Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Briefly Explained
- Legal Journey
- 20 hours ago
- 36 min read
Introduction to Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
- The word ‘evidence’ is derived from the Latin word ‘evidere’, which means “to show clearly, to discover clearly, to ascertain, to prove”.
- The fundamental procedural framework for the admissibility of facts in judicial proceedings across India is established by The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam of 2023 replaces the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 but retains almost all of the provisions and principles from that Act.
- The three main principles governing the Indian law of evidence are :-
Evidence must be confined to the matters in issue (Relevant),
Hearsay evidence must NOT be admitted,
The best evidence must be given in all cases.
Exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence.
Secondary evidence ONLY where primary evidence is NOT available.
Nature: It is primarily procedural in nature and is often referred to as an adjective law.
- However, certain provisions, like Estoppel, demonstrate substantive legal rights as well.
- It is a lex fori law (law of the forum/court).
Sections 1 and 2. Preliminary
Section 1. Applicability and Exclusions: The Act’s territorial reach extends to the whole of India.
- It applies broadly to all judicial proceedings conducted before any court, covering both civil and criminal disputes.
- However, certain types of proceedings and documents are explicitly excluded from its strict application:
Affidavits: These are excluded as they are NOT deemed evidence within the meaning of the Act.
Arbitration Proceedings: The BSA does NOT apply to proceedings before an arbitrator.
- NOTE: The IEA did NOT apply to certain specific court martials, however BSA is applicable to ALL court martials.
Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar (1987) - Arbitrators have to follow the principles of natural justice but they are NOT bound by the law of evidence.
Section 2. Definitions: It defines several essential terms central to the application of the Act:
Court: This term encompasses all Judges, Magistrates, and every person legally authorized to take evidence, explicitly excluding arbitrators from its scope.
Fact: Facts are broadly categorized into two types:
physical facts, which include anything, state of things, or relation of things that can be perceived by the senses; and
mental (or internal) facts, which include any mental condition of which a person is conscious.
Facts in Issue (Factum Probandum): These are the central facts upon which the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of the legal rights or liabilities of the parties fundamentally depends.
Relevant (Factum Probans): It stipulates that one fact is considered "relevant" to another if it is connected to that other fact in any of the ways specified within the Act's provisions relating to the relevancy of facts (Sections 4 to 50).
- These are the evidentiary facts that are necessary to prove or disprove a fact in issue, serving as the foundational material for the court's inference.
Evidence: The term "Evidence" is comprehensive, including all statements that the Court permits or requires to be made by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry (oral evidence), and all documents, which crucially includes electronic records, that are produced for the inspection of the court.
Presumptions:
Presumption Type | Nature | Rebuttable? | Court's Authority |
May Presume | Discretionary/ Rebuttable presumption of fact | Yes, by disproof | The court may either regard the fact as proved (discretion) or call for proof. |
Shall Presume | Mandatory/Rebuttable presumption of law | Yes, unless disproved | The court must regard the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. |
Conclusive Proof | Irrebuttable presumption of law | No, evidence not allowed for disproof | The court shall, on proof of one fact, regard the other as proved, and CANNOT allow evidence to be given to disprove it. |
Sections 3 to 50. Of the Relevancy of Facts
Section 3. Evidence of Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts: This section lays down the cardinal rule of admissibility:
Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding solely concerning the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue; and of
Such other facts as are explicitly declared relevant elsewhere in the Act, and of NO others.
- This rule establishes a strict principle of exclusion.
- If a fact, even if logically pertinent to the case, is NOT covered by the relevancy provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, it is deemed inadmissible.
- Thereby limiting the court's inquiry and preventing the admission of evidence that could lead to unnecessary confusion.
Ronny v. State of Maharashtra (1998) - Evidence obtained in investigation of other crimes can also constitute good evidence in any other case provided it is relevant.
Section 4. The Principle of Res Gestae: The doctrine of Res Gestae, codified in Section 4, allows for the admissibility of facts that, although NOT directly in issue, are so intrinsically connected with a fact in issue that they form part of the same transaction.
- These facts are relevant irrespective of whether they occurred precisely at the same time and place or at different times and places.
- The concept revolves around circumstances that are the instinctive, spontaneous, and undesigned incidents of a particular act.
- This doctrine is a recognized exception to the fundamental rule against hearsay evidence.
- Hearsay is generally inadmissible due to its derived nature, but when a statement or action is contemporaneous or immediately subsequent to the event, such that the spontaneity guarantees truthfulness, it is deemed admissible.
R v. Foster (1834) - The witness had seen only the speeding vehicle and not the accident.
- The injured person explained to him the nature of the accident.
- Despite the witness's knowledge being derived (hearsay), the statement was admitted because its proximity in time made it part of the transaction, thereby confirming its trustworthiness.
G. Vijayvardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) - For a statement to be part of the same transaction, it must be spontaneous and must be contemporaneous with the fact.
- If the statement is made after the act is over and its maker has had time for reflection, then it is NOT relevant.
Section 5. Occasion, Cause, or Effect: This section renders relevant those facts that constitute:-
That formed the occasion or cause of the event; OR
That were its immediate or subsequent effect; OR
The state of things under which they happened or afforded an opportunity for their occurrence.
