ IEA s.15
- 14Existence of course of business when relevant.When the question is whether a particular act was done, the existence of a course of business according to which that act would naturally have been done is a relevant fact. This allows proof of routine business practice to raise an inference that the act in question was performed in accordance with that practice.⇆ IEA s.16
- 15Admission defined.An admission is defined as a statement — oral, documentary, or 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 specified in subsequent sections. The definition is broad and technology-neutral, expressly including electronic records.⇆ IEA s.17
- 16Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.Admissions may be made by a party to the proceeding or by an agent expressly or impliedly authorised by that party. Statements by parties suing or sued in a representative capacity are admissions only if made while holding that character. Statements by persons with a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter, or by predecessors-in-interest, are admissions if made during the continuance of that interest.⇆ IEA s.18
- 17Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit.Statements made by persons whose position or liability must be proved as against a party to the suit are admissions, provided those statements would be relevant against such persons if they were parties to a suit, and provided the statements were made while the person occupied that position or was subject to that liability. The section extends the admission rule to third parties whose legal status is itself in issue.⇆ IEA s.19
- 18Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit.Where a party to a suit has expressly referred another party to a third person for information on a matter in dispute, statements made by that third person are admissions. The referral must be express, and the statement must relate to the matter about which the reference was made.⇆ IEA s.20
- 19Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.Admissions are relevant and may be proved against the person who makes them or their representative in interest, but generally cannot be proved by or on behalf of the maker. Three exceptions permit self-serving admissions to be proved by the maker: (1) where the statement would be relevant as a declaration against interest by a deceased person under section 26; (2) where it is a contemporaneous statement of a state of mind or body accompanied by conduct making falsehood improbable; and (3) where it is relevant on some ground other than as an admission.⇆ IEA s.21
- 20When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant.Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant unless the party seeking to prove them has established a right to give secondary evidence of the document under the applicable rules, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is itself in question. The section prevents oral evidence from being used as a backdoor substitute for documentary proof.⇆ IEA s.22
- 21Admissions in civil cases when relevant.In civil cases, an admission is not relevant if it was made on an express condition that it would not be given in evidence, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer a mutual agreement to that effect. This section protects 'without prejudice' communications. However, it does not exempt an advocate from giving evidence on matters he is compellable to testify about under Section 132(1) and (2).⇆ IEA s.23
- 22Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.A confession made by an accused is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if it was caused by inducement, threat, coercion, or promise from a person in authority, relating to the charge, and sufficient to make the accused believe he would gain an advantage or avoid a temporal evil. Once the impression of such inducement is fully removed, a subsequent confession becomes relevant. A confession is not rendered irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, by deception, while drunk, in answer to questions the accused need not have answered, or without a warning of the right to remain silent.⇆ IEA s.24
- 23Confession to police officer.No confession made to a police officer is provable against the accused. Similarly, no confession made while in police custody is provable unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. However, where a fact is discovered as a consequence of information received from an accused in police custody, so much of that information as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible, whether or not it amounts to a confession.⇆ IEA s.25
- 24Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.When two or more persons are jointly tried for the same offence and a confession by one of them implicating himself and others is proved, the Court may take that confession into consideration against the other accused as well. 'Offence' includes abetment of or attempt to commit the offence. A trial held in the absence of an absconding accused (who has failed to comply with a proclamation under BNSS s.84) is deemed a joint trial for this purpose.⇆ IEA s.30
- 25Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop.Admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted; they are rebuttable. However, they may operate as estoppels under the provisions of the Act relating to estoppel.⇆ IEA s.31
- 26Cases 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 persons who are dead, cannot be found, are incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense, are themselves relevant facts in eight specified categories: dying declarations; statements in the ordinary course of business; statements against pecuniary or proprietary interest; statements of opinion on public rights or customs; statements about family relationships; statements in wills, deeds, pedigrees, tombstones etc. about deceased persons' relationships; statements in documents relating to transactions specified in s.11(a); and statements expressing feelings or impressions of a number of persons on a relevant matter.⇆ IEA s.32
- 27Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated.Evidence given by a witness in a prior judicial proceeding (or before a person authorised by law to take evidence) is relevant in a subsequent proceeding or a later stage of the same proceeding to prove the truth of the facts stated, when the witness is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, has been kept away by the adverse party, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense. Three conditions must be satisfied: the proceedings must be between the same parties or their representatives in interest; the adverse party must have had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; and the questions in issue must have been substantially the same.⇆ IEA s.33
- 28Entries in books of account when relevant.Entries in books of account, including those maintained in electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter under inquiry by the Court. However, such entries alone are not sufficient to charge any person with liability and must be corroborated by other evidence.⇆ IEA s.34
- 29Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty.An entry in any public or official book, register, record, or electronic record, stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country where the record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.⇆ IEA s.35
- 30Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans.Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts contained in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of the Central or a State Government, as to matters usually represented in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts.⇆ IEA s.36
- 31Relevancy of statement as to fact of public nature contained in certain Acts or notifications.When a court must form an opinion about the existence of a fact of public nature, any statement of that fact made in a recital in a Central or State Act, or in an Official Gazette notification (including electronic or digital form), is a relevant fact. This provision extends to printed papers or electronic/digital publications purporting to be such Gazettes.⇆ IEA s.37
