Free Study Notes

Table of Contents -Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023(BSA) Study Notes

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023(BSA) – High-Yield Topics for UGC NET Law, Judiciary, APO & CLAT PGChapter I – Preliminary

1. Chapter I – Preliminary Provisions under BSA 2023

2. Chapter II – Relevancy of Facts

3. Chapter III – Admissions and Confessions

4. Chapter IV – Statements by Persons Who Cannot Be Called as Witnesses

5. Chapter V – Statements about the Law Contained in Law-Books and Expert Opinion

6. Chapter VI – Of the Relevancy of Character and Facts Bearing on Quantum of Damages

7. Chapter VII – Burden of Proof and Presumptions

8. Chapter VIII – Estoppel

9. Chapter IX – Of Witnesses

10. Chapter X – Of Examination of Witnesses

11. Chapter XI – Of Improper Admission and Rejection of Evidence

12. Chapter XII – Oral and Documentary Evidence

13. Chapter XIII – Production and Effect of Evidence Relating to Electronic Records and Digital Evidence

14. Chapter XIV – General Provisions Relating to Evidence

Download The Bare Acts For Free (PDF)

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) -English Version

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) -Hindi Version

BSA 2023: Preliminary Provisions

Introduction to Preliminary Provisions in BSA 2023

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) starts with basic rules that set the foundation for all evidence law in India. These rules help courts handle proof in cases. They include the name of the law, where it applies, when it starts, and key word meanings. For exam aspirants, focus on how these basics connect to bigger ideas in trials. Remember, BSA replaces the old Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and adds modern touches like digital records.

Think of these provisions as the “building blocks” of evidence – they define what counts as proof and how courts view it. Exams often test them with simple questions on meanings or examples.

Short Title, Application, and Commencement (Section 1)

This section gives the law its name and explains its reach.

• Short Title: The law is called the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. In short, it’s BSA 2023. This name shows it’s a new Indian law on evidence.

• Application: BSA applies to all court cases where evidence is needed. This includes regular courts and military courts (Courts-martial). But it does not cover affidavits (sworn statements) given to courts or officers. It also skips cases before arbitrators (people who settle disputes outside court).

• Commencement: The law started on a date set by the government through a notice in the Official Gazette. It came into force on July 1, 2024.

Key Exam Tip: Questions might ask where BSA does not apply. Remember: affidavits and arbitration are out. This keeps evidence rules focused on real trials.

Landmark Case on Application

In Union of India v. T.R. Verma (AIR 1957 SC 882), the Supreme Court said evidence rules like these apply strictly in courts but not always in other settings. This case shows how preliminary rules limit the law’s use. In practice, it means a military trial must follow BSA, but a private arbitration can use looser rules.

Practical Example

Imagine a worker disputes a firing with an arbitrator. BSA does not apply here, so the arbitrator can accept any proof without strict rules. But if the same dispute goes to court, BSA kicks in, and evidence must meet its standards. This helps in real life by making court proofs reliable while keeping arbitrations quick.

Definitions (Section 2)

This is the heart of preliminary provisions. It explains key words used in the whole law. Exams love testing these because they appear in every chapter. BSA updates old definitions to include digital items.

Core Definitions with Explanations

• Court: This means all judges, magistrates, and anyone allowed by law to take evidence. Arbitrators are not included. Why it matters: It decides who must follow evidence rules.

• Conclusive Proof: When the law says one fact proves another fully, the court must accept it without question. No counter-proof allowed. Simple idea: It’s like a final stamp – no debate.

• Disproved: A fact is disproved if the court thinks it does not exist or is very unlikely after looking at all info. Link to real life: Courts use this to reject weak claims.

• Document: Any writing, mark, or record on any material that shows info. It now includes electronic and digital records like emails or phone logs. Illustrations from BSA: A letter is a document. So is a photo, map, or even a funny drawing. Digital examples: Emails, website data, or voice messages on phones.

• Evidence: This covers two types – oral (what witnesses say, even online) and documentary (papers or digital files shown to court). Update in BSA: It clearly adds electronic statements and records, making it fit for today’s world.