- These facts provide the necessary contextual background and circumstantial foundation for the court to understand the event in question.
Section 6. Motive, Preparation, or Conduct: This section addresses the human elements surrounding the commission of a crime or action: motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct.
Motive and Preparation: Any fact demonstrating a motive for the action (such as debt, revenge, or a threat to expose a secret); OR
Showing preparation (like purchasing a weapon or acquiring poison) for the relevant act is admissible.
Motive establishes the internal reason or the "Why" behind the commission of the act.
Conduct: The previous or subsequent conduct of a party, or their agent, that is either influenced by or influences a fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant.
For example, absconding after being warned of an inquiry is relevant conduct.
Distinction between Conduct and Statement: The section clarifies that mere statements do not constitute 'conduct' unless they accompany and serve to explain acts other than statements.
- This limitation prevents the indiscriminate admission of verbal assertions unconnected to material action.
- The signs made by the victim in Queen-Empress v. Abdullah were held NOT to be ‘conduct’ under Section 6 because they were produced only in response to questioning, thus lacking the requisite spontaneity or direct influence from the facts in issue.
- The admission of evidence concerning motive and preparation serves to bridge the investigative gaps surrounding the core event.
- Motive provides the court with the "Why," while preparation details the "How."
- These elements, when viewed alongside a plea of alibi (Sec. 9), provide a comprehensive circumstantial narrative, forcing the accused to definitively establish their whereabouts against a backdrop of compelling predisposition evidence.
Rishipal v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance.
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not directly prove a fact but instead relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) - The five golden principles, constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence:
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established,
The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved,
There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Section 7. Necessary Explanatory Facts: Facts necessary to either explain or introduce a fact in issue or a relevant fact are themselves relevant.
- This includes facts that establish the identity of any person or thing, fix the time or place of any event, or show the relation of the parties.
- This section ensures that complex or ambiguous facts are accompanied by sufficient context for the court to form a rational judgment.
R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) - Tape recorded conversation is admissible provided that the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue and there is identification of the voice and that the accuracy of the conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of tampering of the tape record.
Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. (1971) - Holding test identification parade is NOT compulsory.
- Failure to hold it is NOT fatal to the prosecution case where the accused persons were previously known to the witness.
Har Nath Singh v. State of M.P (1970) - Police has to hold the identification parade for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify the properties which are subject matter of the offence or to identify the persons who are concerned with it.
- Identification parade has the following twin objects:-
To satisfy the investigating authorities that certain persons, NOT previously known to the witnesses were involved in the crime,
To furnish the evidence to corroborate the testimony of the witness before the Court.
Abdul Waheel Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2002) - It is desirable that identification parade should be conducted soon after the arrest of the accused.
Section 8. Conspiracy: This section addresses the evidentiary complexity of concerted criminal action.
- When there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done, or written by any one of those persons in reference to their common design is deemed a relevant fact against all other conspirators.
- This rule is powerful because it allows the actions or statements of one individual to be imputed as evidence against all others involved in the agreement.
Sardul Singh v. State of Bombay (1957) - Section 8 of BSA is based on the principle of agency.
- It confines the principle of agency in criminal matters to the acts of the conspirator within the period during which it can be said that the acts were in reference to their common intention.
Section 9. Alibi and Probability: This Section acts as a dual mechanism for admitting evidence based on logical relevance: the rule of inconsistency and the rule of probability.
Rule of Inconsistency (Plea of Alibi): A fact is relevant if it is entirely inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact.
- The most common application is the plea of alibi, where the accused proves they were in a different location (e.g., Calcutta) at the time the crime occurred (e.g., in Delhi), rendering their participation inconsistent with the main fact.
- The plea of alibi, when raised, places a special evidentiary burden on the accused under Section 108, compelling them to definitively prove the facts that were exclusively within their knowledge.
Rule of Probability: Facts that, by themselves or when connected with other established facts, make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable, are relevant.
- This addresses circumstances where the logical connection is highly persuasive, even if indirect, by magnifying the immediacy of the causal link.
Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002) - The burden of proving commission of an offence is on the prosecution and would NOT be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has taken the plea of alibi.
- The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered ONLY when the burden on the prosecution has been discharged satisfactorily.
Sections 10 to 14. Other Relevancy Provisions
Section 10. Damages: In suits where damages are sought, facts tending to enable the Court to determine the correct amount are relevant.
Section 11. Right or Custom: Facts relevant when the existence of any right or custom is in question.
Section 12. State of Mind/Body: Facts showing the existence of any state of mind (e.g., intention, knowledge, motive) or state of body or bodily feeling are relevant.
Section 13. Accidental or Intentional: Facts bearing on the question of whether an act was accidental or intentional.
Section 14. Course of Business: The existence of any course of business is relevant when it is necessary to determine whether a particular act was done.
Sections 15 to 21. Admissions
Section 15. Admission Defined: An admission is defined as any statement, whether oral, documentary, or in electronic form, which suggests an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
- Admissions form a critical exception to the rule against hearsay, as a statement made by a party against their own interest is considered inherently trustworthy and is regarded as the best evidence against the maker.
Sections 16 to 18 and 25. Relevance of Admissions
Section 16. Parties and Agents: Admissions by a party to the proceeding, or by the party's agent specially authorized for the purpose, are relevant.
