1.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is a part of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which
is a comprehensive legislation aimed at reforming and codifying the laws of evidence in India.

Key Provisions

1. Definition of Evidence: The Act defines evidence as any matter of fact, statement, document, or
object that is used to prove or disprove a fact in a court of law.
2. Types of Evidence: The Act categorizes evidence into two types: oral and documentary.
3. Relevance of Evidence: only relevant evidence is admissible in court.
4. Admissibility of Evidence: It lays down the rules for the admissibility of evidence, including the
exclusion of hearsay evidence and the admissibility of expert opinion.
5. Burden of Proof: The Act provides that the burden of proof lies on the party that makes a claim or
allegation.
6. Presumptions: The Act provides for certain presumptions, such as the presumption of innocence
and the presumption of marriage.
7. Estoppel: The Act provides for the doctrine of estoppel, which prevents a party from denying a
fact that they have previously admitted or acted upon.

Objectives

1. Simplification of Laws: The Act aims to simplify the laws of evidence and make them more
accessible to the common man.
2. Reform of Laws: The Act aims to reform the laws of evidence to make them more effective and
efficient.
3. Codification of Laws: The Act aims to codify the laws of evidence to provide a comprehensive and
systematic framework for the admissibility of evidence in court.

Impact

1. Improved Justice Delivery: The Act is expected to improve the delivery of justice by providing a
clear and comprehensive framework for the admissibility of evidence.
2. Reduced Litigation: The Act is expected to reduce litigation by providing clarity on the admissibility
of evidence and reducing the scope for disputes.
3. Increased Efficiency: The Act is expected to increase the efficiency of the justice system by
providing a systematic and comprehensive framework for the admissibility of evidence.

2. Salient features of BSA

Here are the salient features of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023:

General Provisions

1. Definition of Evidence: The BSA defines evidence as any matter of fact, statement, document, or
object that is used to prove or disprove a fact in a court of law.
2. Types of Evidence: The BSA categorizes evidence into two types: oral and documentary.
3. Relevance of Evidence: The BSA provides that only relevant evidence is admissible in court.

Admissibility of Evidence
1. Admissibility of Oral Evidence: The BSA provides that oral evidence is admissible if it is relevant
and is given by a competent witness.
2. Admissibility of Documentary Evidence: The BSA provides that documentary evidence is
admissible if it is relevant and is proved to be genuine.
3. Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence: The BSA excludes hearsay evidence, except in certain
circumstances.

Burden of Proof

1. Burden of Proof: The BSA provides that the burden of proof lies on the party that makes a claim or
allegation.
2. Shifting of Burden: The BSA provides that the burden of proof may shift to the other party in
certain circumstances.

Presumptions and Estoppel

1. Presumptions: The BSA provides for certain presumptions, such as the presumption of innocence
and the presumption of marriage.
2. Estoppel: The BSA provides for the doctrine of estoppel, which prevents a party from denying a
fact that they have previously admitted or acted upon.

3. Meaning and kinds of Evidence interpretation clause

Here's an explanation of the meaning and kinds of evidence, along with the interpretation clause:

Meaning of Evidence

Evidence refers to any information, whether oral or documentary, that is presented in a court of law
to prove or disprove a fact. The purpose of evidence is to establish the truth of a matter in dispute.

Kinds of Evidence

There are several kinds of evidence, including:

1. Direct Evidence: Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact, such as eyewitness
testimony or a video recording.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves a fact, such as
fingerprints or DNA analysis.
3. Documentary Evidence: Documentary evidence refers to written or printed documents, such as
contracts, wills, or certificates.
4. Oral Evidence: Oral evidence refers to testimony given by a witness in court.
5. Real Evidence: Real evidence refers to physical objects or materials that are presented in court as
evidence, such as a weapon or a piece of clothing.
6. Demonstrative Evidence: Demonstrative evidence refers to evidence that is used to illustrate or
demonstrate a fact, such as a diagram or a model.

Interpretation Clause

The interpretation clause is a provision in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, that
explains how the Act should be interpreted. The clause provides that:
1. Words and Phrases: Words and phrases used in the Act should be interpreted in accordance with
their ordinary meaning.
2. Definitions: Definitions provided in the Act should be applied consistently throughout the Act.
3. Context: The context in which a provision is used should be taken into account when interpreting
the provision.
4. Purpose: The purpose of the Act should be taken into account when interpreting its provisions.

The interpretation clause is intended to provide clarity and consistency in the interpretation of the
BSA, 2023, and to ensure that the Act is applied fairly and justly.
4. Documents may presume, Shall presume and conclusive proof

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, documents may be classified into three
categories based on their evidentiary value:

May Presume

1. Definition: A document that may presume means that the court may assume the existence of a
fact or circumstance based on the document, but it is not conclusive proof.
2. Examples:
1. A receipt for payment may presume that the payment was made.
2. A letter may presume that the sender intended to communicate with the recipient.

Shall Presume

1. Definition: A document that shall presume means that the court must assume the existence of a
fact or circumstance based on the document, unless the contrary is proved.
2. Examples:
1. A certified copy of a public document shall presume that the document is genuine.
2. A document attested by a notary public shall presume that the signatures on the document are
genuine.

Conclusive Proof

1. Definition: A document that is conclusive proof means that the court must accept the document
as proof of a fact or circumstance, and no evidence to the contrary can be admitted.
2. Examples:
1. A judgment or decree of a court is conclusive proof of the facts stated in it.
2. A certificate issued by a public authority, such as a birth or death certificate, is conclusive proof
of the facts stated in it.

These classifications are important in determining the weight and admissibility of documents as
evidence in a court of law.
5. Fact, Fact in issue and relevant facts as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the following definitions and sections apply:

Fact

1. Definition: A fact is an event, situation, or circumstance that exists or has existed.

2. Section: Section 3 of the BSA defines "fact".
3. Examples: A person's birthdate, a transaction between two parties, or a natural disaster.
Fact in Issue

1. Definition: A fact in issue is a fact that is directly in dispute between the parties to a case.
2. Section: Section 4 of the BSA defines "fact in issue".
3. Examples: In a contract dispute, the fact in issue might be whether one party breached the
contract. In a criminal case, the fact in issue might be whether the accused committed the crime.

Relevant Facts

1. Definition: Relevant facts are facts that have a bearing on the fact in issue and are necessary to
prove or disprove it.
2. Section: Section 5 of the BSA defines "relevant facts".
3. Examples: In a negligence case, the fact that the defendant was driving at a high speed might be a
relevant fact. In a breach of contract case, the fact that the defendant had a history of non-payment
might be a relevant fact.

Principles of Relevance

1. Relevance: A fact is relevant if it has a bearing on the fact in issue and is necessary to prove or
disprove it (Section 6 of the BSA).
2. Proximity: A fact is more likely to be relevant if it is closely connected to the fact in issue (Section 7
of the BSA).
3. Necessity: A fact is relevant only if it is necessary to prove or disprove the fact in issue (Section 8
of the BSA).

Admissibility of Relevant Facts

1. Admissibility: Relevant facts are admissible as evidence in a court of law (Section 9 of the BSA).
2. Weight: The weight of relevant facts depends on their probative value, credibility, and reliability
(Section 10 of the BSA).
3. Exclusion: Relevant facts may be excluded if they are prejudicial, hearsay, or irrelevant (Section 11
of the BSA).
6. Proved facts and Disproved facts as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the following definitions and sections apply:

Proved Facts

1. Definition: A proved fact is a fact that has been established by evidence to the satisfaction of the
court.
2. Section: Section 12 of the BSA defines "proved fact".
3. Examples: A fact that has been admitted by the opposing party, or a fact that has been established
by documentary evidence or testimony of witnesses.

Disproved Facts

1. Definition: A disproved fact is a fact that has been shown to be false or incorrect by evidence.
2. Section: Section 13 of the BSA defines "disproved fact".
3. Examples: A fact that has been contradicted by documentary evidence or testimony of witnesses,
or a fact that has been shown to be impossible or highly improbable.

Principles of Proof
1. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies on the party that asserts the existence of a fact (Section
14 of the BSA).
2. Standard of Proof: The standard of proof is that the fact must be proved to the satisfaction of the
court (Section 15 of the BSA).
3. Presumptions: Certain facts may be presumed to exist, unless the contrary is proved (Section 16 of
the BSA).

Consequences of Proved and Disproved Facts

1. Proved Facts: Proved facts are considered established and may be used as the basis for further
proceedings or decisions.
2. Disproved Facts: Disproved facts are considered false or incorrect and may not be relied upon as
evidence.
7. Distinction between relevancy and admissibility as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the distinction between relevancy and
admissibility is as follows:

Relevancy

1. Definition: Relevancy refers to the connection between a fact and the fact in issue. A fact is
relevant if it has a bearing on the fact in issue and is necessary to prove or disprove it.
2. Section: Section 5 of the BSA defines "relevancy".
3. Examples: A fact that shows the motive behind a crime, or a fact that establishes the identity of a
witness.

Admissibility

1. Definition: Admissibility refers to whether a relevant fact is allowed to be presented as evidence in

a court of law. A fact may be relevant but not admissible due to various reasons such as hearsay,
privilege, or prejudice.
2. Section: Section 9 of the BSA defines "admissibility".
3. Examples: A relevant fact that is obtained through an illegal search may not be admissible, or a
relevant fact that is privileged may not be admissible.

Key Distinctions

1. Relevancy is a broader concept: Relevancy is concerned with whether a fact has a bearing on the
fact in issue, while admissibility is concerned with whether a relevant fact is allowed to be presented
as evidence.
2. Admissibility is a narrower concept: Admissibility is concerned with whether a relevant fact meets
the technical requirements to be presented as evidence, such as being obtained lawfully and not
being privileged.
3. Relevancy is a prerequisite for admissibility: A fact must be relevant before it can be considered
for admissibility.
8. Doctrine of Res Gestae as pe BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the Doctrine of Res Gestae is a principle of
evidence that allows for the admission of statements made by a person contemporaneously with an
event or transaction, as part of the res gestae (things done) of that event or transaction.
Definition

Section 34 of the BSA defines Res Gestae as:

"Res Gestae means things done, and includes statements made by a person contemporaneously
with an event or transaction, which are so closely connected with the event or transaction that they
form part of the res gestae."