- 32Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law books including electronic or digital form.When a court must form an opinion about the law of any foreign country, statements of such law contained in books purporting to be printed or published under the authority of that country's government are relevant. Reports of rulings of courts of that country contained in books purporting to be reports of such rulings (including in electronic or digital form) are also relevant.⇆ IEA s.38
- 33What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers.When a statement offered in evidence forms part of a longer statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book, or series of letters or papers, only so much of the larger context shall be given in evidence as the court considers necessary to fully understand the nature, effect, and circumstances of the statement. The court controls the extent of the context to be proved.⇆ IEA s.39
- 34Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.The existence of a judgment, order, or decree that by law bars a court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial (such as res judicata) is a relevant fact when the question is whether the court should take cognizance or proceed with the trial. This provision gives evidentiary relevance to judgments that operate as legal bars.⇆ IEA s.40
- 35Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction.A final judgment, order, or decree of a competent court or tribunal in probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency jurisdiction that confers, takes away, or declares a legal character, or declares entitlement to a specific thing absolutely (not merely against a specified person), is relevant when such character or title is in question. Such judgment is conclusive proof of when the legal character accrued, ceased, or when the property vested, as declared therein.⇆ IEA s.41
- 36Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 35.Judgments, orders, or decrees other than those covered by section 35 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry, but they are not conclusive proof of what they state. Such judgments carry persuasive but not binding evidentiary weight.⇆ IEA s.42
- 37Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 when relevant.Judgments, orders, or decrees other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35, and 36 are generally irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment is itself a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provision of the Adhiniyam. The section provides illustrations showing when such judgments may exceptionally become relevant.⇆ IEA s.43
- 38Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.Any party to a suit or proceeding may challenge a judgment, order, or decree that is relevant under sections 34, 35, or 36 and has been proved by the adverse party, by showing that it was delivered by a court lacking competence or was obtained by fraud or collusion. This is an exception to the general rule of conclusiveness of judgments.⇆ IEA s.44
- 39Opinions of experts.When a court must form an opinion on a point of foreign law, science, art, any other field, or on identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions of persons specially skilled in those areas (experts) are relevant facts. Additionally, for matters relating to information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or electronic/digital form, the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under s.79A of the IT Act, 2000 is a relevant fact, and such examiner is deemed an expert.⇆ IEA s.45
- 40Facts bearing upon opinions of experts.Facts that are not otherwise relevant become relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when those expert opinions are themselves relevant. This provision allows collateral facts to be admitted solely to test or corroborate expert opinion.⇆ IEA s.46
- 41Opinion as to handwriting and signature, when relevant.When a court must determine who wrote or signed a document, the opinion of any person acquainted with that person's handwriting is a relevant fact. Acquaintance may arise from having seen the person write, from correspondence, or from habitual business dealings. For electronic signatures, the opinion of the issuing Certifying Authority is also relevant.⇆ IEA s.47 and s.47A
- 42Opinion as to existence of general custom or right, when relevant.When a court must determine whether a general custom or right exists, the opinions of persons likely to know of its existence are relevant. The term 'general custom or right' covers customs or rights common to any considerable class of persons.⇆ IEA s.48
- 43Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant.When a court must form an opinion on the usages and tenets of a body of men or family, the constitution and governance of a religious or charitable foundation, or the meaning of words used in particular districts or by particular classes, the opinions of persons with special means of knowledge on those matters are relevant.⇆ IEA s.49
- 44Opinion on relationship, when relevant.When a court must determine the relationship between persons, the opinion expressed by conduct of any person who, as a family member or otherwise, has special means of knowledge of that relationship, is a relevant fact. However, such opinion alone is insufficient to prove marriage in Divorce Act proceedings or in prosecutions under sections 82 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.⇆ IEA s.50
- 45Grounds of opinion, when relevant.Whenever the opinion of a living person is relevant, the grounds or reasoning on which that opinion is based are also relevant. This allows courts to assess the basis and reliability of expert or other opinion evidence.⇆ IEA s.51
- 46In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant.In civil cases, evidence of a person's character is not relevant merely to show that such character makes the conduct alleged more or less probable. Character evidence in civil proceedings is admissible only when it emerges from facts that are otherwise independently relevant.⇆ IEA s.52
- 47In criminal cases previous good character relevant.In criminal proceedings, evidence that the accused is of good character is a relevant fact. This allows the accused to put forward good character as part of the defence.⇆ IEA s.53
- 48Evidence of character or previous sexual experience not relevant in certain cases.In prosecutions for specified sexual offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 where consent is in issue, evidence of the victim's character or previous sexual experience with any person is not relevant on the issue of consent or the quality of consent. This is an absolute exclusionary rule protecting victims in such trials.⇆ IEA s.53A
- 49Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.In criminal proceedings, evidence of the accused's bad character is generally irrelevant. It becomes relevant only if the accused has first put his good character in issue. A previous conviction is expressly stated to be relevant as evidence of bad character. The section does not apply where bad character is itself a fact in issue.⇆ IEA s.54
- 50Character as affecting damages.In civil cases, the character of a person is relevant when it affects the quantum of damages that person ought to receive. The section also clarifies that 'character' for the purposes of sections 46, 47, and 49 includes both reputation and disposition, but evidence may only be given of general reputation and general disposition — not of particular acts — except as provided in section 49.⇆ IEA s.55
Chapter III · FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED
- 51Fact judicially noticeable need not be proved.A fact of which the Court takes judicial notice requires no proof by the parties. The Court accepts such facts as established without formal evidence being adduced. This relieves parties of the burden of proving matters that are universally or officially recognised.⇆ IEA s.56