Representative Character: Admissions by a party suing or being sued in a representative character are relevant, provided they were made while the party held that character.
Persons Interested: Admissions by a person who has a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the suit.
Section 17. Position to be Proved: Statements by persons whose position must be proven against a party to the suit are admissions against that party.
Section 18. Persons Expressly Referred: Statements made by a third person are receivable as admissions against a party who has expressly referred another party to that third person for information regarding a disputed matter.
Section 19. Proof against Maker: The primary rule is that admissions are relevant and may be proved ONLY against the person who makes them, or their representatives in interest.
- This ensures procedural fairness, preventing a party from benefitting from their own favorable statement.
- The three established exceptions to this rule permit the admission to be proved by or on behalf of the maker:
If the admission is of a nature that would be relevant as a dying declaration under Section 26, had the maker been dead.
If the admission consists of a statement concerning the existence of any relevant state of mind or body, made at or about the time when such a state existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
If the statement is relevant otherwise than as an admission (e.g., as part of the res gestae under Section 4).
Section 20. Oral Admission as to documents: Oral admissions concerning the contents of a document are generally NOT relevant.
Unless, the genuineness of the document produced is itself challenged; OR
The party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence.
Section 21. Civil Cases: In civil cases, an admission is irrelevant if it was made either upon an express condition that evidence of it should not be given, OR
- Under circumstances from which the court can infer a mutual agreement that the evidence should be withheld.
- This rule protects settlement negotiations, reinforcing the public interest maxim, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation), by encouraging parties to compromise without fear of their concessions being used against them.
Section 25. Admission NOT conclusive proof: Admissions are NOT conclusive proof of the matters admitted.
- But, they may operate as estoppels.
Ram Bharorse Sharma v. Mahant Ram Swaroop (2001) - A statement which is of the nature of an admission on a mixed question of fact and law CANNOT be treated as an admission under Section 16.
- Only an admission on fact binds the maker and NOT an admission on question of law.
Sections 22 to 24. Confessions
Definition and Forms: The Act does NOT formally define "confession," but judicial interpretations establish that a confession is a statement that must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts that constitute the offence.
- This narrow judicial standard was established in Pakala Narain Swami v. Emperor (1939).
- Confessions can be oral, written, or even overheard, and can be judicial (made in court) or extra-judicial (made outside court).
Section 22. Exclusion due to Coercion: A confession is rendered irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the court believes it was obtained through inducement, threat, or promise proceeding from a person in authority.
- For the exclusion to apply, the inducement must reference the charge against the accused and be sufficient to make the accused believe that they would gain a temporal advantage or avoid a temporal evil by making the statement.
- The standard for exclusion is low, requiring ONLY that it "appears" to the court that the confession was coerced.
Section 23. Confession to police officer: A crucial safeguarding provision, Section 23(1) explicitly mandates that NO confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence.
- The purpose is to counteract the historic practice of oppression or torture by police aimed at coercing inculpatory statements.
- This provision works in conjunction with the criminal procedure code's provisions regarding statements made to police during investigation (e.g., Section 162 CrPC), emphasizing the distrust of police-elicited guilt admissions.
- Extending the principle of Section 23(1), Section 23(2) renders irrelevant any confession made by an accused person while in police custody, unless the confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
- This acknowledges the lingering coercive atmosphere of custody, even if the confession is not made directly to a police officer, ensuring a judicial presence to validate the voluntariness of the statement.
- The proviso to this section operates as a critical exception to the exclusionary rule of Section 23.
- This provision allows the admission of incriminating information received from an accused person in police custody, but only "so much of such information" as relates distinctly to a fact that is discovered in consequence.
- This provision is a necessary investigative tool, enabling the police to utilize an accused person's unique knowledge (e.g., the location of the murder weapon or stolen property) to corroborate the crime.
- The principle underlying this section is that the subsequent physical discovery validates the veracity of the portion of the coerced confession that led to the discovery.
- The discovery itself must be corroborated and directly linked to the information provided by the accused, adhering to the standard established in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor.
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966) - It was held that the statement that the accused had committed the offence OR that he had hidden the object at some place are NOT admissible.
- What is admissible is only that portion of the statement that reveals the information about the place of hiding of the object.
Jaikam Khan v. State of UP (2021) - The Supreme Court held that "recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, NO reliance could be placed on such recoveries".
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyay (1960) - Constitutional validity of Section 27 IEA was upheld.
Pyare lal v. State of Rajasthan (1963) - It was held that a retracted confession may form the basis of conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made.
- Therefore as a matter of law, corroboration is NOT necessary if the court is convinced about the truthfulness and voluntary nature of confession.
- However, prudence requires that retracted confession should NOT be acted upon without corroboration.
Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) - The conditions necessary for bringing this section into operation are:-
The discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence;
The discovery of such fact must be deposed to,
At the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody, and
ONLY "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded.
State of Karnataka v. P. Ravi Kumar (2018) - Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.
- It CANNOT form the sole basis for conviction.
- It must be supported by other substantive evidence.
Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India (1991) - An important feature of a police officer is that he must NOT only have the power of investigation but also to file a report against the accused.