Conditions for Admissibility

For a statement to be admissible under the Doctrine of Res Gestae, the following conditions must be
met:

1. Contemporaneity: The statement must be made contemporaneously with the event or

transaction.
2. Closeness to the Event: The statement must be so closely connected with the event or transaction
that it forms part of the res gestae.
3. Spontaneity: The statement must be spontaneous and not made in response to questioning.

Examples

1. A witness statements made immediately after a car accident, describing what they saw.
2. A victim's statement made to a police officer immediately after a crime, describing the
perpetrator.

Purpose

The Doctrine of Res Gestae allows for the admission of statements that are closely connected to an
event or transaction, and are likely to be reliable because they were made contemporaneously with
the event. This doctrine helps to establish the truth of an event or transaction, and provides valuable
evidence in criminal and civil cases.
9. What is Motive, preparation and conduct as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, Motive, Preparation, and Conduct are relevant
facts that can be considered as evidence in a court of law.

Motive

1. Definition: Motive refers to the reason or intention behind an act or omission.

2. Section: Section 15 of the BSA provides that motive is a relevant fact.
3. Examples: A person's motive for committing a crime, such as financial gain or revenge.

Preparation

1. Definition: Preparation refers to the acts or steps taken by a person to commit an offense.
2. Section: Section 16 of the BSA provides that preparation is a relevant fact.
3. Examples: A person's preparation to commit a crime, such as purchasing a weapon or planning a
robbery.

Conduct
1. Definition: Conduct refers to the behaviour or actions of a person, either before, during, or after
an event.
2. Section: Section 17 of the BSA provides that conduct is a relevant fact.
3. Examples: A person's conduct during a crime, such as their behaviour towards the victim or
witnesses.

Relevance

Motive, Preparation, and Conduct are relevant facts because they can help establish:

1. Intent: A person's motive, preparation, and conduct can help establish their intent to commit an
offense.
2. Guilty knowledge: A person's conduct can help establish their guilty knowledge or involvement in
an offense.
3. Credibility: A person's conduct can also affect their credibility as a witness.

These facts can be used to build a case against an accused person or to support their defence.
10. Conspiracy when facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, when facts are not otherwise relevant, they
may become relevant in cases of conspiracy.

Conspiracy

1. Definition: Conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act
or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.
2. Section: Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code defines conspiracy.

Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

In cases of conspiracy, facts that are not otherwise relevant may become relevant to prove:

1. Existence of conspiracy: Facts that show the existence of a conspiracy, such as meetings,
communications, or agreements between co-conspirators.
2. Intent of co-conspirators: Facts that show the intent of co-conspirators, such as statements,
documents, or actions that indicate their shared goal.
3. Role of each co-conspirator: Facts that show the role of each co-conspirator, such as their actions,
statements, or contributions to the conspiracy.

Examples

1. A conversation between two persons about a planned robbery may not be relevant in a trial for
robbery, but it becomes relevant if it shows the existence of a conspiracy.
2. A document showing a financial transaction between two persons may not be relevant in a trial
for money laundering, but it becomes relevant if it shows the intent of co-conspirators to launder
money.

Relevance

In cases of conspiracy, facts that are not otherwise relevant may become relevant because they:
1. Show the existence of a conspiracy: Facts that establish the existence of a conspiracy make it
more likely that the co-conspirators committed the offense.
2. Indicate the intent of co-conspirators: Facts that show the intent of co-conspirators help establish
their shared goal and make it more likely that they committed the offense.
3. Reveal the role of each co-conspirator: Facts that show the role of each co-conspirator help
establish their involvement in the conspiracy and make it more likely that they committed the
offense.
11. Right and custom as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, right and custom are relevant facts that can be
considered as evidence in a court of law.

Right

1. Definition: A right refers to a legally enforceable claim or interest that a person has in a thing or a
situation.
2. Section: Section 43 of the BSA provides that rights are relevant facts.
3. Examples: A person's right to property, a person's right to inherit property, or a person's right to
practice a profession.

Custom

1. Definition: A custom refers to a traditional or established practice or usage that is followed by a

community or group of people.
2. Section: Section 44 of the BSA provides that customs are relevant facts.
3. Examples: A custom of inheritance in a particular community, a custom of marriage in a particular
community, or a custom of trade or commerce in a particular area.

Relevance

Rights and customs are relevant facts because they:

1. Establish legal relationships: Rights and customs help establish legal relationships between
parties, such as relationships of ownership, inheritance, or contract.
2. Determine duties and obligations: Rights and customs help determine the duties and obligations
of parties, such as the duty to pay taxes or the obligation to follow a particular custom.
3. Provide context for disputes: Rights and customs provide context for disputes, helping to establish
the facts and circumstances of a case.

Proof of Right or Custom

To prove a right or custom, a party may rely on:

1. Documentary evidence: Documents such as deeds, contracts, or certificates may be used to prove
a right or custom.
2. Oral evidence: Oral testimony from witnesses may be used to prove a right or custom.
3. Expert evidence: Expert testimony from persons familiar with the custom or right may be used to
prove a right or custom.
12. Facts showing the state of mind as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, facts showing the state of mind of a person are
relevant and can be considered as evidence in a court of law.
State of Mind

1. Definition: State of mind refers to a person's mental condition, attitude, or intention at a

particular time.
2. Section: Section 45 of the BSA provides that facts showing the state of mind of a person are
relevant.

Examples of Facts Showing State of Mind

1. Intent to commit an offense: Facts showing a person's intent to commit an offense, such as
planning or preparation.
2. Motive for an act: Facts showing a person's motive for an act, such as financial gain or revenge.
3. Knowledge or belief: Facts showing a person's knowledge or belief about a particular fact or
circumstance.
4. Emotional state: Facts showing a person's emotional state, such as anger, fear, or excitement.
5. Mental capacity: Facts showing a person's mental capacity, such as their ability to understand or
appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Relevance of State of Mind

Facts showing the state of mind of a person are relevant because they:

1. Help establish intent: Facts showing a person's state of mind can help establish their intent to
commit an offense.
2. Provide context for actions: Facts showing a person's state of mind can provide context for their
actions and help explain why they acted in a particular way.
3. Affect credibility: Facts showing a person's state of mind can affect their credibility as a witness or
defendant.

Proof of State of Mind

To prove a person's state of mind, a party may rely on:

1. Direct evidence: Direct evidence, such as a person's statements or admissions.

2. Circumstantial evidence: Circumstantial evidence, such as a person's actions or behaviour.
3. Expert evidence: Expert evidence, such as testimony from a psychologist or psychiatrist.
13. What is Admission and confession( from here read other notes)

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, Admission and Confession are two types of
statements that can be used as evidence in a court of law.

Admission

1. Definition: An admission is a statement made by a person that acknowledges the existence of a

fact or circumstance that is unfavorable to their case.
2. Section: Section 17 of the BSA defines admission.
3. Examples: A defendant's statement that they were at the scene of the crime, or a witness's
statement that they saw the defendant commit the crime.

Confession
1. Definition: A confession is a statement made by a person that acknowledges their guilt or
involvement in a crime.
2. Section: Section 18 of the BSA defines confession.
3. Examples: A defendant's statement that they committed the crime, or a statement that
acknowledges their role in a conspiracy.

Key differences

1. Scope: An admission is a broader concept that includes any statement that acknowledges an
unfavorable fact or circumstance, while a confession is a specific type of admission that
acknowledges guilt or involvement in a crime.
2. Intent: An admission may be made unintentionally, while a confession is typically made
intentionally.
3. Weight: A confession is generally considered more reliable and probative than an admission, as it
is a direct acknowledgment of guilt or involvement.

Relevance and Admissibility

Admissions and confessions are relevant and admissible as evidence in a court of law, as they:

1. Provide direct evidence: Admissions and confessions provide direct evidence of a fact or
circumstance, which can be used to prove or disprove a case.
2. Establish guilt or involvement: A confession can establish a defendant's guilt or involvement in a
crime, while an admission can establish a fact or circumstance that is unfavorable to their case.
3. Affect credibility: Admissions and confessions can affect a person's credibility as a witness or
defendant, as they may be seen as inconsistent or unreliable.
14. General Principals concerning admissions as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the following are the general principles
concerning admissions:

1. Definition: An admission is a statement made by a person that acknowledges the existence of a

fact or circumstance that is unfavorable to their case. (Section 17 of the BSA)

2. Relevance: Admissions are relevant facts and can be used as evidence in a court of law. (Section
17 of the BSA)

3. Admissibility: Admissions are admissible as evidence, but the court may consider the
circumstances under which the admission was made. (Section 18 of the BSA)

4. Weight: The weight of an admission depends on the circumstances under which it was made,
including the person's mental state, the presence of coercion or inducement, and the person's
subsequent conduct. (Section 19 of the BSA)

5. Retraction: A retraction of an admission does not necessarily render it inadmissible, but the court
may consider the circumstances of the retraction. (Section 20 of the BSA)

6. Implied admissions: An admission may be implied from a person's conduct or silence, but the
court must consider the circumstances to determine whether the implication is reasonable. (Section
21 of the BSA)
7. Admissions by agents: An admission made by an agent or representative of a party may be binding
on the party, but the court must consider the scope of the agent's authority. (Section 22 of the BSA)

8. Admissions in civil cases: In civil cases, an admission may be used as evidence against the party
making the admission, but the court may consider the circumstances under which the admission was
made. (Section 23 of the BSA)

9. Admissions in criminal cases: In criminal cases, an admission may be used as evidence against the
accused, but the court must consider the circumstances under which the admission was made,
including the presence of coercion or inducement. (Section 24 of the BSA)
15. Deference between admission and confession

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the following are the differences between
admission and confession:

Differences between Admission and Confession

1. Definition

- Admission: A statement made by a person acknowledging the existence of a fact or circumstance

unfavorable to their case. (Section 17 of the BSA)
- Confession: A statement made by a person acknowledging their guilt or involvement in a crime.
(Section 18 of the BSA)

2. Scope

- Admission: Broader concept, includes any statement acknowledging an unfavorable fact or

circumstance.
- Confession: Specific type of admission, acknowledges guilt or involvement in a crime.