• Fact: Anything you can see, hear, or feel, or a person’s thoughts or feelings. Illustrations: Seeing objects in a room is a fact. Hearing words is a fact. Even someone’s opinion or intent counts.

• Facts in Issue: Key facts that decide if a right, duty, or fault exists in a case. Explanation: In a lawsuit, these are the main points to prove or deny. Illustration: In a murder trial, facts like “Did A cause B’s death?” or “Was it intentional?” are in issue.

• May Presume: Court can assume a fact is true unless proven wrong, or ask for more proof. Flexible rule: Gives judges choice.

• Not Proved: A fact that is neither shown true nor false. Middle ground: Court stays neutral.

• Proved: A fact is proved if the court believes it exists or thinks it’s likely enough for a smart person to act on it.Standard: Based on what a prudent (careful) person would think.

• Relevant: A fact connected to another as per BSA rules on what matters. Key link: Only relevant facts count in court.

• Shall Presume: Court must assume a fact is true until disproved. Stronger rule: No choice – treat it as proved at first.

Other words take meanings from laws like the Information Technology Act, 2000, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Memorization Hack: Group them – Proof terms (proved, disproved, not proved), Presumptions (may/shall), Basics (fact, evidence, document). Link digital updates to modern cases for recall.

BSA 2023: Relevancy of Facts Study Notes for Indian Competitive Exams

Introduction to Relevancy of Facts in BSA 2023

Relevancy of Facts forms the core of evidence law in India. It decides which facts a court can consider in a case. Under Chapter II of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA), Sections 4 to 16 explain what makes a fact relevant. These rules help prove or disprove main issues in a trial. Remember, only relevant facts count as evidence – irrelevant ones waste time and confuse judgments.

Why study this? Exams often ask scenario-based questions here. Think logically: A fact is relevant if it connects directly to the main event or helps explain it. BSA updates the old Indian Evidence Act 1872 but keeps similar ideas. Focus on new section numbers while noting old ones for mixed questions.

Key idea: Facts must link like a chain. One weak link breaks the proof.

Section 4: Facts Forming Part of the Same Transaction (Res Gestae)

This section covers facts so closely tied to the main event that they form one story. Called “Res Gestae,” it includes actions, words, or events happening at the same time or right after. It allows hearsay (second-hand info) if spontaneous and trustworthy.

• Simple explanation: Imagine a fight breaks out. Shouts, injuries, and immediate reactions are all relevant. They paint the full picture without gaps.

• Why relevant? These facts show what really happened without room for lies.

• Landmark cases:

  • Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao v. Ponna Satyanarayana (2000): Supreme Court said a phone call right after a murder could be Res Gestae if no time for fabrication. But a delayed call? Not admissible.

  • Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1999): Court ruled statements must happen during or just after the event. A wife’s cry naming her killer was relevant as part of the attack.

  • Ratten v. The Queen (1971): A scared phone call saying “Get me the police” was allowed. It showed fear linked to the crime.

• Practical example: In a road accident case, a driver’s shout “The brakes failed!” right at the crash is relevant. It explains the cause instantly. But if said hours later in hospital, it might not count – too much time for twisting facts.

Section 5: Facts Which Are Occasion, Cause, or Effect

Here, facts that set the stage, cause the main event, or show its results become relevant. This includes marks, conditions, or changes linked directly.

• Simple explanation: What started it? What made it happen? What followed? These help prove the main fact.

• Why relevant? They build a logical story around the incident.

• Landmark cases:

  • R v. Petcherini (1855): Footprints near a crime scene were relevant as effects of the accused’s presence.

  • State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996): Medical reports showing injuries were key effects proving assault.

• Practical example: In a poisoning murder, empty poison bottles in the accused’s home are relevant as cause. Victim’s vomit or pain symptoms are effects. These tie the accused to the death without direct witness.