- Unless he has the power to investigate and file a charge sheet, he CANNOT be called a police officer within the meaning of Section 23.
Section 24. Confession of Co-Accused: When two or more persons are jointly tried for the same offence, and a confession made by one of them implicates both the maker and the co-accused, the court may take such confession into consideration against the co-accused.
- However, this evidence is considered inherently weak.
- The confession of a co-accused CANNOT, on its own, form the sole basis of a conviction;
- It serves merely as a piece of corroborative evidence to help satisfy the court that other evidence on record is true (Bhuboni Sahu v. Emperor).
Key Differences Between Admission and Confession
Aspect | Admission | Confession |
Applicability | Both Civil and Criminal Cases | Only Criminal Cases |
Scope | Suggests inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact (need not admit guilt). | Must admit guilt in terms or substantially all facts constituting the offence. |
Admissibility to Police | Relevant (if otherwise admissible). | Irrelevant (Section 23). |
Evidentiary Value | Not conclusive proof, but may operate as estoppel. | If voluntary, can be the sole basis of conviction. |
Made by | Party, agent, or person referred to. | Only the accused person. |
Sections 26 and 27. Statements by Persons Not Called as Witnesses
- Sections 26 and 27 introduce exceptions to the rule against hearsay, allowing the admission of statements made by witnesses who are unavailable to testify in court.
- This approach prioritizes the attainment of justice over strict technical requirements, recognizing that unavailability, especially due to death, necessitates the use of secondary evidence.
Section 26. Dying Declaration: This Section makes relevant statements made by a person concerning the cause of their death or any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in their death.
- A critical distinction from English law is that the statement is relevant irrespective of whether the maker was under the expectation of death when the statement was made.
- The law treats the impending nature of death as providing a solemn motive to speak the truth.
- A dying declaration can be conveyed orally, in writing, or non-verbally through gestures or signs, as affirmed in Queen Empress v. Abdullah.
- The evidentiary value of a dying declaration is strong.
- As established in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, there is NO absolute rule of law demanding corroboration.
- If the court is fully satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntarily made, it can form the sole basis of a conviction.
- Other clauses of Section 26 render statements relevant if they are: made in the course of business; against the interest of the maker; relate to the existence of a public right or custom; or relate to the existence of a relationship.
Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor (1939) - The court held that the statement made by the deceased to his wife that he was going to the accused place to collect money from him was admissible as a dying declaration under Section 26(1).
Kaushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958) - There is neither rule of law NOR rule of prudence which states that dying declaration CANNOT form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated by independent evidence.
- A true and voluntary declaration needs NO corroboration.
Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of W.B. (2017) - There is NO absolute rule that the dying declaration CANNOT form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.
- The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.
Sampay Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra (2019) - Supreme Court held that though conviction can solely be based on dying declaration, corroborative evidence may be required when there is doubt as to whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement.
Queen Empress v. Abdullah (1885) - It was held that dying declarations made by signs and nods are also relevant.
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2019) - Dying declaration can be oral or in writing or in any adequate method of communication, by words or otherwise will suffice provided that indications are definite and positive.
Section 27. Former Evidence: Evidence provided by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding is relevant in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or a later stage of the same proceeding, if the witness is presently unavailable.
- Unavailability is defined by specific conditions: the witness is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, is intentionally kept away by the adverse party, or procuring their attendance would involve an unreasonable amount of delay or expense.
Sections 34 to 50. Judgments, Expert Opinion, and Character
Sections 34 to 38. Judgments
Section 34. Res Judicata: Previous judgments that are legally binding to bar a second suit or trial are relevant, reinforcing the principle of finality in litigation.
Section 35. Judgments in rem: Judgments delivered in the exercise of probate (a will is "proved" in a court of law), matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency jurisdiction are relevant, and, more importantly, are considered conclusive proof regarding the legal character they confer or take away.
Section 36. Other Judgments: Judgments, orders, or decrees relating to matters of a public nature (NOT falling under Section. 35) are relevant, but unlike S. 35 judgments, they are not conclusive proof.
Section 37. Irrelevant Judgments: Judgments, orders, or decrees other than previously mentioned are irrelevant unless relevant under some other provision of the Act.
Sections 39 to 45. Opinion of Third Party/Experts
Section 39. Expert Opinion: When the court needs assistance on matters requiring specialized knowledge: specifically foreign law, science, art, the identity of handwriting, or finger impressions, then the opinions of persons specially skilled in those fields (experts) are relevant facts.
Nature of Evidence: Expert opinion serves as advisory evidence.
- It is designed to aid the court in reaching a conclusion but is inherently subordinate to the ultimate judgment of the court; it cannot supersede the judge's role as the final arbiter of fact.
Section 40. 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.
Section 45. Grounds of Opinion: Whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds on which that opinion is held are also relevant.
- An expert may give an account of experiments performed by him for the purpose of forming his opinion.
Vilayat Khan v. State of U.P. (1962) - Expert opinion is NOT to be believed if it is in conflict with direct evidence.
- Expert opinion is merely advisory in nature and CANNOT override the value of direct, trustworthy evidence.
Sections 46 to 50. Character Evidence
- The Act distinguishes sharply between the admissibility of character evidence in civil and criminal proceedings to ensure fairness.