3. Intent

- Admission: May be made unintentionally.

- Confession: Typically made intentionally.

4. Weight

- Admission: Weight depends on circumstances, may be considered less reliable.

- Confession: Generally considered more reliable and probative.

5. Relevance

- Admission: Relevant to prove or disprove a fact or circumstance.

- Confession: Relevant to prove guilt or involvement in a crime.

6. Admissibility

- Admission: Admissible as evidence, but court considers circumstances.

- Confession: Admissible as evidence, but court must consider voluntariness and reliability.

7. Effect on Credibility
- Admission: May affect credibility, but depends on circumstances.
- Confession: Generally affects credibility, as it acknowledges guilt or involvement.

8. Retraction

- Admission: Retraction may be considered, but depends on circumstances.

- Confession: Retraction is generally not allowed, as it undermines the integrity of the confession.

9. Implied Admissions

- Admission: Implied admissions may be considered, but depends on circumstances.

- Confession: Implied confessions are not recognized, as a confession requires a direct
acknowledgment of guilt.

10. Agents and Representatives

- Admission: Admissions by agents or representatives may be binding on the party.

- Confession: Confessions by agents or representatives are not binding on the party, as a confession
requires a personal acknowledgment of guilt.
16. What is confession obtained by inducement, threat or promise

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, a confession obtained by inducement, threat,
or promise is considered an involuntary confession and is not admissible as evidence in a court of
law.

Definition

A confession obtained by inducement, threat, or promise refers to a statement made by a person

acknowledging their guilt or involvement in a crime, which is obtained by:

1. Inducement: A promise or offer of reward, benefit, or advantage, which influences the person to
make the confession.
2. Threat: A threat of harm, injury, or punishment, which coerces the person to make the confession.
3. Promise: A promise of leniency, immunity, or protection, which induces the person to make the
confession.

Section 24 of the BSA

Section 24 of the BSA provides that a confession made by an accused person is not admissible as
evidence if it appears to the court that the confession was obtained by:

1. Any inducement, threat, or promise;

2. Any person in authority;
3. Any improper means.

Consequences

A confession obtained by inducement, threat, or promise is not admissible as evidence because it is

considered unreliable and may be the result of coercion or manipulation. The exclusion of such
confessions is intended to protect the rights of the accused and to ensure that confessions are
voluntary and reliable.
Examples

1. A police officer promises a suspect that they will be released if they confess to the crime.
2. A suspect is threatened with physical harm if they do not confess to the crime.
3. A prosecutor offers a suspect a reduced sentence in exchange for a confession.

In each of these examples, the confession would be considered involuntary and would not be
admissible as evidence in a court of law.
17. Confession made to police officer

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adiiniyam (BSA), 2023, a confession made to a police officer is not
admissible as evidence in a court of law, except in certain circumstances.

Section 25 of the BSA

Section 25 of the BSA provides that a confession made to a police officer is not admissible as
evidence, except:

1. If made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate: If a confession is made in the immediate

presence of a Magistrate, it may be admissible as evidence.
2. If made in writing: If a confession is made in writing and is signed by the accused, it may be
admissible as evidence.
3. If recorded electronically: If a confession is recorded electronically, such as through audio or video
recording, and the recording is authenticated, it may be admissible as evidence.

Reasons for exclusion

A confession made to a police officer is not admissible as evidence because:

1. Coercion: Police officers may use coercive tactics to extract confessions.

2. Inducement: Police officers may offer inducements, such as promises of leniency or rewards, to
obtain confessions.
3. Lack of reliability: Confessions made to police officers may not be reliable, as they may be
influenced by factors such as fear, intimidation, or misunderstanding.

Exceptions

While confessions made to police officers are generally not admissible, there are exceptions, such as:

1. Spontaneous confessions: If a confession is made spontaneously, without any prompting or

coercion, it may be admissible as evidence.
2. Confessions made in the presence of a lawyer: If a confession is made in the presence of a lawyer,
it may be admissible as evidence.

In summary, confessions made to police officers are generally not admissible as evidence, except in
certain circumstances, such as when made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, in writing, or
recorded electronically.
18. Statement made in custody of a police officer leading to the discovery of incriminating
material
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, a statement made in custody of a police officer
leading to the discovery of incriminating material is admissible as evidence, but only to the extent
that it relates to the discovery of the material.

Section 27 of the BSA

Section 27 of the BSA provides that a statement made by a person in custody of a police officer,
which leads to the discovery of incriminating material, is admissible as evidence, but only to the
extent that it relates to the discovery of the material.

Requirements for admissibility

To be admissible, the statement must meet the following requirements:

1. Made in custody: The statement must be made while the person is in custody of a police officer.
2. Leads to discovery: The statement must lead to the discovery of incriminating material.
3. Relates to discovery: The statement must relate to the discovery of the material, and not to any
other aspect of the case.

Examples

1. A person in custody tells the police officer that they hid a weapon in a specific location, and the
police officer finds the weapon there.
2. A person in custody tells the police officer that they kept stolen goods in a specific warehouse, and
the police officer finds the goods there.

Incriminating material

The term "incriminating material" refers to any object, document, or other material that tends to
prove the guilt of the accused person.
19. Admissibility of confession made by one accused person against co-accused

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, a confession made by one accused person
against a co-accused is not admissible as evidence against the co-accused, except in certain
circumstances.

Section 30 of the BSA

Section 30 of the BSA provides that a confession made by one accused person against a co-accused
is not admissible as evidence against the co-accused, except:

1. When made in the presence of the co-accused: If the confession is made in the presence of the
co-accused, and the co-accused has an opportunity to explain or contradict the confession.
2. When corroborated by other evidence: If the confession is corroborated by other evidence, which
tends to prove the guilt of the co-accused.

Reasons for exclusion

A confession made by one accused person against a co-accused is not admissible as evidence against
the co-accused because:
1. Lack of reliability: Confessions made by one accused person against a co-accused may not be
reliable, as they may be motivated by a desire to shift blame or gain favor.
2. Coercion or inducement: Confessions made by one accused person against a co-accused may be
obtained through coercion or inducement, which would render them inadmissible.

Exceptions

While confessions made by one accused person against a co-accused are generally not admissible,
there are exceptions, such as:

1. Joint trial: If the accused persons are tried jointly, a confession made by one accused person
against a co-accused may be admissible as evidence against the co-accused.
2. Corroborating evidence: If there is corroborating evidence that tends to prove the guilt of the co-
accused, a confession made by one accused person against a co-accused may be admissible as
evidence against the co-accused.
20. What is Dying declaration and their evidentiary value

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, a dying declaration is a statement made by a
person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause or circumstances of what they
believe to be their impending death.

Definition

Section 32 of the BSA defines a dying declaration as:

"A statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause or
circumstances of what they believe to be their impending death."

Evidentiary Value

A dying declaration is considered a relevant and admissible piece of evidence in a court of law, as it
is believed to be a truthful statement made by a person who has no motive to lie.

Requirements for Admissibility

To be admissible as evidence, a dying declaration must meet the following requirements:

1. Made by a person who believes they are about to die: The person making the statement must
believe that they are about to die.
2. Concerning the cause or circumstances of their impending death: The statement must relate to
the cause or circumstances of the person's impending death.
3. Made in a conscious and rational state of mind: The person making the statement must be in a
conscious and rational state of mind.
4. Not obtained through coercion or inducement: The statement must not be obtained through
coercion or inducement.

Weight of Dying Declaration

The weight of a dying declaration depends on various factors, including:

1. The person's mental and physical state: The person's mental and physical state at the time of
making the statement can affect the weight of the declaration.
2. The presence of witnesses: The presence of witnesses who can corroborate the declaration can
increase its weight.
3. The consistency of the declaration: The consistency of the declaration with other evidence can
increase its weight.

Exceptions

While a dying declaration is generally admissible as evidence, there are exceptions, such as:

1. If the person making the declaration was not in a conscious and rational state of mind: If the
person making the declaration was not in a conscious and rational state of mind, the declaration
may not be admissible.
2. If the declaration was obtained through coercion or inducement: If the declaration was obtained
through coercion or inducement, it may not be admissible.
21. Other statements by persons who can not be called as witness

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, statements made by persons who cannot be
called as witnesses may still be admissible as evidence in certain circumstances.

Section 33 of the BSA

Section 33 of the BSA provides that statements made by persons who cannot be called as witnesses
may be admissible as evidence if:

1. The person is dead or cannot be found: If the person who made the statement is dead or cannot
be found, their statement may be admissible as evidence.
2. The person is incapable of giving evidence: If the person who made the statement is incapable of
giving evidence due to a physical or mental disability, their statement may be admissible as
evidence.
3. The person is kept out of the way by the adverse party: If the person who made the statement is
kept out of the way by the adverse party, their statement may be admissible as evidence.

Examples of admissible statements

The following are examples of statements that may be admissible as evidence under Section 33 of
the BSA:

1. Dying declaration: A statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning
the cause or circumstances of their impending death.
2. Statement made by a person who is subsequently killed: A statement made by a person who is
subsequently killed, which relates to the cause or circumstances of their death.
3. Statement made by a person who is mentally or physically incapacitated: A statement made by a
person who is mentally or physically incapacitated, which relates to a relevant fact or circumstance.

Requirements for admissibility

To be admissible as evidence, the statement must meet the following requirements:

1. The statement must be relevant: The statement must relate to a relevant fact or circumstance in
the case.
2. The statement must be made by a person who cannot be called as a witness: The statement must
be made by a person who is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of
the way by the adverse party.
3. The statement must be proved by satisfactory evidence: The statement must be proved by
satisfactory evidence, such as a document, a witness, or other reliable source.
22. Admissibility of evidence of witness in previous judicial proceedings in subsequent judicial
proceedings

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, evidence of a witness in previous judicial
proceedings may be admissible in subsequent judicial proceedings, subject to certain conditions.

