UNIT- 1

I) History of Evidence Law in India

(Under General Issues Relating to Evidence in India – 30 Marks)
The law of evidence is foundational to the administration of justice. It governs how facts are
established or disproved in legal proceedings. In India, the law of evidence has undergone a
remarkable evolution—from ancient customary practices to a comprehensive codified
statute—the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Understanding its historical development is key to
addressing the general issues and modern challenges that arise in evidentiary practice today.

1. Ancient Indian Traditions and Dharmaśāstra

In ancient India, law and morality were inseparable. Evidence law was not codified but was
guided by religious and moral texts, especially the Dharmaśāstra, including Manu Smriti,
Yajnavalkya Smriti, and Narada Smriti.
Key features included:
• Ordeals and divine intervention (trial by fire, water, etc.) to determine truth.
• Emphasis on witness testimony, especially of those considered virtuous or of high
caste.
• Documentary evidence was recognized, especially for land and property
transactions.
• Oaths and declarations held great evidentiary value.
However, these systems were limited by social hierarchies—e.g., the credibility of a witness
often depended on caste and gender.

2. Islamic Influence in the Medieval Period

During the medieval era, particularly under Mughal rule, Islamic principles of evidence
(based on Sharia law) influenced legal procedures. Important features were:
• Strict rules on testimony, with priority given to male Muslim witnesses.
• Qazi courts administered justice with religious undertones.
• Burden of proof was high in cases involving Hudood (serious offences like theft or
adultery), often requiring multiple eyewitnesses.
This created a dual system where Hindu law governed personal matters for Hindus and
Muslim law for Muslims, both relying on their respective customs and scriptures.

3. British Colonial Period and the Need for Uniformity

The British introduced the common law system in India, which emphasized rationality,
consistency, and secularism in legal proceedings. Initially, British judges applied English
evidentiary principles inconsistently across the country, often influenced by race and class.
Recognizing the confusion, the British sought to codify evidence law. This resulted in the
enactment of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen.

4. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – A Turning Point

The Act was a milestone in Indian legal history. It replaced religious and customary
evidentiary practices with a uniform, secular, and logical system of rules.
Key Features:
• Applied uniformly to civil and criminal proceedings.
• Defined relevance, admissibility, and proof of facts.
• Clearly demarcated burden of proof, presumptions, oral and documentary
evidence, and rules regarding witnesses.
• Recognized privileged communications, expert evidence, and confessions.
The Act was revolutionary for its time, offering clarity and neutrality. It has stood the test of
time and is still in force today with minimal amendments.

5. Post-Independence Evolution and Judicial Interpretation

After 1947, India retained the Evidence Act as part of its legal framework. While the statute
itself remained largely unchanged, the Supreme Court and High Courts have expanded its
scope through progressive interpretation.
General issues addressed by courts include:
• Presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial.
• Use of circumstantial evidence in cases lacking direct evidence.
• Scrutiny of retracted confessions and police custodial evidence.
• Evolving standards in cross-examination, hostile witnesses, and dying declarations
(Section 32).

6. Modern Challenges and Developments

The changing nature of crime and communication has introduced new evidentiary challenges:
a. Electronic and Digital Evidence:
• Introduced through amendments via the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Section 65B governs admissibility of electronic records.
 • Courts have struggled with questions of authentication, metadata, and tampering.
b. Forensic and Scientific Evidence:
• Increasing reliance on DNA tests, ballistics, medical evidence, and audio/video
recordings.
• Courts have developed jurisprudence on the weight and reliability of such evidence.
c. Witness Protection and Vulnerability:
• Issues of witness intimidation have prompted calls for a national witness protection
scheme.
• Courts recognize vulnerable witnesses, particularly children and victims of sexual
assault, and permit video conferencing, in-camera proceedings, and screening.
d. Burden of Proof in Special Laws:
• In certain statutes like the NDPS Act, POCSO Act, and Prevention of Corruption
Act, the burden shifts to the accused.
• Courts have had to balance constitutional rights with statutory presumptions.