- 52Facts of which Court shall take judicial notice.Section 52 lists the specific categories of facts of which the Court shall mandatorily take judicial notice, including all laws in force in India, international treaties entered into by India, proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures, public seals, national flags of recognised countries, divisions of time, and the rule of the road, among others. The Court may consult appropriate books or documents of reference to aid it in taking such notice, and may require a party requesting judicial notice to produce such reference material.⇆ IEA s.57
- 53Facts admitted need not be proved.Facts that parties or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or admit in writing before the hearing, or are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings under applicable rules of pleading, need not be proved. The Court retains a discretion to require such admitted facts to be proved by other means if it considers it appropriate.⇆ IEA s.58
Chapter IV · OF ORAL EVIDENCE
- 54Proof of facts by oral evidence.All facts, other than the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. This section establishes the general rule that oral evidence is a competent mode of proof for non-documentary facts.⇆ IEA s.59
- 55Oral evidence to be direct.Oral evidence must in all cases be direct, meaning it must come from a witness who personally saw, heard, or otherwise perceived the fact in question, or who personally holds the opinion being given. An exception exists for opinions of experts in published treatises where the author is dead, untraceable, incapacitated, or cannot be called without unreasonable delay or expense. The Court may also require production of a material thing for inspection if oral evidence refers to its existence or condition.⇆ IEA s.60
Chapter V · OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
- 56Proof of contents of documents.The contents of documents may be proved either by primary evidence (the document itself) or by secondary evidence (as permitted by the Act). This section sets out the two permissible modes of proving documentary contents.⇆ IEA s.61
- 57Primary evidence.Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the Court's inspection. The section provides detailed explanations covering documents executed in parts or counterparts, documents produced by uniform processes such as printing, and — significantly expanding on the old IEA — electronic and digital records, including records stored in multiple files, records from proper custody, video recordings stored and transmitted simultaneously, and automated storage including temporary files, each of which constitutes primary evidence.⇆ IEA s.62
- 58Secondary evidence.Secondary evidence is defined to include certified copies, copies made by mechanical processes ensuring accuracy, copies compared with the original, counterparts against non-executing parties, oral accounts of a document's contents by a person who has seen it, oral admissions, written admissions, and evidence of a skilled examiner of voluminous accounts. The illustrations clarify which forms of copy qualify and which do not.⇆ IEA s.63
- 59Proof of documents by primary evidence.As a general rule, documents must be proved by primary evidence — i.e., by producing the document itself before the Court. Secondary evidence is admissible only in the cases specifically provided for in the Act.⇆ IEA s.64
- 60Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.Secondary evidence of the existence, condition, or contents of a document is admissible in seven specified situations: when the original is in the possession of the opposing party, a person beyond the Court's process, or a person legally bound to produce it who fails to do so after notice; when the original's contents are admitted in writing by the opponent; when the original is destroyed, lost, or cannot be produced without default of the party; when the original is not easily movable; when it is a public document; when a certified copy is permitted by law; or when the originals are too numerous for convenient Court examination. The Explanation specifies which type of secondary evidence is admissible in each case.⇆ IEA s.65
- 61Electronic or digital record.Electronic or digital records cannot be denied admissibility merely on the ground that they are electronic or digital in nature. Such records have the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as other documents, subject to the conditions in section 63.⇆ IEA s.65A
- 62Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record.The contents of electronic records are to be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63. This section channels all proof of electronic record contents through the specific procedure laid down in section 63.⇆ IEA s.65A
- 63Admissibility of electronic records.Computer output (information printed, stored, recorded, or copied in electronic form) is deemed a document and admissible without further proof of the original if four conditions are satisfied: the computer was in regular use, the relevant information was regularly fed into it, it was operating properly during the material period, and the output reproduces information fed in the ordinary course of activities. A certificate from the person in charge of the computer or communication device must be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance of submission for admission.⇆ IEA s.65B
- 64Rules as to notice to produce.Secondary evidence of documents referred to in section 60(a) (i.e., documents in the possession of the opposing party) is inadmissible unless prior notice to produce the original has been given to that party or their representative. The notice requirement is dispensed with in specified circumstances such as where the document is itself a notice, where the adverse party obtained the original by fraud or force, or where the person in possession is beyond the court's process.⇆ IEA s.66
- 65Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.Where a document is alleged to have been signed or written wholly or in part by a particular person, the signature or handwriting of that portion must be affirmatively proved to be in that person's handwriting. The burden of proving authorship of the signature or handwriting lies on the party relying on it.⇆ IEA s.67
- 66Proof as to electronic signature.Where an electronic signature is alleged to belong to a particular subscriber, the fact that it is indeed that subscriber's electronic signature must be proved, except in the case of a secure electronic signature (which carries a presumption of authenticity under the Information Technology Act).⇆ IEA s.67A
- 67Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.A document required by law to be attested cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution, provided such a witness is alive, subject to the court's process, and capable of giving evidence. However, for registered documents other than wills, calling an attesting witness is unnecessary unless execution is specifically denied.⇆ IEA s.68
- 68Proof where no attesting witness found.Where no attesting witness can be found, execution of an attested document may be proved by establishing that the attestation of at least one attesting witness is in that witness's handwriting and that the signature of the executing person is in that person's handwriting.⇆ IEA s.69
- 69Admission of execution by party to attested document.If a party to an attested document admits that they executed it, that admission is sufficient proof of execution as against that party, even if the document is one that the law requires to be attested.⇆ IEA s.70
- 70Proof when attesting witness denies execution.If an attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, execution may nonetheless be proved by other evidence. The denial or failure of memory of an attesting witness does not render the document incapable of proof.⇆ IEA s.71
- 71Proof of document not required by law to be attested.An attested document that is not required by law to be attested may be proved as though it were an unattested document. The attestation does not impose any additional evidentiary burden on the party seeking to prove it. The document can be admitted without calling the attesting witnesses.⇆ IEA s.72