Section 34 of the BSA

Section 34 of the BSA provides that evidence of a witness in previous judicial proceedings may be
admissible in subsequent judicial proceedings, if:

1. The witness is dead or cannot be found: If the witness is dead or cannot be found, their previous
testimony may be admissible as evidence.
2. The witness is incapable of giving evidence: If the witness is incapable of giving evidence due to a
physical or mental disability, their previous testimony may be admissible as evidence.
3. The witness is kept out of the way by the adverse party: If the witness is kept out of the way by
the adverse party, their previous testimony may be admissible as evidence.

Conditions for admissibility

To be admissible, the evidence of the witness in previous judicial proceedings must meet the
following conditions:

1. The previous testimony must be relevant: The previous testimony must relate to a relevant fact or
circumstance in the subsequent judicial proceedings.
2. The previous testimony must be proved by satisfactory evidence: The previous testimony must be
proved by satisfactory evidence, such as a transcript of the previous testimony or a witness who can
attest to the previous testimony.
3. The court must be satisfied that the witness is unavailable: The court must be satisfied that the
witness is unavailable to testify in the subsequent judicial proceedings.

Examples of admissible evidence

The following are examples of evidence of a witness in previous judicial proceedings that may be
admissible in subsequent judicial proceedings:

1. Transcript of previous testimony: A transcript of the witness's previous testimony may be

admissible as evidence.
2. Deposition of previous testimony: A deposition of the witness's previous testimony may be
admissible as evidence.
3. Affidavit of previous testimony: An affidavit of the witness's previous testimony may be admissible
as evidence.

In summary, evidence of a witness in previous judicial proceedings may be admissible in subsequent

judicial proceedings, subject to certain conditions, such as the witness being dead, incapable of
giving evidence, or kept out of the way by the adverse party.
 23. Relevancy of judgement

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the relevancy of a judgment in a previous case
is governed by Section 40 to 43 of the BSA.

Relevancy of Judgement

A judgment in a previous case may be relevant in certain circumstances, such as:

1. Res judicata: A judgment in a previous case may be relevant to establish the principle of res
judicata, which means that a matter that has already been adjudicated upon cannot be litigated
again.
2. Estoppel: A judgment in a previous case may be relevant to establish the principle of estoppel,
which means that a person who has made a statement or taken a position in a previous case cannot
later contradict that statement or position.
3. Precedent: A judgment in a previous case may be relevant as a precedent, which means that it
may be cited as an authority in a later case.

Section 40 of the BSA

Section 40 of the BSA provides that a judgment in a previous case is relevant as evidence of the facts
stated in the judgment, but only to the extent that the judgment is based on evidence that was
adduced in the previous case.

Section 41 of the BSA

Section 41 of the BSA provides that a judgment in a previous case is not relevant as evidence of the
facts stated in the judgment, if the judgment was delivered in a case in which the parties were not
the same as the parties in the present case.

Section 42 of the BSA

Section 42 of the BSA provides that a judgment in a previous case is not relevant as evidence of the
facts stated in the judgment, if the judgment was delivered in a case in which the issue was not the
same as the issue in the present case.

Section 43 of the BSA

Section 43 of the BSA provides that a judgment in a previous case is not relevant as evidence of the
facts stated in the judgment, if the judgment was delivered in a case in which the parties had not the
same interest as the parties in the present case.

In summary, the relevancy of a judgment in a previous case is governed by Sections 40 to 43 of the

BSA, which provide that a judgment may be relevant as evidence of the facts stated in the judgment,
but only to the extent that the judgment is based on evidence that was adduced in the previous
case.

24. Opinion of witness

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the opinion of a witness is admissible as
evidence in certain circumstances.
Types of Opinions

There are two types of opinions that a witness may express:

1. Expert opinion: An expert opinion is an opinion expressed by a witness who has specialized
knowledge or experience in a particular field.
2. Non-expert opinion: A non-expert opinion is an opinion expressed by a witness who does not have
specialized knowledge or experience in a particular field.

Admissibility of Opinion

The admissibility of a witness's opinion depends on the type of opinion and the circumstances of the
case.

Expert Opinion

An expert opinion is admissible as evidence if:

1. The witness is an expert: The witness must have specialized knowledge or experience in the
relevant field.
2. The opinion is relevant: The opinion must be relevant to a fact in issue in the case.
3. The opinion is based on sufficient data: The opinion must be based on sufficient data or facts.

Non-Expert Opinion

A non-expert opinion is admissible as evidence if:

1. The opinion is based on personal knowledge: The opinion must be based on the witness's personal
knowledge or observation.
2. The opinion is relevant: The opinion must be relevant to a fact in issue in the case.

Section 45 of the BSA

Section 45 of the BSA provides that when a witness is called to give an opinion, the court shall
consider:

1. The qualifications of the witness: The court shall consider the qualifications of the witness to give
an opinion.
2. The relevance of the opinion: The court shall consider whether the opinion is relevant to a fact in
issue in the case.
3. The sufficiency of the data: The court shall consider whether the opinion is based on sufficient
data or facts.

In summary, the opinion of a witness is admissible as evidence in certain circumstances, including

when the witness is an expert or when the opinion is based on personal knowledge. The
admissibility of a witness's opinion depends on the type of opinion and the circumstances of the
case.
25. What Experts opinion

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, an expert's opinion is admissible as evidence in
certain circumstances.
Definition of Expert

An expert is a person who has specialized knowledge or experience in a particular field or subject
matter.

When Expert Opinion is Admissible

An expert's opinion is admissible as evidence when:

1. The opinion is relevant: The opinion must be relevant to a fact in issue in the case.
2. The expert is qualified: The expert must have specialized knowledge or experience in the relevant
field.
3. The opinion is based on sufficient data: The opinion must be based on sufficient data or facts.

Section 45 of the BSA

Section 45 of the BSA provides that when an expert is called to give an opinion, the court shall
consider:

1. The qualifications of the expert: The court shall consider the qualifications of the expert to give an
opinion.
2. The relevance of the opinion: The court shall consider whether the opinion is relevant to a fact in
issue in the case.
3. The sufficiency of the data: The court shall consider whether the opinion is based on sufficient
data or facts.

Types of Experts

Experts can be categorized into different types, including:

1. Medical experts: Medical experts can provide opinions on medical issues, such as the cause of
death or the extent of injuries.
2. Forensic experts: Forensic experts can provide opinions on forensic issues, such as the analysis of
DNA evidence or fingerprints.
3. Engineering experts: Engineering experts can provide opinions on engineering issues, such as the
design or safety of a product.
4. Financial experts: Financial experts can provide opinions on financial issues, such as the value of a
company or the authenticity of financial documents.

Weight of Expert Opinion

The weight of an expert's opinion depends on various factors, including:

1. The qualifications of the expert: The qualifications of the expert can affect the weight of their
opinion.
2. The relevance of the opinion: The relevance of the opinion to the facts in issue can affect the
weight of the opinion.
3. The sufficiency of the data: The sufficiency of the data or facts on which the opinion is based can
affect the weight of the opinion.
In summary, an expert's opinion is admissible as evidence when it is relevant, the expert is qualified,
and the opinion is based on sufficient data. The weight of an expert's opinion depends on various
factors, including their qualifications, the relevance of the opinion, and the sufficiency of the data.
26. Opinion on relationships especially proof of marriage

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, opinion on relationships, especially proof of
marriage, can be provided by certain persons.

Categories of Persons Who Can Provide Opinion on Relationships

The following categories of persons can provide opinion on relationships:

1. Family members: Family members of the couple, such as parents, siblings, or children, can provide
opinion on the relationship.
2. Relatives: Relatives of the couple, such as uncles, aunts, or cousins, can provide opinion on the
relationship.
3. Neighbors: Neighbors of the couple can provide opinion on the relationship.
4. Community leaders: Community leaders, such as village elders or religious leaders, can provide
opinion on the relationship.

Proof of Marriage

Proof of marriage can be established through various means, including:

1. Marriage certificate: A marriage certificate issued by the relevant authorities can serve as proof of
marriage.
2. Witnesses: Witnesses to the marriage ceremony can provide testimony to prove the marriage.
3. Photographs and videos: Photographs and videos of the marriage ceremony can serve as proof of
marriage.
4. Joint documents: Joint documents, such as joint bank accounts or property deeds, can serve as
proof of marriage.

Section 50 of the BSA

Section 50 of the BSA provides that when the court has to form an opinion on the relationship
between two persons, it may consider:

1. The conduct of the parties: The conduct of the parties towards each other can be considered.
2. The statements made by the parties: Statements made by the parties can be considered.
3. The circumstances surrounding the relationship: The circumstances surrounding the relationship
can be considered.

In summary, opinion on relationships, especially proof of marriage, can be provided by family

members, relatives, neighbors, and community leaders. Proof of marriage can be established
through various means, including marriage certificates, witnesses, photographs and videos, and joint
documents.
27. What are the facts which are need not be proved

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, there are certain facts that need not be proved
in a court of law. These facts are considered to be already established or admitted, and therefore, do
not require proof.
Categories of Facts that Need Not be Proved

The following are categories of facts that need not be proved:

1. Facts of which court must take judicial notice: The court must take judicial notice of certain facts,
such as the existence of laws, government reports, and historical events.
2. Facts admitted in the pleadings: Facts admitted in the pleadings, such as the plaintiff's complaint
or the defendant's answer, need not be proved.
3. Facts proved in a previous proceeding: Facts proved in a previous proceeding, such as a previous
trial or hearing, need not be proved again.
4. Facts that are common knowledge: Facts that are common knowledge, such as the fact that the
sun rises in the east, need not be proved.
5. Facts that are established by scientific principles: Facts that are established by scientific principles,
such as the laws of gravity or the behavior of electricity, need not be proved.

Section 56 to 58 of the BSA

Sections 56 to 58 of the BSA provide that certain facts need not be proved, including:

1. Facts of which court must take judicial notice: Section 56 of the BSA provides that the court must
take judicial notice of certain facts.
2. Facts admitted in the pleadings: Section 57 of the BSA provides that facts admitted in the
pleadings need not be proved.
3. Facts proved in a previous proceeding: Section 58 of the BSA provides that facts proved in a
previous proceeding need not be proved again.