7. Need for Reform

Though the Indian Evidence Act has endured for over 150 years, legal experts have proposed
reforms to address:
• Better handling of cybercrime and digital data.
• Simplification of evidentiary procedures in trial courts.
• Gender-sensitive interpretations in cases of rape, domestic violence, etc.
• Alignment with international human rights standards and best practices.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, proposed by the Government of India, aims to modernize
and replace the Evidence Act, incorporating electronic evidence, procedural flexibility, and
modern definitions—though its implementation and impact remain under discussion.

Conclusion
The history of evidence law in India is a journey from religious custom to codified
rationality. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has provided a stable and coherent framework
for over a century. However, to keep pace with social changes and technological
advancements, it is essential that the law of evidence continues to evolve, ensuring justice
remains accessible, fair, and effective.
II) Features of Evidence Law in India under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
(Under General Issues Relating to Evidence Law – 30 Marks)
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) is the proposed replacement for the
colonial-era Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Enacted as part of a larger reform of Indian criminal
laws alongside the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), the BSA aims to modernize, simplify, and align the law of evidence with
current technological and legal realities.
The BSA retains the foundational structure of the Indian Evidence Act but introduces key
reforms in line with contemporary legal challenges. The main features of the evidence law
under the BSA are as follows:

1. Codified and Uniform Law

• The BSA is a comprehensive and codified statute that applies uniformly to civil and
criminal cases.
• It defines the rules regarding relevancy, admissibility, burden of proof,
presumptions, and types of evidence.
• Ensures uniform application across courts, promoting certainty and consistency in
judicial proceedings.

2. Recognition of Electronic and Digital Evidence

• One of the most significant features of the BSA is the expanded recognition of
electronic evidence.
• It simplifies the rules of admissibility of electronic records, emails, text messages,
CCTV footage, and metadata.
• Retains and clarifies Section 65B principles from the Evidence Act, while aiming to
reduce procedural complexities.
• Encourages the use of digital signatures, blockchain records, and cloud-stored
documents.

3. Emphasis on Relevance and Material Facts

• The BSA clearly defines what constitutes relevant facts in a case, based on logical
connection with the facts in issue.
• The focus remains on materiality and probative value.
• Irrelevant or prejudicial information is excluded to ensure fair trial and efficient
adjudication.

4. Presumptions and Burden of Proof

 • Continues the principle that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts a fact
(e.g., prosecution in criminal cases).
• Incorporates legal and factual presumptions, such as:
o Presumption of genuineness of electronic records (subject to conditions).
o Presumptions in cases like dowry death and custodial violence.

5. Admissibility of Statements and Confessions

• Maintains rules on admissibility of confessions, especially protecting accused
persons from coerced confessions.
• Confessions to police officers are still inadmissible unless made in judicial custody.
• Dying declarations, admissions, and expert opinions are recognized with detailed
criteria for admissibility.

6. Witnesses and Testimony

• Provisions on examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of witnesses
are retained and streamlined.
• Introduces flexibility for remote testimony through video conferencing and audio-
visual links.
• Ensures protection of vulnerable witnesses and promotes in-camera proceedings in
sensitive cases (e.g., sexual offences).

7. Documentary Evidence and Certification

• The BSA simplifies procedures for the proof of public and private documents,
certified copies, and official records.
• Encourages digitization of documents and the use of digitally signed records.

8. Privileged Communications and Professional Confidentiality

• Continues the protection of privileged communications, such as:
o Attorney-client confidentiality,
o Communications during marriage,
o Official communications.
These protections support the fairness of the legal process and the right to a defence.
9. Relevancy of Character, Conduct, and Motive
• Character evidence is admissible in limited circumstances:
o In criminal trials, the character of the accused may be relevant if introduced
by the accused.
o Motive and conduct remain relevant to establish intent and state of mind.