Section 6: Motive, Preparation, and Conduct

This covers reasons (motive), plans (preparation), and actions before or after the event. Conduct includes behavior of accused, victims, or others involved.

• Simple explanation: Why did it happen? What steps were taken? How did people act? These reveal intent.

• Why relevant? Motive strengthens weak cases; conduct shows guilt or innocence.

• Landmark cases:

  • Chunni Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010): Revenge motive from old fights helped convict in a murder.

  • Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (2007): In chain-of-evidence cases, motive like greed proved key.

  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhirendra Kumar (1997): Bad conduct, like hiding, showed guilt.

• Practical example: In a theft case, the accused buying tools days before is preparation. Running away after? That’s suspicious conduct. Motive could be debt – all relevant to show planning.

Section 7: Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts

Facts that clarify or set up other relevant facts count here. This includes background, identity, or relations.

• Simple explanation: Need context? These facts provide it without confusing the main issue.

• Why relevant? They make evidence clear and fair.

• Landmark cases:

  • Sainudeen v. State of Kerala (1990): Voice identification of accused was relevant to introduce threat calls.

  • State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981): Test identification parades explained witness recognition.

• Practical example: In a fraud case, explaining a fake ID’s origin introduces how the scam started. Or, in a family dispute, showing blood relations clarifies who inherits property.

Section 8: Things Said or Done by Conspirator in Reference to Common Design

In conspiracy cases, words or acts of one plotter are relevant against all if done during the plot.

• Simple explanation: Team crime? One member’s slip-up can implicate everyone.

• Why relevant? Conspiracies are secret; this uncovers the group plan.

• Landmark cases:

  • Badri Rai v. State of Bihar (1958): Statements during conspiracy were admissible to prove all involved.

  • Mirza Akbar v. Emperor (1940): Need prima facie proof of plot first; then co-conspirator words count.

  • Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002): Acts in furtherance of conspiracy bound all members.

• Practical example: In a bank heist plot, one thief’s email about “the big job” is relevant against partners. It shows common goal, even if others stayed silent.

Section 9: When Facts Not Otherwise Relevant Become Relevant

Facts irrelevant alone become key if they contradict or make main facts highly probable/improbable.

• Simple explanation: Alibi or impossibility turns useless facts into proof.

• Why relevant? They test the story’s truth.

• Landmark cases:

  • Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. (1981): Alibi failed because distance made presence impossible.

  • Jayantibhai Manubhai Patel v. Arun Subodhbhai Mehta (1989): Facts showing absence were relevant for defense.

• Practical example: Accused of Delhi murder? Ticket stubs from Mumbai train same time make alibi relevant. It proves you couldn’t be there.

Section 10: In Suits for Damages, Facts Tending to Enable Court to Determine Amount

In compensation claims, facts showing loss level are relevant.

• Simple explanation: How bad was the harm? These facts help calculate fair payout.

• Why relevant? Ensures justice in civil cases.

• Landmark cases:

  • Rare in exams, but link to torts like Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) for damage extent.

• Practical example: In a car crash lawsuit, medical bills and lost wages determine compensation. They show real impact.

Sections 11 to 14: Facts Relevant in Specific Civil Contexts and State of Mind

Section 11: Admissions in civil cases when relevant. Section 12: Facts showing state of mind like intent or knowledge. Section 13: Facts showing state of body or feeling. Section 14: When one fact follows another consistently.

• Simple explanation: Mindset matters. Intent, knowledge, or habits prove actions weren’t random.

• Why relevant? Reveals hidden thoughts through patterns.

• Landmark cases for state of mind (Section 12):

  • Amrita Lal Hazra v. Emperor (1915): Similar thefts showed intent to steal.

  • R v. Straffen (1952): Past crimes relevant for identity in similar offenses.

  • Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State (1982): Knowledge of stolen goods from repeated deals.

• Practical example: Accused of fraud? Past scams show bad intent (state of mind). In assault, victim’s fear (bodily feeling) explains running away.

Section 15-16: Facts Bearing on Question Whether Act Was Accidental or Intentional

When acts look similar, facts showing pattern prove intent over accident.