Section 46. Civil Cases: In civil litigation, evidence of the character of any party is irrelevant, unless the character is itself a fact in issue.
- This generally prevents irrelevant reputational attacks from swaying the decision in contractual or proprietary disputes.
Section 47. Criminal Cases - Good Character: In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused person possesses a good character is a relevant fact.
- This is permitted as a shield, suggesting a lower probability that a person of good reputation would commit the alleged crime.
Section 49. Criminal Cases - Bad Character: Evidence of the accused's bad character is generally irrelevant in criminal proceedings.
- This exclusion prevents prejudice and ensures the trial remains focused on the specific alleged act, not past misconduct.
- However, bad character becomes relevant if the accused chooses to present evidence of their own good character (opening the door for rebuttal), or if the bad character itself is a fact in issue.
Section 48. Previous sexual experience: In prosecution of sexual offences or their attempt, when the question of consent is in issue, then evidence of the character of the victim or of such person’s previous sexual experience with any person shall NOT be relevant, on the issue of such consent or the quality of consent.
Section 50. Damages: In civil suits specifically to recover damages, the character of the person who suffered the injury is relevant for determining the appropriate amount of compensation.
- The stringent rules differentiating character evidence in civil and criminal cases demonstrate a policy of procedural fairness.
- Good character is permitted as a defense mechanism to bolster the presumption of innocence (Sec. 47),
- While bad character is generally barred as an unfair prosecutorial tool (Sec. 49).
- This restriction minimizes the risk that a judge might convict based on pre-existing moral disapproval rather than proof of the specific crime alleged.
Sections 51 to 53. Facts Which Need Not Be Proved
- The Act sets forth certain facts that do not require formal legal proof, either because they are common knowledge or because they have been established by the actions of the parties.
Section 51. Judicial Notice: Facts of which the Court is mandated to take judicial notice need NOT be proved in court.
Section 52. List of Facts: This section enumerates facts that the Court must take judicial notice of, including all laws in force in India, the commencement and termination of hostilities by the Government of India, the seals of all Courts, the accession of the Sovereign, and the rule of the road on land or sea.
Section 53. Admitted Facts: Facts that the parties or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or that are admitted by the pleadings before the hearing, need not be proved.
- Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
Sections 54 to 93. Oral Evidence and Documentary Evidence
Sections 54 and 55. Oral Evidence
Section 54. Proof of Facts: All facts may be proved by oral evidence, except for the contents of documents.
- This establishes oral testimony as the primary means of proving non-documentary facts.
Section 55. Direct Evidence: The foundational requirement for oral evidence is that it must, in all cases, be direct.
- This mandatory directness establishes the rule against hearsay:
If the fact could be seen, the witness must state that they saw it;
If the fact could be heard, the witness must state that they heard it;
If the fact could be perceived by any other sense, the witness must state that he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
If the fact refers to an opinion, the person holding that opinion must testify to it.
- Hearsay evidence, defined as knowledge derived from a third source (not personal perception), is inadmissible because it lacks the necessary guarantee of reliability and prevents the adverse party from cross-examining the original source of the information.
- Provided that an expert's opinion, if contained in a treatise, may be proved if the expert is deceased or otherwise unavailable.
- Provided further, if the 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.
- This last proviso refers to real/physical evidence.
- It is considered the most satisfactory witness as it provides direct, tangible proof of a fact.
- Examples include a murder weapon, bloodstained clothing, or any other object that can directly connect a person to a crime or event.
Sections 56 to 93. Documentary Evidence
Section 56. Proof of Contents: The contents of documents must be proved by either:
Primary Evidence (Sec. 57); OR
Secondary Evidence (Sec. 58).
Section 57. Primary Evidence: Primary evidence is considered the highest form of evidence, consisting of the original document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. This includes:
Each part of a document that is executed in several parts.
A counterpart of a document, when produced against the party who executed it.
Multiple copies of documents made by one uniform process (e.g., printing or photography), where each copy is considered primary evidence of the contents of the rest.
Section 58. Secondary Evidence: Secondary evidence is permissible when the original document is unavailable, but it is inherently inferior to primary evidence. It includes:
Certified copies of the original document.
Copies made from the original by mechanical processes that intrinsically ensure the accuracy of the copy (e.g., carbon copies, photocopies).
Copies made from or compared with the original.
Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did NOT execute them.
Oral accounts of the contents of the document given by a person who has personally seen the original.
Oral admissions;
Written admissions;
Evidence of a person who has examined a document, the original of which consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
Section 59. Proof of Documents: Documents shall be proved by primary evidence, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.
Section 60. Cases Where Secondary Evidence is Admissible: Secondary evidence is admissible ONLY in specific circumstances where the primary evidence is shown to be unavailable or inaccessible. These circumstances include:
When the original is in the possession of the adverse party who fails to produce it despite notice.
When the original has been destroyed or lost.
When the original is of a nature that is not easily movable (e.g., bulky records).
When the original is a public document (Sec. 74).
Sections 61 to 63. Electronic Records
Section 61. Electronic record: It shall have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as any other document.
- But this is subject to Section 63.
Section 62. Special provisions as to electronic record: The contents of electronic records must be proved according to the specific provisions laid down in Section 63.