10. Reforms in Procedural and Evidentiary Rules

• The BSA aligns with modern procedural laws under BNSS.
• Provides greater clarity on:
o Proof of electronic communication,
o Authentication of documents, and
o Use of expert and forensic evidence (e.g., DNA, ballistics).

11. Language and Accessibility

• The BSA modernizes and simplifies the language of the old Evidence Act, making it
easier to interpret for lawyers, judges, and litigants.
• Removes archaic expressions and introduces contemporary legal terminology.

12. Continued Commitment to Fair Trial

• Upholds principles such as:
o Presumption of innocence,
o Right to silence,
o Proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases,
o Right to cross-examine witnesses.
• Balances the rights of the accused with the needs of justice and victim protection.

Conclusion
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, represents a significant shift in the Indian
evidence law landscape. While retaining the core logic and structure of the Indian Evidence
Act, it introduces essential reforms to handle electronic evidence, digital communication,
and modern forensic tools. It also ensures that India’s evidentiary standards remain
compatible with the challenges of the 21st century, all while upholding the fundamental
rights and procedural fairness guaranteed under the Constitution.
UNIT- 2

I) Relevancy of Judgments (Sections 34–38) under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

(Under Relevancy and Admissibility – 20 Marks)

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), replacing the Indian Evidence Act,
modernizes the law of evidence in India. Sections 34 to 38 of the BSA address the relevancy
of judgments, particularly focusing on their use as relevant facts in subsequent legal
proceedings.

These provisions deal with judgments that are not necessarily conclusive but may be
relevant depending on the context, especially where they help in understanding a matter in
issue.

Section 34 – Judgments of Courts of Justice When Relevant

• Judgments are relevant if they relate to a matter of public nature relevant to the
inquiry.
• Such judgments are not conclusive but may be considered to show existence of a
right, such as easement, custom, or public usage.

Example: A prior judgment declaring a village pathway as public can be used to support a
similar claim in a later case.

Case Law:
Karia Devi v. Dhiraj Kumar (AIR 1971 All 103)
Held that judgments relating to public rights are relevant but not conclusive proof unless all
parties are the same.

Section 35 – Judgments, Orders, or Decrees Adverse to Party's Interest

• When a judgment is passed against the interest of a party, it becomes relevant.

• Especially important when the party had an opportunity to contest the earlier
proceeding.

Application: Common in suits involving fraud, conspiracy, or collusion, where one party
claims a judgment shows the bad conduct of the other.

Case Law:
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702
The court stated that fraud vitiates everything; if a party has been part of a fraudulent
judgment, it can be used against them.
 Section 36 – Judgments Relating to Rights or Customs

• Judgments are relevant when they relate to the existence of any right or custom.
• Particularly applicable to civil disputes involving land rights, water usage, temple
rituals, etc.

Example: A judgment recognizing a customary right of fishing in a river can be used as

relevant in subsequent claims involving the same custom.

Case Law:
Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sundar (AIR 1934 All 730)
Judgments relating to customs are relevant but need supporting evidence to establish the
continuing existence of the custom.

Section 37 – Judgments as Evidence of Jurisdiction

• Provides that judgments are relevant to prove the legal existence of a court, its
jurisdiction, or the cause it decided.
• Often used in collateral proceedings to prove a matter was lawfully decided.

Example: A judgment from a family court may be shown in another proceeding to prove that
a divorce has been lawfully granted.

Case Law:
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)
The court held that the validity and effect of a judgment could be questioned only on limited
grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction or fraud.

Section 38 – Judgments Not Between the Same Parties

• Such judgments are not conclusive, but may be relevant to support a general
principle or background fact.
• Especially relevant when showing a pattern or practice, even if the parties differ.

Example: A previous court ruling on the illegality of a construction project may be relevant
in another similar case.

Limitation: These judgments are to be used cautiously and must not be treated as binding
precedents.

Key Principles Established by Sections 34–38:

Principle Explanation
Relevancy, not These judgments support a fact, but do not decide the case by
conclusiveness themselves.
Focus is on judgments related to public rights, customs, and
Public interest focus
official acts.
Prior decisions can validate the authority of courts or public
Jurisdiction and legality
acts.