In summary, certain facts need not be proved in a court of law, including facts of which the court
must take judicial notice, facts admitted in the pleadings, facts proved in a previous proceeding, facts
that are common knowledge, and facts that are established by scientific principles.
28. Oral and documentary evidence

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, evidence can be classified into two main
categories: oral evidence and documentary evidence.

Oral Evidence

Oral evidence refers to testimony given by a witness in court. This type of evidence is considered
primary evidence, as it comes directly from the witness.

Characteristics of Oral Evidence

1. Verbal testimony: Oral evidence is given verbally by the witness in court.

2. Direct evidence: Oral evidence is considered direct evidence, as it comes directly from the
witness.
3. Subject to cross-examination: Oral evidence is subject to cross-examination by the opposing party.

Documentary Evidence

Documentary evidence refers to written or printed documents that are presented in court as
evidence. This type of evidence is considered secondary evidence, as it is derived from other
sources.
Characteristics of Documentary Evidence

1. Written or printed documents: Documentary evidence includes written or printed documents,

such as contracts, letters, and reports.
2. Secondary evidence: Documentary evidence is considered secondary evidence, as it is derived
from other sources.
3. Must be proved: Documentary evidence must be proved by calling the person who created the
document or by other means.

Types of Documentary Evidence

1. Public documents: Public documents, such as government records and reports, are considered
documentary evidence.
2. Private documents: Private documents, such as contracts and letters, are also considered
documentary evidence.
3. Electronic documents: Electronic documents, such as emails and digital reports, are also
considered documentary evidence.

Admissibility of Documentary Evidence

Documentary evidence is admissible in court if it is:

1. Relevant: The document must be relevant to the case.

2. Authentic: The document must be authentic and not tampered with.
3. Proved: The document must be proved by calling the person who created it or by other means.

In summary, oral evidence refers to testimony given by a witness in court, while documentary
evidence refers to written or printed documents presented in court as evidence. Both types of
evidence have their own characteristics and requirements for admissibility.

29. General principal concerning oral evidence and documentary evidence

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, there are general principles concerning oral
evidence and documentary evidence.

General Principles Concerning Oral Evidence

1. Oral evidence must be direct: Oral evidence must be based on the personal knowledge or
observation of the witness.
2. Oral evidence must be relevant: Oral evidence must be relevant to the matter in issue.
3. Oral evidence is subject to cross-examination: Oral evidence is subject to cross-examination by the
opposing party.
4. Oral evidence must be credible: Oral evidence must be credible and trustworthy.

General Principles Concerning Documentary Evidence

1. Documentary evidence must be authentic: Documentary evidence must be authentic and not
tampered with.
2. Documentary evidence must be relevant: Documentary evidence must be relevant to the matter
in issue.
3. Documentary evidence must be proved: Documentary evidence must be proved by calling the
person who created it or by other means.
4. Documentary evidence is prima facie evidence: Documentary evidence is prima facie evidence of
the facts stated in the document.

Preference Between Oral and Documentary Evidence

1. Documentary evidence is preferred: In cases where both oral and documentary evidence are
available, documentary evidence is generally preferred.
2. Oral evidence can supplement documentary evidence: Oral evidence can be used to supplement
documentary evidence and provide additional context.

Section 91 of the BSA

Section 91 of the BSA provides that when a document is produced, the court shall presume that it is
genuine and authentic, unless the opposite is proved.

In summary, oral evidence and documentary evidence have different characteristics and
requirements for admissibility. Documentary evidence is generally preferred, but oral evidence can
be used to supplement documentary evidence.

30. Primary, electronic or digital record, special provision as to evidence relating to electronic
record

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000,
there are special provisions relating to electronic records and digital evidence.

Primary Electronic or Digital Record

A primary electronic or digital record refers to the original electronic or digital data, which is stored
in a computer system or other electronic device.

Special Provisions as to Evidence Relating to Electronic Record

The following are special provisions relating to electronic records and digital evidence:

1. Electronic Records as Evidence

Electronic records are admissible as evidence in court, provided they meet certain conditions.

2. Authentication of Electronic Records

Electronic records must be authenticated by the person who created them or by other means, such
as digital signatures or certificates.

3. Proof of Electronic Records

Electronic records can be proved by producing the original record or by producing a certified copy of
the record.

4. Admissibility of Electronic Records

Electronic records are admissible in evidence, provided they are:

- Relevant to the matter in issue
- Authentic
- Reliable
- Not tampered with

5. Presumption as to Electronic Records

There is a presumption that electronic records are genuine and authentic, unless the opposite is
proved.

Section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the admissibility of electronic
records as evidence.

Section 65A

Section 65A provides that electronic records are admissible in evidence, provided they meet certain
conditions.

Section 65B

Section 65B provides for the authentication of electronic records and the proof of electronic records.

Information Technology Act, 2000

The Information Technology Act, 2000, provides for the legal recognition of electronic records and
digital signatures.

Digital Evidence

Digital evidence refers to electronic data that is stored or transmitted in digital form.

Types of Digital Evidence

The following are types of digital evidence:

- Email
- Chat logs
- Social media posts
- Digital photographs
- Videos
- Audio recordings
- Computer logs
- Network logs

Preservation and Authentication of Digital Evidence

Digital evidence must be preserved and authenticated to ensure its admissibility in court.

Challenges in Digital Evidence

The following are challenges in digital evidence:

- Authentication
- Preservation
- Integrity
- Chain of custody
- Admissibility

In summary, electronic records and digital evidence are admissible in court, provided they meet
certain conditions. There are special provisions relating to the authentication, preservation, and
admissibility of electronic records and digital evidence.

31. Admissibility of electronic records and secondary evidence

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000,
electronic records and secondary evidence are admissible in court, subject to certain conditions.

Admissibility of Electronic Records

Electronic records are admissible in evidence, provided they meet the following conditions:

1. The electronic record is authentic: The electronic record must be authentic and not tampered
with.
2. The electronic record is relevant: The electronic record must be relevant to the matter in issue.
3. The electronic record is reliable: The electronic record must be reliable and trustworthy.
4. The electronic record is properly identified: The electronic record must be properly identified and
described.

Section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the admissibility of electronic
records as evidence.

Section 65A

Section 65A provides that electronic records are admissible in evidence, provided they meet certain
conditions.

Section 65B

Section 65B provides for the authentication of electronic records and the proof of electronic records.

Admissibility of Secondary Evidence

Secondary evidence is admissible in court, provided it meets the following conditions:

1. The original document is lost or destroyed: The original document must be lost or destroyed.
2. The original document is in the possession of the opposite party: The original document must be
in the possession of the opposite party.
3. The secondary evidence is authentic: The secondary evidence must be authentic and not
tampered with.
4. The secondary evidence is relevant: The secondary evidence must be relevant to the matter in
issue.

Types of Secondary Evidence

The following are types of secondary evidence:

1. Certified copies: Certified copies of original documents.

2. Photocopies: Photocopies of original documents.
3. Printouts: Printouts of electronic records.
4. Transcripts: Transcripts of audio or video recordings.

Section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the admissibility of secondary
evidence.

Section 63

Section 63 provides that secondary evidence is admissible in court, provided the original document
is lost or destroyed.

Section 65

Section 65 provides that secondary evidence is admissible in court, provided the original document
is in the possession of the opposite party.

In summary, electronic records and secondary evidence are admissible in court, subject to certain
conditions. Electronic records must be authentic, relevant, reliable, and properly identified.
Secondary evidence must be authentic, relevant, and meet certain conditions, such as the loss or
destruction of the original document.
32. Modes of proof of execution of documents

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there are
several modes of proof of execution of documents.

Modes of Proof of Execution of Documents

1. Attestation: Attestation is a mode of proof where a witness signs the document to confirm its
execution.
2. Acknowledgement: Acknowledgement is a mode of proof where the person executing the
document acknowledges its execution in the presence of a witness.
3. Registration: Registration is a mode of proof where the document is registered with the relevant
authorities, such as the Sub-Registrar's office.
4. Affidavit: Affidavit is a mode of proof where the person executing the document swears an
affidavit to confirm its execution.
5. Witnesses: Witnesses can provide oral evidence to prove the execution of a document.
6. Fingerprint or thumb impression: Fingerprint or thumb impression can be used as a mode of proof
of execution of a document.
7. Digital signature: Digital signature can be used as a mode of proof of execution of an electronic
document.
Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that if a document is alleged to have been
executed by a person, the execution of the document may be proved by the person's own
admission, or by the evidence of a witness who was present at the time of execution.

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that if a document is alleged to have been
executed by a person, and the document is produced from the custody of the person, or from the
custody of a person who has received it from the person, the execution of the document may be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved.

In summary, there are several modes of proof of execution of documents, including attestation,
acknowledgement, registration, affidavit, witnesses, fingerprint or thumb impression, and digital
signature. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for the proof of execution of documents through
various means.

33. Presumption as to documents

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there are
certain presumptions that can be made regarding documents.

Presumptions as to Documents

The following are some of the presumptions that can be made regarding documents:

1. Presumption of genuineness: A document is presumed to be genuine if it is produced from proper

custody and bears the signature or seal of the person who is alleged to have executed it.
2. Presumption of due execution: A document is presumed to have been duly executed if it is
produced from proper custody and bears the signature or seal of the person who is alleged to have
executed it.
3. Presumption of validity: A document is presumed to be valid if it is produced from proper custody
and bears the signature or seal of the person who is alleged to have executed it.
4. Presumption of regularity: A document is presumed to have been regularly executed and attested
if it is produced from proper custody and bears the signature or seal of the person who is alleged to
have executed it.

Section 79 to 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 79 to 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the presumptions that can be made
regarding documents.

Section 79

Section 79 provides that a document is presumed to be genuine if it is produced from proper

custody and bears the signature or seal of the person who is alleged to have executed it.

