The Part II of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with different facets
of oral and documentary methods of proving facts in a judicial
proceeding. The precise purpose of this write up is to describe the
contents of Part II of the act in an easy to read manner.
The Part I of the act describes the concepts of relevance and
admissibility of a broad range of facts, in a judicial proceeding by
means of evidence whereas the Part III describes various aspects of
burden of proof and witness examination.
When a fact is proved
A fact, being contested in a case before a court, is considered to be
proved only when the judge tends to believe its existence. If the
judge disbelieves its existence, it remains disproved. When the fact
is either proved or disproved then it is considered to be not
proved at all. In other words, the term not proved means neither
proved nor disproved.
Whose responsibility is to provide evidence?
The existence of a fact should be proved in a court by the party who
wants the court to believe that it exists.
However such proving of facts is unnecessary when:
the fact is admitted, even in an implied manner, by the other party
the court can take judicial notice of the fact
there is some judicial presumption regarding the fact
Admitted facts need not be proved
Admitted facts need not be proved. The admission of facts is done by
admitting it either in the written pleadings or orally during the
hearing, by the parties.
An admission is a statement (either in oral form or documentary
form) made by any party to a proceeding. It indicates an inference as to
the admissibility of any fact in issue or a relevant fact in a case.
Any admission is a substantive piece of evidence. But it is not a
Judicially noticeable facts need no proof
No fact, which the court can take judicial notice of, need to be proved.
Judicial notice is the cognizance the court itself can take on matters
which are well established or publicly known, without any particular
proof. A thing which is repeatedly recognized by the court and formed
part of the law of the land requires no specific proof.
Certain items which the court is bound to take judicial notice are
listed in the act, under its Section 57, in an indicative manner. It is
not an exhaustive list.
As per the Section, the laws or rules in force, the proceedings in the
legislative bodies, names, functions & signs of public officers, the
geographical distinction of territories, the specialized knowledge in
history, art or science, the name & address of judicial functionaries,
etc which can be taken notice of by the court itself, need not be proved
by the parties. The court can use appropriate books or documents to take
notice of them.
Manner of proving facts
Two important methods of proving facts are by oral evidence and
documentary evidence. A third method is production of material
objects such as knife, gun or iron rod used in a criminal action.
Oral evidence can be used to prove any fact, except the contents of a
document. The contents of a document need to be proved by producing the
The oral evidence adduced must be direct evidence from persons with
firsthand knowledge of it. Hearsay evidence obtainable from persons
with second hand knowledge must be excluded. Direct oral evidence
means the evidence that is provided by the person who has seen it, heard
it or perceived it though the senses, in a judicial proceeding.
If any oral statement refers to the existence or condition of a
material object the court may require the production of the object
Documentary evidence is the type of evidence in which a matter is
expressed on any substance in the form of letters, figures or marks
which constitutes some inference or meaning.
The contents of a document may be proved either by primary evidence or
secondary evidence during the court proceedings. Admitting a
document during a proceeding means admission of its contents but not
the truth of its contents. The truth of the contents of a document
needs to be established during the trial proceedings.
Primary evidence means the original document itself is produced
before the court. When multiple copies of a document are brought out
using a uniform printing process each copy of such a document is primary
evidence in regard to the contents of each one. But a copy thus produced
is not a primary evidence of the contents of the master copy of the
As far as possible, the contents of the document must be proved by
primary evidence. But the act specifically permits proving of some other
types of document by secondary evidence too.
Secondary evidence is any derivative proof such as copies, extracts
etc of a primary document. Secondary evidence includes:
Certified copies of the document
Copies made from the original
Counter parts of documents
Oral accounts of contents of documents by some persons who have seen
A certified copy is a copy of the original document signed and
certified as correct by the official who has the custody of the
original. The contents of a document cannot be proved by secondary
evidence unless there is reason for receiving it. If a piece of
secondary evidence is admitted in a proceeding with no objection in
the trial court, then any objection regarding its admissibility cannot
be roused by that party in the appellate court. However, irrelevance
of a piece of evidence already admitted at the trial, can be raised at
the appellate stage
If any original document itself is inadmissible due to deficiencies like
non-registration or insufficiency of stamping, then its copy cannot be
admitted as secondary evidence. Existence of relevant primary
evidence is a pre-requisite for admitting any piece of secondary
evidence in regard to it. In other words, no secondary evidence
relating to inadmissible primary evidence is admissible.
Secondary evidence cannot be admitted except on the ground mentioned
in Section 65 of the act. The law does not make any distinction between
the classes of secondary evidence in regard to validity.
Public and private documents
The documents are of two types - public documents and private
A public document is a document generated by a public authority or
public officer during the course of some public duties. It includes
public records of private documents kept by any authority or body of the
A private document which is kept by a public officer is not a public
document. But entries relating to private documents made in the records
kept by the public office are public records.
The fact that a document is registered does not make it a public
document. A registered sale deed is not a public document. Its
execution, contents etc have to be proved in the ordinary manner.
Admission of any document amounts to admission of its contents, but not
the truth of its contents. The truth needs to be proved separately.
Certified copies of documents
When a document is a public document and it can be inspected by a
person then he is entitled to obtain a certified copy of it on paying a
required fee. When the law prescribes that the terms and conditions of a
contract, grant or other disposition of property have to be in written
form, then written document alone can be given in evidence in regard to
such execution. When a set of oral transactions has been reduced to
writing the set of transactions itself will become a piece of
documentary evidence. In such a case, no oral evidence can be admitted
to contradict such transcripts.
Law presumes that every certified copy of public document is a genuine
Attesting witness must give evidence
When a document, except a Will, is registered it is not necessary to
call an attesting witness unless there is denial of execution by the
person who had executed it. In the case of a registered Will, the
attesting witnesses need to be called for giving evidence.
When there is an allegation that a document is signed or has been
written by a particular person, the person’s sign or hand writing need
to be proved.
If a document is to be attested as per law, such a document cannot be
used as evidence unless one attesting witness has been called for. The
endorsement made by a Sub-Registrar before a court that the executants
of the document had admitted the execution of the document while
registering it before him amounts to attestation. If a document is
attested, then the attesting witness must be called for testimony as to
the validity of the signature in it.
Clearing the ambiguities in documents
In general, it is not possible to prove the contents of a document by
external oral testimony. But if the intention expressed in a document is
basically clear but leaves some confusion due to lack of specificity or
ambiguous use of language, external oral testimony is admissible. If the
ambiguity is patent, then the contents cannot be proved by oral
That means extrinsic oral evidence may be admitted to bring in clarity
in a document which leaves some confusion due to equivocation - use of
vague or ambiguous language. However when the language of a written
instrument is perfectly plain, no construction is permissible to
contradict the writing.