Conclusion

Sections 34 to 38 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ensure that judgments,

though not binding between different parties, can still play an important supportive role in
legal reasoning. They reinforce judicial efficiency and consistency, particularly in matters of
public rights, customs, and procedural regularity. However, their evidentiary value is
limited, and courts must assess them in light of the specific facts and parties involved.

II) Relevancy of Character (Sections 46–50) under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

(Under Relevancy and Admissibility – 20 Marks)

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) governs the admissibility of character
evidence in judicial proceedings under Sections 46 to 50. These provisions deal with the
relevancy of a person’s character, distinguishing between civil and criminal cases, and
between good and bad character.

The general rule is that character is not relevant, except in specific situations where it
directly affects the issue in dispute or is made relevant by law.

Section 46 – Inadmissibility of Character to Prove Conduct

• Establishes the general rule: Character evidence is not relevant to prove that a
person acted in conformity with that character.
• Applies to both civil and criminal matters.

Example: In a theft case, it cannot be argued that the accused must be guilty because they
have a history of dishonesty.

Case Law:
Kalu v. State of M.P. (AIR 1958 MP 165) – The court held that the prosecution cannot
prove bad character unless the accused introduces good character.

Section 47 – Good Character Relevant in Criminal Proceedings

 • Allows the accused in a criminal case to present evidence of good character.
• This can be used to support the probability of innocence or reduce suspicion.

Example: In a murder trial, the accused may bring witnesses to speak to their peaceful nature
and clean past record.

Case Law:
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC 214) – The court observed that good
character evidence is admissible and may raise reasonable doubt.

Section 48 – Bad Character Not Relevant Unless in Rebuttal

• The prosecution cannot lead evidence of bad character unless:

o The accused has first adduced evidence of good character, or
o The case involves character directly in issue (e.g., habitual offender
provisions).

Purpose: This protects the accused from prejudice and ensures they are judged only on the
basis of facts of the case.

Exception: Character evidence is relevant when prescribed under a special statute (e.g.,
POCSO or NDPS cases).

Case Law:
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54) – Bad character alone cannot be the
basis for conviction; it is not substantive evidence.

Section 49 – Character Relevant in Civil Cases When Directly in Issue

• In civil proceedings, character is not generally relevant, unless:

o It affects the amount of damages (e.g., in defamation or personal injury
cases), or
o Character is in issue by nature of the case (e.g., divorce, child custody,
guardianship).

Example: In a defamation suit, the reputation of the plaintiff is directly in issue.

Case Law:
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 – Held that a person’s
reputation is a valuable asset protected under Article 21, and hence character is relevant in
defamation matters.

Section 50 – Previous Character Judgments Relevant When Legally Permissible

 • Judgments relating to character are relevant if:
o They have been passed by a competent court, and
o The character is a fact in issue in the current proceeding.

Example: A conviction order in a previous case can be relevant in determining habitual

criminal conduct in a later trial under repeat offender provisions.

Summary Table of Key Provisions:

Section Provision Relevance

46 General inadmissibility of character Character irrelevant by default
47 Good character relevant in criminal cases Supports innocence
48 Bad character not admissible unless rebuttal Prevents prejudice
49 Character relevant in civil cases if in issue Defamation, custody, etc.
50 Prior character judgments relevant if legal Depends on legal context

Conclusion

Sections 46 to 50 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provide a balanced

framework for the admissibility of character evidence. While protecting individuals from
being unfairly judged by their past, the law also allows character to be considered where it is
genuinely relevant, particularly in criminal defence, civil damages, and status-related
proceedings. Courts must ensure that such evidence is used cautiously and only when
permitted by law, upholding fairness and due process.