Section 63. Admissibility of Electronic Records: This section is considered a self-contained and complete code for the admissibility of electronic evidence, overriding the general rules of Sections 57 to 60.
- This is critical because of the inherent risk of manipulation associated with digital data, requiring a higher threshold of procedural proof to ensure authenticity.
- The Section states that a computer output shall be deemed to be a document and is admissible as evidence when a certificate as provided under Section 63(4) is attached therewith.
- The certificate must address four core conditions, as provided under Section 63(2), concerning the creation and storage of the record:
- The computer generating the record was regularly used and lawfully controlled during the period in question.
- The information was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of activity.
- The computer was operating properly during the material period.
- The information in the record is a reproduction or derivation of the data fed into the computer.
Sections 94 to 103. Exclusion of Oral evidence by Documentary evidence
Section 94. Proof by Document Itself: When the terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document,
- NO evidence of those terms may be given, except the document itself or secondary evidence where admissible.
- The provision applies universally, covering both instruments that are legally required to be in writing (e.g., registered deeds or judicial records) and those which parties merely choose to embody in a document.
- This provision underscores the sanctity and finality accorded to the written instrument in legal dealings.
Section 95. Exclusion of Oral Agreement: Once a document that legally requires or contains the terms of a disposition (under Sec. 94) has been proved,
- NO evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from its terms.
- This legislative policy promotes commercial certainty by ensuring that written agreements remain stable and conclusive.
- However, Section 95 allows certain exceptions where extrinsic oral evidence is admissible, but ONLY to explain or challenge the written agreement's fundamental validity, NOT to modify its terms:
- Evidence of facts that would invalidate the document (e.g., fraud, coercion, illegality, lack of consideration).
- Evidence establishing the non-existence of a condition precedent to the contract becoming operative.
- Evidence of subsequent oral modifications, provided such modification is legally permissible (e.g., if the original contract did not require subsequent modifications to be in writing).
Sections 104 to 120. Burden of Proof
- The legal concept of the "Burden of Proof" involves two distinct principles: the fixed burden of law (Sec. 104) and the shifting burden of evidence (Sec. 105).
Sections 104 to 107. General and Specific Burden
Section 104. Fixed Burden of Proof: This section states that the party desiring the court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, based on asserted facts, must prove the existence of those facts.
- This fundamental burden is determined at the commencement of the trial and, as a question of law, remains fixed on the asserting party throughout the proceedings.
Section 105. Shifting Onus Probandi: In contrast, the onus probandi (the burden of adducing evidence) shifts throughout the trial.
- It rests on the party who would ultimately fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Section 106. Specific Facts: The burden of proving any particular fact lies on the party who seeks to persuade the Court of its existence.
- For example, if a party claims they signed a blank paper for a loan document, the burden rests on them to substantiate this specific assertion.
Section 107. Admissibility Prerequisite: The burden of proving any fact necessary to render evidence of another fact admissible lies upon the person intending to present such evidence.
- For instance, the prosecution wishing to admit a dying declaration under Section 26 must first prove the death of the victim.
Sections 108 and 109. Burden on the Accused and Special Knowledge
Section 108. Burden on the Accused: This provision dictates that the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any General Exception in the BNS or any special exception defining the offence rests upon the accused.
- It is important to understand how this interacts with the foundational rule of criminal jurisprudence.
- Although Section 108 places the onus of proving exceptions on the accused, the prosecution retains the general burden (Sec. 104) to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The accused is NOT required to prove their defense with the same conclusive standard as the prosecution;
- They merely need to raise a reasonable probability or doubt regarding the existence of the exception.
Section 109. Facts within Special Knowledge: When a fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact falls upon them.
- This section prevents evasion of justice by those who rely on silence regarding facts they alone know.
- Common applications include proving an alibi, proving possession of a ticket while traveling, or explaining the immediate possession of recently stolen property.
Sections 110 to 120. Presumptions Regarding Life, Death, and Social Evils
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vasudeva Rao (2004) - A presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts.
- It means a rule of law that court and judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact, unless such presumption is rebutted.
Sections 110 and 111. Presumption of Life and Death
Section 110. Presumption of Life: It mandates that if a person was shown to be alive within the last thirty years, the burden of proving their death lies on the person who asserts the death.
Section 111. Presumption of Death: This section on the other hand creates a rebuttable presumption of death if a person has NOT been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally hear of them if they were living.
- In this instance, the burden of proving life shifts to the person asserting the person is still alive.
Section 116. Legitimacy: Any person born during continuance of a valid marriage; OR
- Within 280 days of its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried,
- Shall be conclusive proof
- That he is the legitimate child of that man,
- Unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had NO access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.
Gautam Kundu v. State of W. B. (1993) - The Court held that the ONLY way to rebut the presumption under Section 116 BSA is by proving non-access.
- Biomedical evidence like blood test, DNA test etc. CANNOT be allowed.
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014) - When there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former.
- The Court further observed that the present case is different as in the present case the Court was confronted with a situation in which DNA test report, in fact, was available and was in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of legitimacy of the child under Section 116 of BSA.