- 72Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.To determine whether a signature, writing, or seal is genuine, the court may compare it with any admitted or proved specimen of that person's handwriting or seal, even if the specimen was not produced for any other purpose. The court may also direct a person present in court to write words or figures for comparison purposes. The section applies equally to finger impressions.⇆ IEA s.73
- 73Proof as to verification of digital signature.To verify whether a digital signature was affixed by the person it purports to be from, the court may direct that person, the Controller, or the Certifying Authority to produce the Digital Signature Certificate. The court may also direct any other person to apply the public key listed in the certificate to verify the digital signature.⇆ IEA s.73A
- 74Public and private documents.The section classifies documents into public and private categories. Public documents include acts or records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, and public officers (legislative, judicial, and executive) of India or a foreign country, as well as public records of private documents kept in any State or Union territory. All other documents are private documents.⇆ IEA s.74
- 75Certified copies of public documents.Every public officer having custody of a public document that any person has a right to inspect must, on demand and payment of legal fees, provide a certified copy. The certificate must state it is a true copy, be dated, subscribed with the officer's name and official title, and sealed where the officer is authorised to use a seal. Such copies are called certified copies.⇆ IEA s.76
- 76Proof of documents by production of certified copies.Certified copies of public documents, prepared in accordance with the preceding section, may be produced in court as proof of the contents of those public documents or the relevant parts thereof. No further proof of the original is required when a certified copy is produced.⇆ IEA s.77
- 77Proof of other official documents.The section prescribes specific modes of proof for various categories of official public documents, including Central and State Government acts and notifications, parliamentary proceedings, presidential and gubernatorial proclamations, acts of foreign legislatures, proceedings of municipal bodies, and other foreign public documents. Each category has a designated method such as certified records, official gazettes, published journals, or notarially certified copies.⇆ IEA s.78
- 78Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies.The court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy, or other document declared admissible by law, provided it is substantially in the required form and purports to be duly certified by an officer of the Central or State Government. The court shall also presume that the officer who signed or certified the document held the official character claimed therein at the time of signing.⇆ IEA s.79
- 79Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence, etc.When a document purporting to be a record or memorandum of evidence given in a judicial proceeding, or a statement or confession by a prisoner or accused taken in accordance with law, is produced before a court and purports to be signed by a Judge, Magistrate, or authorised officer, the court shall presume that the document is genuine, that statements about the circumstances of its taking are true, and that the evidence, statement, or confession was duly taken.⇆ IEA s.80
- 80Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, and other documents.The court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the Official Gazette, a newspaper or journal, or a document directed by law to be kept by any person, provided it is kept substantially in the required form and produced from proper custody. A document is in proper custody if kept in the place and by the person required by law, though custody is not improper if a legitimate origin is proved or probable.⇆ IEA s.81
- 81Presumption as to Gazettes in electronic or digital record.The Court shall presume the genuineness of every electronic or digital record purporting to be the Official Gazette, or any electronic/digital record directed by law to be kept by any person, provided it is kept substantially in the form required by law and produced from proper custody. Proper custody means the record is in the place and with the person required by law to keep it, though custody is not improper if it had a legitimate origin. This is a mandatory presumption ('shall presume').⇆ IEA s.81A
- 82Presumption 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 the Central Government or any State Government were indeed so made and are accurate. However, maps or plans prepared specifically for the purposes of a particular case must be independently proved to be accurate.⇆ IEA s.83
- 83Presumption 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 any country's government and containing the laws of that country, and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of the courts of such country. This presumption applies to both domestic and foreign official legal publications.⇆ IEA s.84
- 84Presumption 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, Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was indeed so executed and authenticated. This is a mandatory presumption that dispenses with further proof of execution.⇆ IEA s.85
- 85Presumption as to electronic agreements.The Court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement and containing the electronic or digital signatures of the parties was concluded by the parties affixing their electronic or digital signatures. This presumption facilitates enforcement of digitally signed contracts.⇆ IEA s.85A
- 86Presumption as to electronic records and electronic signatures.In proceedings involving a secure electronic record, the Court shall presume (unless the contrary is proved) that the record has not been altered since the point of time to which its secure status relates. In proceedings involving a secure electronic signature, the Court shall presume that the signature was affixed by the subscriber with the intention of signing or approving the electronic record. Outside the context of secure electronic records or secure electronic signatures, no presumption of authenticity or integrity arises.⇆ IEA s.85B
- 87Presumption as to Electronic Signature Certificates.The Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the information listed in an Electronic Signature Certificate is correct, provided the certificate was accepted by the subscriber. However, this presumption does not extend to subscriber information that has not been verified.⇆ IEA s.85C
- 88Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records.The Court may presume that a document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judicial record is genuine and accurate, if it is certified in a manner that a Central Government representative in that country certifies to be the manner commonly used there for certifying copies of judicial records. A Political Agent (as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897) for a territory outside India is deemed a Central Government representative for this purpose.⇆ IEA s.86
- 89Presumption as to books, maps and charts.The Court may presume that any book it refers to for information on matters of public or general interest, and any published map or chart containing relevant facts and produced for inspection, was written and published by the person and at the time and place it purports to have been written or published. This is a discretionary presumption.⇆ IEA s.87
- 90Presumption as to electronic messages.The Court may presume that an electronic message forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee corresponds with the message as fed into the originator's computer for transmission. However, the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.⇆ IEA s.88A
- 91Presumption as to due execution, etc., of documents not produced.When a document is called for by notice and not produced, the Court shall presume that it was attested, stamped, and executed in the manner required by law. This is a mandatory presumption ('shall presume') that operates against the party who fails to produce the document after notice. It prevents a party from benefiting from withholding a document.⇆ IEA s.89