Section 80

Section 80 provides that a document is presumed to have been duly executed if it is produced from
proper custody and bears the signature or seal of the person who is alleged to have executed it.
Section 81

Section 81 provides that a document is presumed to be valid if it is produced from proper custody
and bears the signature or seal of the person who is alleged to have executed it.

Section 82

Section 82 provides that a document is presumed to have been regularly executed and attested if it
is produced from proper custody and bears the signature or seal of the person who is alleged to
have executed it.

In summary, there are certain presumptions that can be made regarding documents, including the
presumption of genuineness, due execution, validity, and regularity. These presumptions can be
made under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

34. General principles regarding exclusion of oral by documentary evidence

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there are
general principles regarding the exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence.

Principles of Exclusion

The following are the principles of exclusion:

1. Best Evidence Rule: The best evidence rule states that when a document is available, oral
evidence regarding its contents is not admissible.
2. Documentary Evidence Takes Precedence: Documentary evidence takes precedence over oral
evidence, unless the document is proved to be false or forged.
3. Oral Evidence Cannot Contradict Documentary Evidence: Oral evidence cannot contradict
documentary evidence, unless the document is proved to be false or forged.
4. Documentary Evidence is More Reliable: Documentary evidence is considered more reliable than
oral evidence, as it is less susceptible to errors or manipulation.

Section 91 to 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 91 to 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the exclusion of oral evidence by
documentary evidence.

Section 91

Section 91 provides that when a document is available, oral evidence regarding its contents is not
admissible.

Section 92

Section 92 provides that documentary evidence takes precedence over oral evidence, unless the
document is proved to be false or forged.

Section 93
Section 93 provides that oral evidence cannot contradict documentary evidence, unless the
document is proved to be false or forged.

Exceptions

There are exceptions to the principles of exclusion, including:

1. To Explain Ambiguities: Oral evidence can be admitted to explain ambiguities in a document.

2. To Prove Forgery: Oral evidence can be admitted to prove that a document is forged.
3. To Prove Lack of Execution: Oral evidence can be admitted to prove that a document was not
executed.

In summary, the principles of exclusion provide that documentary evidence takes precedence over
oral evidence, and oral evidence cannot contradict documentary evidence, unless the document is
proved to be false or forged. However, there are exceptions to these principles, including to explain
ambiguities, prove forgery, or prove lack of execution.

35. Relevancy of social media in the law of evidence

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, social media
evidence is considered relevant in certain circumstances.

Relevancy of Social Media Evidence

Social media evidence can be relevant in the following circumstances:

1. Relevance to a fact in issue: Social media evidence can be relevant if it relates to a fact in issue in
the case.
2. Authenticity: Social media evidence must be authenticated to ensure its reliability and
trustworthiness.
3. Chain of custody: The chain of custody of social media evidence must be established to ensure its
integrity.
4. Originality: Social media evidence must be original and not tampered with.

Types of Social Media Evidence

The following are types of social media evidence:

1. Posts: Posts on social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
2. Messages: Private messages on social media platforms.
3. Comments: Comments on social media posts.
4. Photos and videos: Photos and videos shared on social media platforms.
5. Metadata: Metadata associated with social media evidence, such as timestamps and IP addresses.

Admissibility of Social Media Evidence

Social media evidence is admissible in court if it meets the following conditions:

1. Relevance: The social media evidence must be relevant to a fact in issue in the case.
2. Authenticity: The social media evidence must be authenticated to ensure its reliability and
trustworthiness.
3. Chain of custody: The chain of custody of the social media evidence must be established to ensure
its integrity.
4. Originality: The social media evidence must be original and not tampered with.

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for the admissibility of electronic records,
including social media evidence.

Challenges in Admitting Social Media Evidence

The following are challenges in admitting social media evidence:

1. Authenticity: Ensuring the authenticity of social media evidence.

2. Chain of custody: Establishing the chain of custody of social media evidence.
3. Originality: Ensuring the originality of social media evidence.
4. Relevance: Ensuring the relevance of social media evidence to a fact in issue in the case.

In summary, social media evidence is considered relevant in certain circumstances, including

relevance to a fact in issue, authenticity, chain of custody, and originality. Social media evidence is
admissible in court if it meets certain conditions, including relevance, authenticity, chain of custody,
and originality.

36. What are the rules relating to burden of proof as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the rules relating to burden of proof are as
follows:

General Principles

1. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the existence of a fact.
2. Shifting of Burden: The burden of proof can shift from one party to another during the course of
the proceedings.

Specific Rules

1. Section 101 of the BSA: The burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the existence of a fact.
2. Section 102 of the BSA: The burden of proof can be shifted to the other party if the first party
establishes a prima facie case.
3. Section 103 of the BSA: The burden of proof lies on the person who denies the existence of a fact.

Presumptions

1. Presumption of Innocence: The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

2. Presumption of Marriage: A marriage is presumed to be valid until proven otherwise.
3. Presumption of Legitimacy: A child born within wedlock is presumed to be legitimate.

Standard of Proof

1. Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. Preponderance of Probability: In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
Rebuttal of Presumptions

1. Rebuttal by Evidence: Presumptions can be rebutted by evidence.

2. Rebuttal by Circumstantial Evidence: Presumptions can be rebutted by circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

The rules relating to burden of proof under the BSA are designed to ensure that the parties to a
dispute have a fair opportunity to present their case and that the court reaches a just and
reasonable decision.

37. Presumption as to dowry death

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is a
presumption as to dowry death.

Presumption as to Dowry Death

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that when a woman dies due to burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, and
it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
his relatives for or in connection with any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that the death
was a dowry death.

Conditions for Presumption

The following conditions must be met for the presumption to apply:

1. Death within seven years of marriage: The woman must have died within seven years of her
marriage.
2. Death due to burns or bodily injury: The woman must have died due to burns or bodily injury or
otherwise than under normal circumstances.
3. Cruelty or harassment for dowry: The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or his relatives for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
4. Proximity to death: The cruelty or harassment must have occurred soon before the woman's
death.

Effect of Presumption

The presumption of dowry death has the following effects:

1. Reversal of burden of proof: The burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove that the death was
not a dowry death.
2. Increased punishment: If the accused is found guilty, the punishment can be more severe due to
the presumption of dowry death.

Importance of Presumption

The presumption of dowry death is important because it:

1. Protects women's rights: The presumption helps to protect women's rights and prevent dowry-
related harassment and deaths.
2. Simplifies prosecution: The presumption simplifies the prosecution's task by reversing the burden
of proof.
3. Deters dowry demands: The presumption can help to deter dowry demands and harassment by
making it clear that such behavior can have serious consequences.
38. Estoppels

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, estoppels
are a legal concept that prevents a person from denying or asserting something that is contrary to
what they have previously stated or done.

Types of Estoppels

There are several types of estoppels, including:

1. Estoppel by representation: This occurs when a person makes a representation or statement that
is intended to induce another person to act in a certain way, and the other person relies on that
representation.
2. Estoppel by deed: This occurs when a person executes a deed that contains a statement or
admission that is contrary to their current claim.
3. Estoppel by conduct: This occurs when a person's conduct is inconsistent with their current claim.
4. Estoppel by judgment: This occurs when a person has previously litigated a matter and is now
seeking to relitigate the same issue.

Elements of Estoppel

To establish estoppel, the following elements must be present:

1. Representation or statement: There must be a clear representation or statement made by the

person.
2. Reliance: The other person must have relied on the representation or statement.
3. Detriment: The other person must have suffered some detriment or injury as a result of relying on
the representation or statement.
4. Inconsistency: The person's current claim must be inconsistent with their previous representation
or statement.

Effect of Estoppel

Estoppel can have the following effects:

1. Prevents denial: Estoppel prevents a person from denying or asserting something that is contrary
to what they have previously stated or done.
2. Creates a binding obligation: Estoppel can create a binding obligation on the person who made
the representation or statement.
3. Bars a claim: Estoppel can bar a claim or defense that is inconsistent with the person's previous
representation or statement.

Section 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for estoppel by representation,
estoppel by deed, and estoppel by conduct.
In summary, estoppels are a legal concept that prevents a person from denying or asserting
something that is contrary to what they have previously stated or done. There are several types of
estoppels, including estoppel by representation, estoppel by deed, estoppel by conduct, and
estoppel by judgment.

39. What are the kinds of Estoppels

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there are
several kinds of estoppels, including:

1. Estoppel by Representation
Estoppel by representation occurs when a person makes a representation or statement that is
intended to induce another person to act in a certain way, and the other person relies on that
representation.

2. Estoppel by Deed
Estoppel by deed occurs when a person executes a deed that contains a statement or admission that
is contrary to their current claim.

3. Estoppel by Conduct
Estoppel by conduct occurs when a person's conduct is inconsistent with their current claim.

4. Estoppel by Judgment
Estoppel by judgment occurs when a person has previously litigated a matter and is now seeking to
relitigate the same issue.

5. Estoppel by Silence
Estoppel by silence occurs when a person fails to speak up or correct a false assumption, and the
other person relies on that silence.

6. Estoppel by Acquiescence
Estoppel by acquiescence occurs when a person fails to object to a false assumption or claim, and
the other person relies on that acquiescence.

7. Promissory Estoppel
Promissory estoppel occurs when a person makes a promise that is intended to induce another
person to act in a certain way, and the other person relies on that promise.

8. Estoppel by Waiver
Estoppel by waiver occurs when a person waives a right or claim, and the other person relies on that
waiver.

9. Estoppel by Election
Estoppel by election occurs when a person makes a choice between two or more options, and the
other person relies on that choice.

10. Estoppel by Convention

Estoppel by convention occurs when a person agrees to a particular state of affairs, and the other
person relies on that agreement.
These are some of the main kinds of estoppels recognized under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and
the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.

40. Res Judicata, Waiver and presumption

Here are explanations of Res Judicata, Waiver, and Presumption:

Res Judicata

Res Judicata is a Latin phrase that means "a matter already judged." It is a legal principle that
prevents a matter from being litigated again once it has been finally decided by a court.