• Simple explanation: One “oops” might be chance; many suggest plan.

• Why relevant? Distinguishes mistake from crime.

• Landmark cases:

  • R v. Smith (1915): Multiple wife drownings showed murder, not accidents.

  • State of Andhra Pradesh v. I.B.S. Prasada Rao (1969): Repeated bribes proved corruption intent.

• Practical example: Factory owner with repeated “accidental” fires? Insurance claims become relevant to show arson pattern.

Exam Tips for Relevancy of Facts in BSA 2023

Link sections to CrPC or IPC for mains. Practice: Spot relevant facts in hypotheticals. Memorize cases with one-line holdings. BSA changes focus on digital facts, but relevancy basics stay timeless. Study smart – relevancy questions can score 10-15 marks easily.

BSA 2023: Study Notes on Notes on Admissions and Confessions for Indian Competitive Exams

Introduction to Admissions and Confessions in BSA 2023

Admissions and confessions form a core part of evidence law in India. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), these concepts help courts decide if statements made by people involved in a case can be used as proof. This section replaces old rules from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with clearer guidelines. For exam aspirants, focus on how admissions and confessions prove facts without needing extra witnesses. They are relevant in both civil and criminal cases, but confessions shine in crime trials.

Key idea: An admission is a statement that suggests a fact against the person making it. A confession is a direct acceptance of guilt. BSA Sections 17 to 30 cover these in detail. Understand them step by step for better scores in mains and prelims.

Defining Admissions: The Basics

In BSA, an admission is any statement—spoken, written, or electronic—that points to a fact harming the maker’s position. It does not have to be a full confession; even a hint can count if it helps the other side.

• Who can make admissions? Anyone connected to the case, like parties in a lawsuit or their agents.

• When are they relevant? Admissions are strong evidence if made voluntarily. They bind the maker but not others unless shared (like in partnerships).

• Simple rule: Think of admissions as self-harming truths that speed up trials by avoiding long proofs.

Practical Example: In a property dispute, if a tenant says in a letter, “I owe rent for the last six months,” this admission can prove the debt without calling more witnesses. In real life, courts use such emails or chats in modern rent cases to settle quickly.

Confessions: A Deeper Dive

A confession is an admission of guilt in a criminal case. BSA treats it as powerful evidence if true and voluntary. But there are strict rules to avoid forced statements.

• Types of Confessions: Judicial (made in court) and extra-judicial (made outside, like to friends).

• Key Test: Must be free from pressure. If induced by threats or promises, it loses value.

• BSA Update: Now includes electronic confessions, like video recordings, making it fit for digital age crimes.

Landmark Case: Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) This old but gold case shaped confession rules. The accused told his wife about a murder plan. The court said only direct guilt admissions count as confessions—not vague talks. For exams, note: It draws the line between admission and full confession. In BSA, this helps interpret Section 17.

Realistic Application: Imagine a theft case where a suspect whispers to a friend, “I took the money from the safe.” If voluntary, it’s a confession. But if police pressured it, courts reject it to protect rights.

Relevancy of Admissions and Confessions

BSA says admissions and confessions are relevant if they relate to the case facts. They prove matters without doubt, but courts check context.

• When Relevant: In civil suits for money claims or in crimes to establish guilt.

• Limits: Not relevant if made under duress or to irrelevant people.

• Exam Tip: Link to burden of proof—confessions shift it to the accused to disprove.

Landmark Case: Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1952) Here, a woman confessed to poisoning her husband but later said it was accidental. The Supreme Court ruled parts of mixed statements (guilt + excuse) can be used if separable. Under BSA Section 23, this warns against blind trust in confessions. Aspirants: Use this in essay questions on voluntary vs. coerced statements.

Practical Example: In a modern fraud case, an email confession like “I faked the accounts to hide losses” becomes relevant evidence. But if sent under boss’s threat, it’s invalid. This applies in corporate scams where digital trails are key.