- 92Presumption as to documents thirty years old.Where a document purporting or proved to be thirty years old is produced from proper custody, the Court may presume that signatures and handwriting are genuine and that the document was duly executed and attested. This is a discretionary presumption ('may presume'). The Explanation to section 80 of BSA applies, and illustrations clarify what constitutes 'proper custody'.⇆ IEA s.90
- 93Presumption as to electronic records five years old.Where an electronic record purporting or proved to be five years old is produced from proper custody, the Court may presume that the electronic signature affixed on it was affixed by the person it purports to belong to, or by a person authorised by them. The Explanation to section 81 of BSA applies. This is the electronic-records analogue of the thirty-year presumption for documents.⇆ IEA s.90A
Chapter VI · OF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL EVIDENCE BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
- 94Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document.When the terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property have been reduced to writing, or where law requires a matter to be in writing, no oral or other evidence may be given to prove those terms — only the document itself or admissible secondary evidence is permitted. Two exceptions exist: proof of appointment of a public officer in writing, and wills admitted to probate proved by the probate. The section applies whether the transaction is in one or more documents.⇆ IEA s.91
- 95Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.Once the terms of a written contract, grant, or disposition are proved under section 94, no oral agreement or statement may be admitted to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from those terms as between the parties or their representatives. However, several provisos permit oral evidence to show: facts invalidating the document (fraud, illegality, want of capacity, etc.); separate oral agreements on matters the document is silent about and not inconsistent with it; oral conditions precedent; subsequent oral agreements to rescind or modify (unless writing or registration is required); trade usage or custom; and facts showing how the document's language relates to existing facts.⇆ IEA s.92
- 96Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document.When the language of a document is on its face ambiguous or defective (patent ambiguity), evidence may not be given of facts to show its meaning or supply its defects. This rule bars extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguity that is apparent from the document itself.⇆ IEA s.93
- 97Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts.When the language of a document is plain in itself and applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to those facts. The plain-meaning rule prevents parties from contradicting unambiguous language that fits the facts perfectly.⇆ IEA s.94
- 98Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts.When the language of a document is plain in itself but is unmeaning or inapplicable in reference to existing facts (latent ambiguity), evidence may be given to show that the language was used in a peculiar sense. This allows extrinsic evidence to give effect to the document where literal application is impossible.⇆ IEA s.95
- 99Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons.When the language of a document could apply to any one of several persons or things but could not have been meant to apply to more than one, evidence may be given of facts showing which person or thing was intended. This addresses latent ambiguity arising from multiple possible referents.⇆ IEA s.96
- 100Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies.When the language of a document applies partly to one set of existing facts and partly to another, but does not apply wholly and correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which set of facts it was meant to apply. This resolves latent ambiguity where the description partially fits two different subjects.⇆ IEA s.97
- 101Evidence as to meaning of illegible characters, etc.Evidence may be given to explain the meaning of illegible characters, foreign, obsolete, technical, local or regional expressions, abbreviations, and words used in a peculiar sense. This allows courts to understand the true import of documentary language that is not commonly intelligible. The illustration shows that extrinsic evidence can clarify ambiguous trade terms in a contract.⇆ IEA s.98
- 102Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of document.Third parties who are not parties to a document, or their representatives in interest, may give evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement that varies the terms of the document. This is an exception to the general rule that parties cannot contradict their own written contract by oral evidence. Such evidence is admissible only when the third party's interests are affected.⇆ IEA s.99
- 103Saving of provisions of Indian Succession Act relating to wills.Nothing in the chapter on documentary evidence affects the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 relating to the construction of wills. This is a savings clause preserving the special rules for will interpretation under that Act. It ensures that the general evidentiary rules on documents do not override the specific statutory regime for wills.⇆ IEA s.100
Chapter VII · OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF
- 104Burden of proof.Whoever desires a court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts must prove those facts. The burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the existence of the relevant facts. This is the foundational rule establishing the general burden of proof.⇆ IEA s.101
- 105On whom burden of proof lies.The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. This rule identifies which party bears the initial evidential burden by asking who would lose in the absence of any evidence. It is a practical test for allocating the burden at the outset of proceedings.⇆ IEA s.102
- 106Burden of proof as to particular fact.The burden of proving any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless a law specifically places that burden on another person. This section allocates the burden with respect to specific facts in issue or relevant facts, as distinct from the overall burden of proof. It applies to each discrete fact that a party seeks to establish.⇆ IEA s.103
- 107Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.The burden of proving any foundational or preliminary fact necessary to make other evidence admissible lies on the person who wishes to give that other evidence. A party cannot lead secondary or derivative evidence without first establishing the prerequisite fact. This ensures that admissibility conditions are satisfied before evidence is received.⇆ IEA s.104
- 108Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.When a person is accused of an offence, the burden of proving circumstances that bring the case within any General Exception under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or any special exception or proviso in any law defining the offence, lies on the accused. The court shall presume the absence of such circumstances unless the accused discharges this burden. This reverses the usual burden with respect to defences and exceptions.⇆ IEA s.105
- 109Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.When any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon that person. This section shifts the burden to the party who has peculiar or exclusive access to the relevant information. It prevents a party from benefiting from their own exclusive knowledge by remaining silent.⇆ IEA s.106
- 110Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years.When the question is whether a person is alive or dead, and it is shown that the person was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that the person is dead lies on the person who asserts death. This section creates a presumption of continuance of life for persons known to have been alive within the past thirty years. The party alleging death must discharge this burden.⇆ IEA s.107