- Conditions for Res Judicata: For Res Judicata to apply, the following conditions must be met:
1. The matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in the previous litigation.
2. The previous litigation must have been between the same parties or their representatives.
3. The previous litigation must have been finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
- Effect of Res Judicata: Once a matter is considered Res Judicata, it cannot be litigated again. Any
subsequent litigation on the same matter will be dismissed.

Waiver

Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege. In the context of evidence,
waiver refers to the voluntary surrender of a right to object to the admissibility of evidence.

- Types of Waiver: There are two types of waiver:

1. Express Waiver: This occurs when a party explicitly waives their right to object to the
admissibility of evidence.
2. Implied Waiver: This occurs when a party's actions or conduct imply that they have waived their
right to object to the admissibility of evidence.
- Effect of Waiver: Once a party has waived their right to object to the admissibility of evidence, they
cannot later challenge the admissibility of that evidence.

Presumption

Presumption is an assumption or inference that is drawn from a set of facts or circumstances. In the
context of evidence, presumption refers to the assumption that a particular fact or circumstance
exists, unless evidence is presented to rebut that assumption.

- Types of Presumption: There are two types of presumption:

1. Rebuttable Presumption: This is a presumption that can be rebutted by evidence to the
contrary.
2. Irrebuttable Presumption: This is a presumption that cannot be rebutted by evidence to the
contrary.
- Effect of Presumption: A presumption can shift the burden of proof from one party to another. If a
presumption is made, the opposing party must present evidence to rebut that presumption.

41. Competency to testify

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, competency
to testify refers to the eligibility of a person to give evidence in a court of law.

General Principles
The following are general principles regarding competency to testify:

1. Every person is competent: Every person is competent to testify, unless they are specifically
excluded by law.
2. Mental capacity: A person must have the mental capacity to understand the oath or affirmation
and to give rational testimony.
3. Physical capacity: A person must have the physical capacity to communicate their testimony.

Persons Incompetent to Testify

The following persons are incompetent to testify:

1. Children under 7 years: Children under 7 years are not competent to testify, unless the court is
satisfied that they have sufficient understanding.
2. Persons of unsound mind: Persons of unsound mind are not competent to testify, unless they
have been declared competent by a medical professional.
3. Convicted persons: Convicted persons are not competent to testify, unless they have been
pardoned or their conviction has been set aside.
4. Accused persons: Accused persons are not competent to testify, unless they choose to testify in
their own defense.

Privileges

The following are privileges that exempt certain persons from testifying:

1. Privilege against self-incrimination: A person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves.

2. Privilege of confidentiality: Certain professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, have a privilege of
confidentiality that exempts them from testifying about confidential communications.
3. Privilege of state secrets: Government officials have a privilege of state secrets that exempts them
from testifying about sensitive information.

Section 118 to 121 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 118 to 121 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for competency to testify and the
privileges that exempt certain persons from testifying.

In summary, competency to testify refers to the eligibility of a person to give evidence in a court of
law. Certain persons, such as children under 7 years and persons of unsound mind, are incompetent
to testify. Certain privileges, such as the privilege against self-incrimination, exempt certain persons
from testifying.

42. What is privileged communication

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, privileged
communication refers to certain types of communication that are exempt from being disclosed in a
court of law.

Types of Privileged Communication

The following are types of privileged communication:

1. Attorney-Client Privilege: Communications between a lawyer and their client are privileged and
cannot be disclosed in court.
2. Doctor-Patient Privilege: Communications between a doctor and their patient are privileged and
cannot be disclosed in court.
3. Priest-Penitent Privilege: Communications between a priest and a penitent are privileged and
cannot be disclosed in court.
4. Husband-Wife Privilege: Communications between a husband and wife are privileged and cannot
be disclosed in court.
5. State Secrets Privilege: Communications related to state secrets are privileged and cannot be
disclosed in court.

Requirements for Privileged Communication

For a communication to be considered privileged, the following requirements must be met:

1. Confidentiality: The communication must have been made in confidence.

2. Professional relationship: The communication must have been made in the course of a
professional relationship, such as attorney-client or doctor-patient.
3. Not waived: The privilege must not have been waived by the person who made the
communication.

Section 121 to 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 121 to 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for privileged communication and the
requirements for a communication to be considered privileged.

Importance of Privileged Communication

Privileged communication is important because it:

1. Protects confidentiality: Privileged communication protects the confidentiality of certain types of

communication.
2. Encourages open communication: Privileged communication encourages open and honest
communication between individuals and professionals.
3. Upholds professional ethics: Privileged communication upholds the professional ethics of certain
professions, such as law and medicine.

43. Testimony of accomplice

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
testimony of an accomplice is considered to be tainted and requires careful scrutiny.

Accomplice

An accomplice is a person who has participated in the commission of a crime, either directly or
indirectly.

Testimony of Accomplice

The testimony of an accomplice is considered to be unreliable and requires corroboration. The court
will consider the following factors when evaluating the testimony of an accomplice:
1. Motivation: The accomplice may have a motive to implicate others to save themselves.
2. Bias: The accomplice may have a bias against the accused.
3. Credibility: The accomplice's credibility may be questionable due to their involvement in the
crime.

Corroboration

The testimony of an accomplice requires corroboration from other evidence. The corroboration can
be in the form of:

1. Independent evidence: Independent evidence that supports the accomplice's testimony.

2. Circumstantial evidence: Circumstantial evidence that supports the accomplice's testimony.
3. Other witnesses: Testimony from other witnesses that supports the accomplice's testimony.

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that the testimony of an accomplice shall not
be sufficient to convict the accused, unless it is corroborated by other evidence.

Precautions

When dealing with the testimony of an accomplice, the court will take the following precautions:

1. Warning to the jury: The court will warn the jury about the potential unreliability of the
accomplice's testimony.
2. Careful scrutiny: The court will scrutinize the accomplice's testimony carefully to ensure that it is
reliable.
3. Corroboration: The court will require corroboration from other evidence to support the
accomplice's testimony.

In summary, the testimony of an accomplice is considered to be tainted and requires careful

scrutiny. The court will consider the accomplice's motivation, bias, and credibility, and will require
corroboration from other evidence to support their testimony.

44. What is examination in chief, cross examination and re-examination as per BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination are three stages of witness
examination in a court of law.

Examination-in-Chief

Examination-in-chief is the first stage of witness examination, where the witness is examined by the
party who has called them to testify. The purpose of examination-in-chief is to elicit relevant facts
and information from the witness.

Purpose of Examination-in-Chief:
1. To present the witness's testimony in a clear and concise manner.
2. To establish the witness's credibility and reliability.
3. To provide an opportunity for the witness to narrate their story.

Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is the second stage of witness examination, where the witness is examined by the
opposing party. The purpose of cross-examination is to challenge the witness's testimony, credibility,
and reliability.

Purpose of Cross-Examination:
1. To challenge the witness's testimony and credibility.
2. To highlight inconsistencies and contradictions in the witness's testimony.
3. To provide an opportunity for the opposing party to present their version of events.

Re-Examination

Re-examination is the third and final stage of witness examination, where the witness is re-examined
by the party who called them to testify. The purpose of re-examination is to clarify any
inconsistencies or contradictions that arose during cross-examination.

Purpose of Re-Examination:
1. To clarify any inconsistencies or contradictions that arose during cross-examination.
2. To provide an opportunity for the witness to explain or elaborate on their previous testimony.
3. To reinforce the witness's credibility and reliability.

Section 135 to 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 135 to 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the examination-in-chief, cross-
examination, and re-examination of witnesses.

In summary, examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination are three stages of

witness examination in a court of law. Examination-in-chief is used to present the witness's
testimony, cross-examination is used to challenge the witness's testimony, and re-examination is
used to clarify any inconsistencies or contradictions that arose during cross-examination.

45. Leading question

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a leading
question is a type of question that is asked to a witness in a court of law, which suggests its own
answer or is framed in such a way that it implies a particular fact or conclusion.

Characteristics of Leading Questions

The following are the characteristics of leading questions:

1. Suggests its own answer: A leading question suggests its own answer or implies a particular fact or
conclusion.
2. Framed in a particular way: A leading question is framed in such a way that it implies a particular
fact or conclusion.
3. Influences the witness's answer: A leading question can influence the witness's answer and lead
them to provide a particular response.

Rules Regarding Leading Questions

The following are the rules regarding leading questions:

1. Prohibited in examination-in-chief: Leading questions are prohibited in examination-in-chief,
except in certain circumstances.
2. Allowed in cross-examination: Leading questions are allowed in cross-examination, but the court
may disallow them if they are unfair or misleading.
3. Court's discretion: The court has the discretion to allow or disallow leading questions, depending
on the circumstances of the case.

Section 142 to 144 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 142 to 144 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the rules regarding leading
questions.

Importance of Rules Regarding Leading Questions

The rules regarding leading questions are important because they:

1. Prevent influencing the witness's answer: The rules prevent the questioner from influencing the
witness's answer and ensure that the witness provides their own account of events.
2. Ensure fairness and impartiality: The rules ensure that the questioning process is fair and
impartial, and that the witness is not unfairly influenced or coerced into providing a particular
response.

46. Lawful question in cross examination

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a lawful
question in cross-examination is a question that is relevant, permissible, and fair, and is asked to
challenge the witness's testimony, credibility, or reliability.

Characteristics of Lawful Questions in Cross-Examination

The following are the characteristics of lawful questions in cross-examination:

1. Relevant: The question must be relevant to the matter in issue.

2. Permissible: The question must be permissible under the law of evidence.
3. Fair: The question must be fair and not designed to intimidate, harass, or confuse the witness.
4. Not leading: The question must not be leading, except in certain circumstances.
5. Not repetitive: The question must not be repetitive or asked to harass the witness.

Types of Lawful Questions in Cross-Examination

The following are types of lawful questions in cross-examination:

1. Challenging credibility: Questions that challenge the witness's credibility, such as questions about
their character, bias, or motive.
2. Challenging reliability: Questions that challenge the witness's reliability, such as questions about
their perception, memory, or narration.
3. Challenging testimony: Questions that challenge the witness's testimony, such as questions about
inconsistencies, contradictions, or omissions.
4. Exploring alternative explanations: Questions that explore alternative explanations for the
witness's testimony.