III) Relevancy of Statement of Witnesses Who Cannot Be Called as Witnesses (S. 26–27)
under BSA

(Under Relevancy and Admissibility – 20 Marks)

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) modernizes the Indian law of evidence
and retains key provisions regarding the relevancy of statements made by persons who
cannot be called as witnesses. Sections 26 and 27 deal with situations where the original
witness is unavailable due to death, incapacity, or other valid reasons, and outline when such
statements can still be admitted as evidence.

These provisions are based on the principle that best available evidence should be used
when the primary witness is not available, while also ensuring that such evidence is reliable
and relevant.

Section 26 – Cases in Which Statement of Relevant Fact by Person Who Is Dead or

Cannot Be Found, etc., Is Relevant
Section 26 corresponds to Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, with some refinements.

It provides that statements made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or is
incapable of giving evidence, are relevant under certain circumstances.

Such statements are admissible in the following cases:

1. Dying Declarations – Statements made as to the cause of death or circumstances of

death.
2. Statements made in the course of business, professional duty, or in discharge of
public functions.
3. Statements against interest of maker or expressing wishes about wills or family
affairs.
4. Statements relating to the existence of relationships, customs, or boundaries.
5. Statements in documents, books, or electronic records made before any dispute arose.

Case Law:
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622)
The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it is
found to be truthful and voluntary.

Section 27 – Relevancy of Statements Made Under Special Circumstances

This section is a modern counterpart to Section 34–38 of the old Evidence Act and covers
statements made under specific and exceptional circumstances.

Relevant statements include:

• Entries in books of account, if regularly kept in the course of business.

• Entries in public records made by public servants in discharge of official duty.
• Maps, charts, and plans used for public purposes.
• Law books, customs, and official notifications published by authority.

These documents or statements are relevant regardless of the availability of the original
author, as long as authenticity is proven.

Case Law:
Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v. State of Bombay (AIR 1959 SC 356)
Held that entries in books of account can be relevant but are not by themselves sufficient to
charge liability unless corroborated.

Key Conditions for Admissibility (S. 26–27)

Requirement Explanation
Unavailability of witness Death, disappearance, illness, or incapacity
Requirement Explanation
Statement must be relevant Related to a fact in issue or relevant fact
Circumstances must be As described in Section 26 clauses (dying declaration, will,
specific custom, etc.)
Reliable source Entries must be in regular course of duty or officially prepared

Balancing Relevancy and Fairness

• These provisions aim to balance fairness to the parties with the need to prevent
injustice when key witnesses are unavailable.
• Courts must scrutinize such statements carefully, especially where cross-
examination is not possible.

Conclusion

Sections 26 and 27 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 play a vital role in ensuring
that important statements are not excluded merely because the person who made them is
unavailable. While these statements are exceptions to the hearsay rule, they are admissible
only under strict legal conditions to ensure credibility, necessity, and relevance. The
provisions reflect a careful balance between procedural justice and substantive truth.
UNIT- 3

I) Facts Which Need Not Be Proved (Sections 51–53, BSA,

2023)
In the law of evidence, not every fact needs to be proved through witnesses or documents.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, under Sections 51 to 53, lays down clear rules
regarding facts that need not be proved, thereby saving time and avoiding unnecessary
formalities in judicial proceedings.

I. Overview of the Concept

The fundamental principle is:

"What is already known or accepted, need not be proved."

Certain facts are considered self-evident, judicially noticeable, or formally admitted and
hence do not require proof. These are dealt with in three key sections:

II. Section-Wise Analysis

Section 51 – Facts Judicially Noticeable

• Courts must take judicial notice of:

o Laws in force in India.
o Public acts of the legislature.
o International law and treaties India is a party to.
o Judicial proceedings of Indian courts.
o Commonly known facts (e.g., calendar, geographical facts).

Key Principle:

No need to prove what is already part of the legal system or universally accepted.

Case Law:

• State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (2008) 13 SCC 5: Courts are
bound to take judicial notice of legislation and government notifications.
• Kesoram Industries v. CWT (AIR 1966 SC 1370): Judicial notice can be taken of
well-known economic and social conditions.