- 111Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.When it is proved that a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive, the burden of proving that he is alive shifts to the person who affirms it. The section creates a presumption of death after seven years of silence. The initial burden lies on the party asserting death to show the absence of news for seven years from natural contacts.⇆ IEA s.108
- 112Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.Where persons have been shown to be acting as partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, the burden of proving that such relationship does not exist or has ceased lies on the party who so affirms. The section protects the continuity of established legal relationships. Once the relationship is shown to have existed, its termination must be proved by the party alleging it.⇆ IEA s.109
- 113Burden of proof as to ownership.When a person is shown to be in possession of a thing, the burden of proving that he is not the owner of that thing lies on the person who asserts non-ownership. Possession raises a presumption of ownership. The party challenging the possessor's title must rebut this presumption.⇆ IEA s.110
- 114Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.Where a transaction is between parties one of whom stands in a position of active confidence towards the other, the burden of proving the good faith of that transaction lies on the party in the position of active confidence. This section addresses fiduciary and confidence-based relationships. The illustrations specifically cover advocate-client and father-son transactions.⇆ IEA s.111
- 115Presumption as to certain offences.Where a person is accused of specified offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (relating to waging war, sedition-type offences) and it is shown that he was present in a disturbed area or an area of prolonged public disturbance at a time when firearms or explosives were used to attack armed forces or public order forces, the court shall presume he committed the offence unless the contrary is shown. The presumption is rebuttable. The section applies to offences under sections 147, 148, 149, and 150 of BNS 2023, as well as conspiracy, attempt, or abetment of offences under sections 149 and 150.⇆ IEA s.111A
- 116Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.A child born during a valid marriage or within 280 days of its dissolution (the mother remaining unmarried) is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband, unless it is shown that the parties had no access to each other at the time of possible conception. This is a conclusive proof provision, not a rebuttable presumption. The only exception is proof of non-access between the spouses.⇆ IEA s.112
- 117Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.When it is shown that a married woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage and that her husband or his relative subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume that the suicide was abetted by the husband or such relative. This is a discretionary presumption ('may presume'), not a mandatory one. 'Cruelty' carries the same meaning as under section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.⇆ IEA s.113A
- 118Presumption as to dowry death.When it is shown that soon before a woman's death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by a person in connection with a demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person caused her dowry death. This is a mandatory presumption ('shall presume'). 'Dowry death' has the same meaning as in section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.⇆ IEA s.113B
- 119Court may presume existence of certain facts.The court may presume the existence of any fact likely to have occurred having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business in relation to the facts of the case. The section provides a non-exhaustive list of illustrations of facts the court may presume, including possession of stolen goods, accomplice unreliability, regularity of official acts, and adverse inference from withheld evidence. Sub-section (2) lists countervailing circumstances the court must consider before applying each illustration.⇆ IEA s.114
- 120Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape.In a prosecution for rape under section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the prosecutrix states in evidence that she did not consent, the court shall presume absence of consent. This is a mandatory presumption in favour of the prosecutrix. 'Sexual intercourse' means any of the acts mentioned in section 63 of BNS 2023.⇆ IEA s.114A
Chapter VIII · ESTOPPEL
- 121Estoppel.When a person has, by declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused another to believe something to be true and act on that belief, neither that person nor their representative can deny the truth of that thing in any suit or proceeding between them. This is the doctrine of promissory or representational estoppel. The illustration shows that a seller who falsely represented title cannot later deny that title to set aside the sale.⇆ IEA s.115
- 122Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession.A tenant cannot, during or after the tenancy, deny that the landlord had title to the immovable property at the commencement of the tenancy. Similarly, a licensee who entered immovable property under a licence cannot deny that the licensor had title to possession when the licence was granted.⇆ IEA s.116
- 123Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee.An acceptor of a bill of exchange cannot deny that the drawer had authority to draw or endorse it. A bailee or licensee cannot deny that the bailor or licensor had authority to make the bailment or grant the licence at the time it commenced. However, the acceptor may deny that the bill was actually drawn by the person it purports to be drawn by, and a bailee who delivers goods to a third party may prove that third party had a superior right against the bailor.⇆ IEA s.117
Chapter IX · OF WITNESSES
- 124Who may testify.All persons are competent to testify unless the Court finds they are prevented from understanding questions or giving rational answers due to tender years, extreme old age, disease of body or mind, or any similar cause. A person of unsound mind is not automatically incompetent; incompetency arises only if the unsoundness prevents understanding questions and giving rational answers.⇆ IEA s.118
- 125Witness unable to communicate verbally.A witness who cannot speak may give evidence by writing, signs, or any other intelligible manner in open court, and such evidence is treated as oral evidence. Where a witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court must take the assistance of an interpreter or special educator to record the statement, and the statement must be videographed.⇆ IEA s.119
- 126Competency of husband and wife as witnesses in certain cases.In civil proceedings, parties to the suit and their spouses are competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the spouse of the accused is a competent witness. The section addresses competency only and does not deal with compellability.⇆ IEA s.120
- 127Judges and Magistrates.No Judge or Magistrate can be compelled to answer questions about their own conduct in court or about anything that came to their knowledge in their judicial capacity, except on a special order of a superior court. They may, however, be examined about other matters that occurred in their presence while acting in that capacity.⇆ IEA s.121
- 128Communications during marriage.A person who is or has been married cannot be compelled to disclose, and shall not be permitted to disclose, any communication made to them during marriage by their spouse, unless the communicating spouse or their representative consents. Exceptions exist for suits between married persons and for criminal proceedings where one spouse is prosecuted for a crime against the other.⇆ IEA s.122
- 129Evidence as to affairs of State.No evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to affairs of State may be given without the permission of the head of the concerned department, who has absolute discretion to grant or withhold such permission.⇆ IEA s.123