Sections 117 and 118. Social Presumptions
- These sections represent the legislative use of evidentiary presumptions to address significant social evils, reversing the burden of proof due to the inherent difficulty in obtaining direct evidence in domestic crimes.
Section 117. Abetment of Suicide: The Court may presume that a married woman's suicide, within seven years of marriage, was abetted by her husband or relatives if she was subjected to cruelty.
- This is a discretionary provision.
Section 118. Presumption of Dowry Death: The Court shall presume that the person caused the dowry death (as defined in Sec. 304B IPC).
- If it is shown that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry soon before her death.
- This is a powerful mandatory tool that compels the accused to legally rebut the presumption that they caused the death.
- This provision reflects a clear legal strategy to utilize the law of evidence to combat dowry-related violence by placing the heavy evidentiary burden of disproving the crime onto the accused, provided the prosecution meets the initial onus of proving recent cruelty for dowry.
Section 119. Presumption of certain facts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened.
- This is done while having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
- The illustration to this section provides an idea of the types of facts which the court may presume.
Section 120. Presumption in prosecution for rape: In a prosecution for rape, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved.
- The question is whether it was without the consent of the victim, and
- Such woman states in her evidence before the Court that she did NOT consent,
- The Court shall presume that she did NOT consent.
Sanjay Dutt vs State Through C.B.I. Bombay (1994) - The burden on an accused, when the presumption of innocence is reversed by statutory provision, of proving a fact for rebutting the statutory presumption in his defence is NOT as heavy as on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the lighter burden of proving t preponderance of probabilities.
Sections 121 to 123. Estoppel
Section 121. Estoppel by Representation: This section codifies the doctrine of Estoppel by Representation, which is a rule of evidence intended to prevent contradiction and fraud in legal proceedings.
- The rule operates when one person, through their declaration, act, or omission, intentionally causes or permits another person to believe a thing to be true and act upon that belief.
- Once this criterion is met, the first person, or their representative, CANNOT later deny the truth of that thing in any subsequent suit or proceeding.
- Estoppel serves strictly as a rule of evidence and a defensive shield; it is NOT a substantive cause of action upon which a suit can be founded.
- The function of Estoppel is to enforce accountability for false representations, whether made by word or conduct.
Sections 122 and 123. Estoppel in Specific Relationships
Section 122. Tenant and Licensee: Bars a tenant or licensee of immovable property from denying the title of the landlord or licensor who put them in possession of that property.
Section 123. Acceptor of Bill of Exchange: Bars the acceptor of a bill of exchange from denying the capacity of the drawer to draw the bill.
Sections 124 to 170. Witnesses, Production, and Examination
Section 124 to 127 and 138. Competency and Compellability
Section 124. Competency: All persons are considered competent to testify unless the Court determines that they are prevented by factors such as:-
- Tender years,
- Extreme old age,
- Disease, OR
- Any similar cause,
- From understanding the questions put to them and giving rational answers.
- The test of competency is therefore centered on the witness’s intellectual capacity to comprehend and respond coherently.
Section 138. Accomplice: An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; AND
- A conviction is NOT illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1997) - The Court held that there is no antithesis between Section 133 and illustration (b) of Section 114 of IEA.
- The illustration uses the word ‘may’, therefore the discretion lies with the court.
- The court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case to see whether the accomplice is reliable or not.
NOTE - Section 133 of IEA has been changed in Section 138 of BSA.
- The new section has amended the word “uncorroborated” in the IEA to “Corroborated” in BSA.
- Hence there is no longer any contradiction even in the statute.
Mohamed Sugal v. The King (1945) - It was held that a child is also a competent witness, if he can understand the questions put to him and give rational answers.
- Even though he does not understand the meaning of oath and its implications.
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M. P. (2003) - The Court held that the evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey for tutoring.
- Therefore, the court always looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony.
Section 125. Dumb Witnesses: A witness who is unable to speak is deemed to be a competent witness and may give evidence by means of writing or signs.
- Such evidence must be taken in open Court and is considered to be oral evidence.
Section 126. Parties and Spouses: In both civil and criminal proceedings, the parties themselves and their respective spouses are competent witnesses.
Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala (1981) - Evidence of an interested witness should be carefully scrutinized.
- However, where such scrutiny established reliability, evidence ought NOT to be rejected.
Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) - A witness may be called an interested witness ONLY when he or she derives some benefit from the result of the litigation.
- Therefore ‘related witness’ is NOT equivalent to ‘interested witness’.
Sections 128 to 137. Privileged Communications
- Privileged communications are protected from mandatory disclosure in court, a policy choice that favors preserving confidentiality in certain critical relationships over compelling every single piece of relevant information.
Section 128. Marital Privilege: This section protects spousal communications.
- Communications made between a husband and wife during the subsistence of their marriage CANNOT be compelled OR permitted to be disclosed in court.
- Unless, the other spouse consents to it.
- However, there is no such bar in suits between the spouses, OR
- Proceedings between the married persons.
- This protection remains effective even after the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, safeguarding the sanctity and open dialogue essential to the marital relationship.
Ram Bharosey v. State of U. P. (1954) - The Court held that under Section 128 BSA, the acts or conducts of spouses, apart from communications, are NOT protected.
- A wife can testify as to what her husband did on a certain occasion, though NOT as to what he said to her.