Section 138 to 141 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 138 to 141 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the rules regarding lawful questions
in cross-examination.

Importance of Lawful Questions in Cross-Examination

Lawful questions in cross-examination are important because they:

1. Enable effective cross-examination: Lawful questions enable the cross-examiner to effectively

challenge the witness's testimony, credibility, and reliability.
2. Ensure fairness and impartiality: Lawful questions ensure that the cross-examination process is
fair and impartial, and that the witness is not unfairly intimidated, harassed, or confused.
3. Promote truth and justice: Lawful questions promote the discovery of truth and the
administration of justice by enabling the cross-examiner to test the witness's evidence and challenge
their credibility.

47. Compulsion to answer questions put to witness

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a witness is
generally required to answer questions put to them, but there are certain exceptions and limitations.

General Rule

The general rule is that a witness is bound to answer all questions put to them, unless:

1. The question is irrelevant: The question is not relevant to the matter in issue.
2. The question is scandalous or indecent: The question is scandalous or indecent, and its answer
would not be relevant to the matter in issue.
3. The question is privileged: The question relates to a privileged communication, such as a
communication between a lawyer and their client.
4. The question is self-incriminatory: The question would require the witness to answer in a way that
would incriminate them.

Exceptions

The following are exceptions to the general rule:

1. Privilege against self-incrimination: A witness cannot be compelled to answer a question that

would incriminate them.
2. Privilege of confidentiality: A witness cannot be compelled to disclose confidential information,
such as communications between a lawyer and their client.
3. Protection of witnesses: The court may protect a witness from answering questions that would
put them in danger or harm their reputation.

Section 132 to 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 132 to 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the rules regarding compulsion to
answer questions put to a witness.

Importance of Compulsion to Answer Questions

The compulsion to answer questions put to a witness is important because it:

1. Ensures that relevant evidence is disclosed: The compulsion to answer questions ensures that
relevant evidence is disclosed and that the truth is revealed.
2. Prevents witnesses from withholding information: The compulsion to answer questions prevents
witnesses from withholding information that is relevant to the matter in issue.
3. Promotes fairness and justice: The compulsion to answer questions promotes fairness and justice
by ensuring that all relevant evidence is disclosed and that the truth is revealed.

48. Hostile witness

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a hostile
witness is a witness who is called by a party to testify, but whose testimony is adverse to the
interests of that party.

Characteristics of a Hostile Witness

The following are characteristics of a hostile witness:

1. Called by a party: The witness is called by a party to testify.

2. Adverse testimony: The witness's testimony is adverse to the interests of the party who called
them.
3. Unfavorable evidence: The witness provides unfavorable evidence that contradicts the party's
case.

Procedure for Dealing with a Hostile Witness

The following is the procedure for dealing with a hostile witness:

1. Permission from the court: The party who called the witness must obtain permission from the
court to treat the witness as hostile.
2. Leading questions: The party may ask leading questions to the witness, as if they were cross-
examining them.
3. Cross-examination: The party may also cross-examine the witness, as if they were an opposing
witness.

Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides for the procedure for dealing with a hostile
witness.

Importance of Hostile Witness

The concept of a hostile witness is important because it:

1. Allows for adverse testimony: The concept of a hostile witness allows a party to call a witness who
may provide adverse testimony.
2. Provides flexibility in examination: The concept of a hostile witness provides flexibility in the
examination of witnesses, allowing a party to ask leading questions and cross-examine a witness
who is hostile to their case.
3. Promotes truth and justice: The concept of a hostile witness promotes truth and justice by
allowing the court to consider all relevant evidence, even if it is adverse to one of the parties.
 49. Impeaching the credit of witness

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, impeaching
the credit of a witness refers to the process of challenging or discrediting the testimony of a witness
by showing that they are not a credible or reliable witness.

Grounds for Impeaching the Credit of a Witness

The following are grounds for impeaching the credit of a witness:

1. Previous false statements: The witness has made previous false statements or has been convicted
of giving false evidence.
2. Bias or prejudice: The witness has a bias or prejudice against one of the parties or has an interest
in the outcome of the case.
3. Lack of credibility: The witness has a reputation for dishonesty or lack of credibility.
4. Contradictions: The witness's testimony is contradictory or inconsistent with their previous
statements or with other evidence.
5. Improper motives: The witness has improper motives for testifying, such as a desire for revenge or
financial gain.

Methods of Impeaching the Credit of a Witness

The following are methods of impeaching the credit of a witness:

1. Cross-examination: The witness can be cross-examined to challenge their testimony and

credibility.
2. Evidence of bad character: Evidence of the witness's bad character or previous misconduct can be
introduced to challenge their credibility.
3. Evidence of bias or prejudice: Evidence of the witness's bias or prejudice can be introduced to
challenge their credibility.
4. Contradictory evidence: Contradictory evidence can be introduced to challenge the witness's
testimony.

Section 155 to 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 155 to 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the grounds and methods of
impeaching the credit of a witness.

Importance of Impeaching the Credit of a Witness

Impeaching the credit of a witness is important because it:

1. Challenges credibility: Impeaching the credit of a witness challenges their credibility and reliability.
2. Ensures justice: Impeaching the credit of a witness ensures that justice is served by preventing
false or misleading testimony from influencing the outcome of the case.
3. Promotes truth: Impeaching the credit of a witness promotes the truth by challenging testimony
that may be false or misleading.

50. Refreshing memory

In the context of this law, "refreshing memory" refers to a process where a witness is allowed to
refer to a document or material to help them recall certain facts during testimony. This can be used
when the witness cannot fully remember details of an event or statement but might have recorded it in
a previous document or note.

Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, addresses the concept of refreshing memory.
Here's how it works:

 Section 159: Refreshing Memory

A witness can be allowed to refer to any document or material to help recall facts while
giving testimony. The witness is not allowed to read from the document directly but can use it
as a tool to aid memory.
o Example: If a witness is being asked about a specific event and is unable to recall the
details, the witness may be allowed to look at a previously written statement or note
to jog their memory. The document or material does not become evidence unless the
witness adopts it as part of their testimony.
o Key Points:

 The witness should give testimony based on their own memory, but if they forget certain
facts, they can refer to the document to refresh their recollection.
 The document used to refresh memory is not considered part of the evidence unless the
witness adopts it as part of their statement in court.
 This rule is meant to ensure that witnesses are truthful and accurate, using available materials
to assist in recalling facts correctly.

This provision ensures that testimonies are as accurate as possible, even if witnesses might not
remember everything clearly at the time

51. Questions of corroboration

corroboration refers to the process of verifying or confirming the testimony of a witness through
other evidence.

Importance of Corroboration

Corroboration is important because it:

1. Confirms testimony: Corroboration confirms the testimony of a witness and provides additional
evidence to support their statement.
2. Increases credibility: Corroboration increases the credibility of a witness by providing independent
evidence that supports their testimony.
3. Prevents false testimony: Corroboration prevents false testimony by requiring that the witness's
testimony be supported by other evidence.

Types of Corroboration

The following are types of corroboration:

1. Direct corroboration: Direct corroboration involves evidence that directly confirms the testimony
of a witness.
2. Circumstantial corroboration: Circumstantial corroboration involves evidence that indirectly
confirms the testimony of a witness.
3. Documentary corroboration: Documentary corroboration involves documents or records that
confirm the testimony of a witness.
Questions of Corroboration

The following are questions of corroboration:

1. Is the testimony of the witness corroborated by other evidence?

2. Is the corroboration direct or circumstantial?
3. Is the corroboration sufficient to support the testimony of the witness?
4. Is the corroboration reliable and credible?

Section 153 to 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 153 to 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the rules and procedures for
corroboration.

Importance of Questions of Corroboration

Questions of corroboration are important because they:

1. Ensure accuracy: Questions of corroboration ensure that the testimony of a witness is accurate
and reliable.
2. Prevent false testimony: Questions of corroboration prevent false testimony by requiring that the
witness's testimony be supported by other evidence.
3. Promote justice: Questions of corroboration promote justice by ensuring that the testimony of a
witness is credible and reliable.

52. Improper admission and rejection of evidence

improper admission and rejection of evidence refer to the incorrect admission or rejection of
evidence by a court, which can affect the outcome of a case.

Improper Admission of Evidence

Improper admission of evidence occurs when a court admits evidence that is:

1. Irrelevant: The evidence is not relevant to the case.

2. Inadmissible: The evidence is not admissible under the law of evidence.
3. Hearsay: The evidence is hearsay, meaning it is a statement made by someone other than the
witness.
4. Prejudicial: The evidence is prejudicial, meaning it may unfairly influence the jury or judge.

Improper Rejection of Evidence

Improper rejection of evidence occurs when a court rejects evidence that is:

1. Relevant: The evidence is relevant to the case.

2. Admissible: The evidence is admissible under the law of evidence.
3. Material: The evidence is material, meaning it is important to the case.
4. Probative: The evidence is probative, meaning it has the tendency to prove or disprove a fact.

Consequences of Improper Admission and Rejection of Evidence

The consequences of improper admission and rejection of evidence can be significant, including:
1. Reversal of judgment: The judgment may be reversed on appeal if the improper admission or
rejection of evidence is found to have affected the outcome of the case.
2. Mistrial: A mistrial may be declared if the improper admission or rejection of evidence is found to
have prejudiced the jury or judge.
3. Exclusion of evidence: The evidence may be excluded from the record if it is found to have been
improperly admitted.

Section 167 to 169 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 167 to 169 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide for the consequences of improper
admission and rejection of evidence.

Importance of Proper Admission and Rejection of Evidence

Proper admission and rejection of evidence are crucial to ensure that:

1. Justice is served: Proper admission and rejection of evidence ensure that justice is served and that
the guilty are punished.
2. Rights are protected: Proper admission and rejection of evidence protect the rights of the accused
and the victim.
3. Integrity of the trial process: Proper admission and rejection of evidence maintain the integrity of
the trial process.