- 130Official communications.A public officer cannot be compelled to disclose communications made to them in official confidence if the officer considers that public interests would suffer by the disclosure. The discretion to withhold rests with the public officer.⇆ IEA s.124
- 131Information as to commission of offences.No Magistrate, police officer, or revenue officer can be compelled to disclose when they received information about the commission of an offence. This privilege protects the sources and timing of law-enforcement intelligence. 'Revenue officer' is defined as any officer employed in or about the business of any branch of public revenue.⇆ IEA s.125
- 132Professional communications.An advocate cannot, without the client's express consent, disclose any communication made to him in the course of professional service, the contents of documents he became acquainted with professionally, or advice he gave the client. The privilege does not apply to communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose or to facts observed by the advocate showing a crime or fraud committed after the commencement of his service. The obligation survives the end of the professional relationship and extends to interpreters, clerks, and employees of advocates.⇆ IEA s.126
- 133Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence.A party who gives evidence in a suit does not thereby consent to the disclosure of privileged advocate-client communications under section 132. If a party calls an advocate as a witness, consent to disclosure is deemed given only to the extent the party questions the advocate on matters that would otherwise be privileged.⇆ IEA s.128
- 134Confidential communication with legal advisers.No person can be compelled to disclose confidential communications with their legal adviser to the court. However, if the person offers himself as a witness, the court may compel disclosure of only those communications necessary to explain the evidence he has given.⇆ IEA s.129
- 135Production of title-deeds of witness not a party.A witness who is not a party to a suit cannot be compelled to produce his title-deeds to property, documents by virtue of which he holds property as pledgee or mortgagee, or any document whose production might tend to criminate him. This protection applies unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking production or someone through whom that person claims.⇆ IEA s.130
- 136Production of documents or electronic records which another person, having possession, could refuse to produce.No person can be compelled to produce documents in his possession or electronic records under his control if another person, were they in possession or control of those materials, would be entitled to refuse production. The exception is where that other person consents to the production.⇆ IEA s.131
- 137Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate.A witness cannot refuse to answer a question relevant to the matter in issue on the ground that the answer may incriminate him or expose him to a penalty or forfeiture. However, any answer so compelled cannot be used against the witness in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by that very answer.⇆ IEA s.132
- 138Accomplice.An accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person. A conviction based on the testimony of an accomplice is not illegal merely because that testimony is uncorroborated, though corroboration is the established practice.⇆ IEA s.133
- 139Number of witnesses.There is no minimum number of witnesses required to prove any fact in any case. A single witness's testimony, if credible, is sufficient proof.⇆ IEA s.134
Chapter X · OF EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
- 140Order of production and examination of witnesses.The order in which witnesses are produced and examined is governed by the applicable law and practice relating to civil or criminal procedure. In the absence of any such law, the court has discretion to regulate the order.⇆ IEA s.135
- 141Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.The Judge decides whether proposed evidence is admissible by asking the party how the fact, if proved, would be relevant. Where admissibility depends on proof of a prior fact, that prior fact must be proved first unless the party undertakes to prove it later to the Court's satisfaction. The Judge has discretion to permit evidence of a conditionally relevant fact before or after the foundational fact is proved.⇆ IEA s.136
- 142Examination of witnesses.This section defines the three stages of witness examination: examination-in-chief by the calling party, cross-examination by the adverse party, and re-examination by the calling party after cross-examination.⇆ IEA s.137
- 143Order of examinations.Witnesses must be examined-in-chief first, then cross-examined if the adverse party desires, then re-examined if the calling party desires. While examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, cross-examination is not confined to matters raised in examination-in-chief. Re-examination is limited to explaining matters arising in cross-examination, though new matter may be introduced with the Court's permission, attracting a further right of cross-examination.⇆ IEA s.138
- 144Cross-examination of person called to produce a document.A person summoned merely to produce a document does not thereby become a witness and cannot be cross-examined solely by virtue of producing the document. Cross-examination is permissible only if and when that person is formally called as a witness.⇆ IEA s.139
- 145Witnesses to character.Witnesses called solely to speak to a party's character may be subjected to both cross-examination and re-examination, just like any other witness.⇆ IEA s.140
- 146Leading questions.A leading question is one that suggests the answer the questioner desires. Such questions are generally prohibited in examination-in-chief and re-examination if objected to by the adverse party, but the Court may permit them for introductory, undisputed, or already-proved matters. Leading questions are freely permitted in cross-examination.⇆ IEA s.141
- 147Evidence as to matters in writing.Where a witness is giving evidence about a contract, grant, or disposition of property that is contained in a document, or is about to state the contents of a document the Court thinks should be produced, the adverse party may object until the document is produced or secondary evidence is justified. However, oral evidence of statements made by others about document contents is admissible if those statements are themselves relevant facts.⇆ IEA s.144
- 148Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.A witness may be cross-examined about prior written statements relevant to the matter in question without the writing being shown to him or proved at that stage. However, if the cross-examiner intends to contradict the witness using the writing, the witness's attention must first be drawn to the specific parts of the writing intended for contradiction before the writing can be proved.⇆ IEA s.145
- 149Questions lawful in cross-examination.In cross-examination, a witness may be asked questions that test his veracity, reveal his identity and position in life, or shake his credit by injuring his character, even if the answers might incriminate him or expose him to penalty. However, in prosecutions for specified sexual offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 where consent is in issue, questions about the victim's general immoral character or previous sexual experience with any person are not permissible to prove consent.⇆ IEA s.146
- 150When witness to be compelled to answer.Where a question asked in cross-examination under section 149 relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the compellability provisions of section 137 BSA apply, meaning the witness may be compelled to answer despite the answer being self-incriminating or otherwise objectionable.⇆ IEA s.147