Queen Empress v. Donoghue (1899) - The question was whether a communication sent by the accused to his wife, recovered by the police during search of house, is admissible.
- It was held that it can be relied upon as the wife was not being examined in the case; AND
- Neither being compelled to disclose nor being permitted to do so.
Section 132. Professional Privilege - lawyer: This section creates the lawyer-client privilege, prohibiting a legal professional (barrister, attorney, or pleader) from disclosing any professional communication or advice given to or received from their client during the course and for the purpose of their employment, unless the client expressly consents to the disclosure.
Section 134. Professional Privilege - Client: It stipulates that a client CANNOT be compelled to disclose any confidential communication made to their legal adviser, unless the client voluntarily offers themselves as a witness.
- The waiver of privilege by the client must be done knowingly and voluntarily, with the interests of the client being paramount.
Sections 140 to 146. Examination of Witnesses
Section 143. Order of Questioning: It defines the mandatory sequence of questioning for a witness in court:
Examination-in-chief: Questioning by the party who calls the witness.
Cross-examination: Questioning by the adverse party.
Re-examination: Further questioning by the calling party, if necessary.
- The scope of each examination type varies significantly:
Examination-in-chief and Re-examination: Must strictly relate only to relevant facts.
Cross-examination: The questioning is broad and need not be confined to the facts testified to during the examination-in-chief. This latitude is designed to test the veracity and credibility of the witness.
Re-examination: Must be strictly limited to the explanation or clarification of matters raised during the cross-examination.
Gopal Sarvan v. Satya Narayan (1989) - If the witness after being examined-in-chief does NOT appear to subject him to cross-examination then his evidence becomes valueless.
Section 146. Leading Questions: A leading question is one that suggests the answer the questioner desires.
- Generally, leading questions can be identified as those questions whose answer would be a simple yes or no.
- Such questions are prohibited during examination-in-chief when they are objected to by the adverse party, but
- They are permitted during cross-examination as a tool to elicit truth or test credibility.
Sections 157 to 167. Hostile Witnesses and Refreshing Memory
Section 157. Hostile Witness: If a party's own witness makes statements against the interest of the party calling them, the court may, in its discretion, permit the calling party to put questions to that witness that would typically only be allowed in cross-examination.
- A witness who deviates from a prior statement is often referred to as "hostile."
Rabinder Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976) - Declaring a witness hostile does NOT nullify their entire testimony.
- The court retains the discretion to rely on parts of the testimony that appear credible and trustworthy, while rejecting the parts that contradict the calling party's case or appear unreliable.
Section 162. Refreshing Memory: A witness is entitled to refresh their memory by referring to a writing made by themselves at the time of the transaction, OR so soon afterwards that the court considers the facts were still fresh in their mind.
- A witness may also refer to a writing made by another person if they read it at the time and knew it to be correct.
Section 164. Using refresh memory: Any writing used for refreshing memory shall be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it;
- Such party may cross-examine the witness thereupon.
Section 168. Judge’s power: The judge may ask any question he considers necessary in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts.
- This can be done:-
In any form;
At any time;
To any witness or parties;
About any fact
- The judge may also order production of any document or thing.
- Neither the parties nor their representative 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, the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant AND duly proved.
- Provided further, this section does NOT authorise the judge to compel any witness to answer questions OR to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer OR produce under Section 127 to 136 (both inclusive); NOR
- The Judge shall NOT ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under Section 151 or 152; NOR
- The Judge shall NOT dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.
Ramchander v. State of Haryana (1981) - It is the duty of the presiding judge to explore every avenue of justice.
- For that purpose, he is expressly invested under Section 165 IEA with the right to put questions to witnesses.
- This right is so wide that he may ask ANY question he pleases, in any form, at any time, about any fact, relevant or irrelevant.
NOTE - This has also been changed in the BSA.
- The words “Any question he pleases” has been substituted with “Any question he considers necessary”.
- Also, in the words “About any fact relevant or irrelevant”, the words “relevant or irrelevant” has been omitted.
Section 169. Improper Admission or Rejection of Evidence: This section serves as a crucial judicial safety mechanism.
- It dictates that the improper admission or rejection of evidence shall NOT, by itself, be a ground for ordering a new trial or reversing a decision.
- This rule applies ONLY if the Appellate Court determines that, independently of the contested evidence, there was sufficient other evidence to justify the decision, OR that the rejection of evidence ought not to have altered the ultimate finding.
- This provision champions judicial efficiency and the principle of finality, ensuring that technical procedural errors do not undermine a judgment that is substantively supported by independent and adequate evidence.
From proving facts to establishing truth — the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam lays down the rules of evidence that guide courts in determining what facts are relevant, what evidence is admissible, and how they may be proved before the law.
Continue your journey through Indian law with expert insights, exam-oriented notes, and simplified legal analysis only on Legaljourney.in
Stay updated. Stay informed. Stay ahead.
Let’s make law simple, clear, and accessible - one legal concept at a time! ⚖️
Share your thoughts in the comments below and continue your legal learning journey with us at Legal Journey.
Join us on Telegram for regular updates and study material!
Follow us on YouTube for detailed video explanation on Indian Constitutional Law.
Download the PDF version of this article here.
Comments