Section 52 – Facts Admitted Need Not Be Proved

• If a fact is admitted by the other party during the proceedings (either in pleadings or
otherwise), it need not be proved by the party who asserts it.
• Applies in both civil and criminal cases.

Key Uses:

• Simplifies litigation by narrowing down the list of disputed facts.

• Saves judicial time.

Case Law:

• Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (AIR 1960 SC 100):

Admitted facts are conclusive and do not require further evidence.
• Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1: Admissions in a
statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC may not need further proof if not
challenged.

Section 53 – Facts Presumed

• Certain facts are presumed to be true unless disproved.

• This includes:
o Presumptions of legitimacy, death after 7 years of absence, etc.
o Presumptions under specific statutes like negotiable instruments, marriage
laws, etc.

Effect:

• Shifts burden of proof to the opposing party.

• Aids in efficient administration of justice by presuming what usually occurs unless
proven otherwise.

Case Law:

• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 5 SCC 531: Presumptions are
rules of evidence that do not require proof until rebutted.
• Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673: Explained how rebuttable
presumptions shift the burden of disproof to the opposite party.

III. Relationship with Burden of Proof (Linked Concepts)

• These sections relate closely to Sections 101–114 of BSA, dealing with burden of
proof.
• If a fact need not be proved due to judicial notice, admission, or legal presumption,
the burden shifts accordingly.
 Conclusion

Sections 51 to 53 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, reduce the evidentiary

burden on courts and parties by exempting judicially noticeable, admitted, and presumed
facts from proof. These rules enhance the efficiency of the legal process by preventing
unnecessary litigation over well-known or undisputed facts.

They form an essential part of the law of proof, balancing procedural efficiency with
fairness.

II) Oral and Documentary Evidence under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
(Sections 54–77)

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which replaces the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, retains the core principles of evidence law but modernizes the structure. Sections 54 to
77 deal with oral and documentary evidence, which are central to proving facts in judicial
proceedings.

I. Oral Evidence (Sections 54–60)

Definition and Scope

• Section 54 defines oral evidence as statements made by witnesses in court.

• It must relate to a fact that can be perceived by the senses or known through opinion
where permitted.

Key Provisions

• Section 55: All facts must be proved by oral evidence, except where the law requires
documentary evidence.
• Section 56: Oral evidence must be direct—that is, the person must have directly seen,
heard, or perceived the fact.

Case Law

• Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v. State of Bombay (AIR 1959 SC 356): Held that
hearsay evidence is inadmissible as it violates the rule of direct evidence.

II. Documentary Evidence (Sections 61–77)

Definition and Types

 • Section 61: Defines documentary evidence to include all documents including
electronic records.
• Section 62: Primary evidence is the document itself produced before the court.
• Section 63: Secondary evidence includes certified copies, counterparts, oral accounts
of content, etc.

Production of Documents

• Section 64: Documents must be proved by primary evidence, unless exceptions

apply.
• Section 65: Lists conditions under which secondary evidence is admissible (e.g., loss
of original).

Special Categories

• Section 66–71: Rules for public and private documents, including presumption for
certified copies, documents produced by public officers, etc.

Electronic Records

• Sections from Section 63 onwards include provisions relevant to electronic

documents, extending the scope of documentary evidence.

Section 72–77: Deals with documents that require attestation, execution, and the proof
of such documents.

Case Law

• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600: Recognized electronic
records as valid documentary evidence under the law.
• Kaliya v. State of M.P. (2013) 10 SCC 758: Emphasized importance of primary
evidence and outlined when secondary evidence may be allowed.

Conclusion

Sections 54–77 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam form the backbone of evidentiary rules
concerning oral and documentary proof. They uphold the principles of best evidence,
directness, and authenticity, ensuring reliability and fairness in judicial determinations.
These sections, while largely retaining the structure of the previous Evidence Act, adapt to
modern requirements such as electronic records and digital signatures, ensuring relevance in
a tech-driven era.

III)