- 151Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer.The Court has discretion to decide whether a witness must answer questions that are irrelevant to the suit except insofar as they affect the witness's credibility by injuring character. The Court must weigh whether the imputation would seriously affect the witness's credibility, whether it is too remote or disproportionate, and may warn the witness that he is not obliged to answer. The Court may also draw an adverse inference from the witness's refusal to answer.⇆ IEA s.148
- 152Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds.Questions of the type referred to in Section 151 (credit-affecting questions injuring character) must not be asked unless the questioner has reasonable grounds for believing the imputation conveyed is well-founded. The section provides illustrations distinguishing situations where reasonable grounds exist from those where they do not.⇆ IEA s.149
- 153Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without reasonable grounds.If the Court finds that a credit-affecting question was asked without reasonable grounds, it may report the advocate responsible to the High Court or other authority having disciplinary jurisdiction over that advocate. This provision acts as a disciplinary check on advocates who ask improper questions.⇆ IEA s.150
- 154Indecent and scandalous questions.The Court has the power to forbid questions or inquiries it considers indecent or scandalous, even if they have some bearing on the matter before the Court. However, this power does not extend to questions relating to facts in issue or matters necessary to determine whether facts in issue existed.⇆ IEA s.151
- 155Questions intended to insult or annoy.The Court is mandated to forbid any question that appears intended to insult or annoy a witness, or any question that, though proper in substance, is needlessly offensive in its form. This is a mandatory duty on the Court, unlike the discretionary power in Section 154.⇆ IEA s.152
- 156Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.When a witness has answered a question relevant only to shaking his credit by injuring his character, no evidence may be led to contradict his answer; however, if the answer is false, the witness may be prosecuted for giving false evidence. Two exceptions exist: prior convictions denied by the witness may be proved, and facts tending to impeach impartiality that are denied may be contradicted.⇆ IEA s.153
- 157Question by party to his own witness.The Court may, in its discretion, permit the party who called a witness to put questions to that witness that could have been put in cross-examination by the adverse party (i.e., leading questions treating the witness as hostile). The party so permitted is not disentitled from relying on any part of that witness's evidence.⇆ IEA s.154
- 158Impeaching credit of witness.The credit of a witness may be impeached by the adverse party (or, with Court's consent, by the party calling him) through evidence that the witness is unworthy of credit, proof of bribery or corrupt inducement, or proof of prior inconsistent statements. A witness called to impeach credibility may not give reasons for his belief in chief examination but may be asked reasons in cross-examination, and those answers cannot themselves be contradicted.⇆ IEA s.155
- 159Questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact, admissible.When a witness gives evidence of a relevant fact and it is intended to corroborate him, he may be questioned about other circumstances he observed at or near the time or place of the relevant fact, provided the Court is of the opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate his testimony. This allows surrounding circumstances to be used to strengthen a witness's account.⇆ IEA s.156
- 160Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact.A witness's former statement relating to the same fact may be proved to corroborate his later testimony, provided the former statement was made at or about the time the fact occurred, or before a legally competent authority investigating the fact. This section enables prior consistent statements to be used for corroboration.⇆ IEA s.157
- 161What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement relevant under section 26 or 27.When a statement relevant under section 26 or 27 is proved, all matters that could have been proved to contradict, corroborate, impeach, or confirm the credit of the maker — had that person been called as a witness and denied the matter in cross-examination — may be proved. This section extends the full range of credibility-testing tools to out-of-court statements admitted under those sections. It ensures that the maker of such a statement is treated, for evidentiary purposes, as if they were a witness who had denied the statement.⇆ IEA s.158
- 162Refreshing memory.A witness under examination may refresh memory by referring to a writing made by himself at the time of the transaction, or so soon after that the court considers the transaction was then fresh in his memory; he may also refer to a writing made by another person if he read it at that time and knew it to be correct. With court permission, a copy may be used if there is sufficient reason for non-production of the original. An expert may additionally refresh memory by reference to professional treatises.⇆ IEA s.159
- 163Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 162.A witness may testify to facts recorded in a document of the kind described in section 162 even without specific recollection of those facts, provided the witness is sure the facts were correctly recorded in the document. This allows testimony based on reliable record-keeping even where personal memory has faded. The illustration of a book-keeper testifying from regularly kept business books exemplifies the rule.⇆ IEA s.160
- 164Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.Any writing used by a witness to refresh memory under sections 162 or 163 must be produced and shown to the adverse party on demand. The adverse party is then entitled to cross-examine the witness on the contents of that writing. This provision safeguards the opposing party's right to test the reliability of the memory-refreshing document.⇆ IEA s.161
- 165Production of documents.A witness summoned to produce a document must bring it to court if it is in his possession or power, notwithstanding any objection to its production or admissibility, with the court deciding the validity of any objection. The court may inspect the document (unless it relates to matters of State) or take other evidence to determine admissibility; if translation is needed, the court may direct the translator to keep contents secret, and disobedience constitutes an offence under s. 198 BNS 2023. Communications between Ministers and the President of India are expressly protected from compelled production.⇆ IEA s.162
- 166Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice.When a party calls for a document after giving the other party notice to produce it, and that document is produced and inspected by the calling party, the calling party is bound to put it in evidence if the producing party so requires. This prevents a party from inspecting a document and then declining to exhibit it when it turns out to be unfavourable.⇆ IEA s.163
- 167Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice.A party who refuses to produce a document after receiving notice to do so cannot subsequently use that document as evidence without the consent of the other party or a court order. The illustration makes clear that such a party cannot use the withheld document to contradict secondary evidence given by the other side, nor to raise a technical objection such as lack of stamping.⇆ IEA s.164
- 168Judge’s power to put questions or order production.The Judge has wide power to ask any question in any form at any time of any witness or party, and to order production of any document or thing, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts; parties have no right to object to such questions or orders, nor to cross-examine on answers without leave. However, the judgment must rest on duly proved relevant facts, and the section does not override the privilege provisions in ss. 127–136, the improper-question bar in ss. 151–152, or the primary-evidence rule.⇆ IEA s.165
Chapter XI · OF IMPROPER ADMISSION AND REJECTION OF EVIDENCE
Chapter XII · REPEAL AND SAVINGS