Confessions to Police: Strict Safeguards

BSA Sections 22 to 25 protect against police misuse. Confessions to police are often not admissible to prevent torture.

• Rule One: Pure confessions to police officers are out—no matter how true.

• Exception: If it leads to discovering facts (like hidden weapons), only that discovery part counts.

• Why? To ensure fair trials and human rights.

• BSA Change: Now covers custody confessions clearly, aligning with CrPC.

Landmark Case: Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966) Accused confessed to police about killing family and showed the axe. Court admitted only the discovery, not the full story. This case illustrates BSA Section 23 (old Section 27). For competitive exams, it’s a must for scenario-based questions.

Realistic Application: Picture a murder probe where a suspect says to police, “I buried the body here,” and they find it. Only the burial fact is evidence—not the killing admission. This prevents fake confessions in high-pressure arrests.

Confessions in Custody: Extra Caution

If someone confesses while in police hold, it’s risky. BSA says it needs a magistrate’s recording to be valid.

• Process: Accused must get time to think, away from police influence.

• Relevance: Such confessions carry weight if proven voluntary.

• Connection to Other Laws: Ties with Article 20(3) of Constitution—no self-incrimination.

Landmark Case: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) Supreme Court banned forced techniques like narco-analysis for confessions. It stresses voluntariness under BSA. Exam point: Use in questions on modern evidence methods.

Practical Example: In a drug bust, a dealer confesses in custody about suppliers. If recorded properly by a magistrate, it helps convict. But if rushed or threatened, courts throw it out, as seen in real narco-test disputes.

Evidentiary Value and Corroboration

Confessions are strong but not always enough alone. Courts look for supporting evidence.

• Value: A clear, voluntary confession can convict, but mix-ups need checks.

• Corroboration: Extra proof, like witnesses or items, strengthens it.

• BSA Angle: Sections 17-30 push for fair use, avoiding sole reliance.

Landmark Case: Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1957) Court said retracted confessions need strong corroboration. If accused later denies, find other evidence. This is key for BSA in retraction scenarios.

Realistic Application: In a rape case, victim’s confession-like statement to police needs medical reports to back it. Without, it weakens—common in #MeToo era trials where statements evolve.

Common Pitfalls and Exam Strategies

Avoid mixing admissions with confessions—admissions are broader, confessions guilt-specific.

• Pitfall One: Forgetting electronic aspects in BSA—think WhatsApp confessions.

• Strategy: Practice with hypotheticals: “Is a taped call a valid confession?”

• Linkages: Connect to IPC for crimes or CPC for civil admissions.

Landmark Case: State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960) Clarified discovery rules in confessions. Only new facts from statement admissible. Vital for BSA Section 23 questions.

Practical Example: In cybercrime, a hacker’s forum post admitting breach counts as confession if voluntary. Courts use it with IP logs for conviction, showing BSA’s tech-savvy side.

Master these notes by revising cases and examples. They make abstract rules real, boosting your exam edge.

BSA 2023: In-Depth Study Notes on Statements by Persons Who Cannot Be Called as Witnesses for Competitive Exam Success

Introduction to the Concept in BSA 2023

In evidence law, courts usually want live witnesses who can face questions. But sometimes, a person cannot come to court because they are dead or missing. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) handles this in Chapter IV. This chapter allows certain statements from such persons to count as evidence. It replaces old rules from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with some updates.

The main idea is fairness. If a key person cannot testify, their past words can still help prove facts. This stops injustice. Focus on Sections 26 and 27. These are high-yield for exams – often asked in mains for 10-15 marks. Understand when these statements are relevant, their limits, and real-life use.

Core Principles Behind These Statements

BSA makes exceptions to the hearsay rule. Hearsay means second-hand info, which is usually not trusted. But here, the law trusts these statements because the person had no reason to lie. For example, a dying person speaks truth out of fear of death.

• Key Test for Admissibility: The statement must relate to a relevant fact. It must come from someone who truly cannot be a witness.

• Why It Matters in Court: These rules ensure trials move forward even without the person. They balance speed and truth.

• Changes in BSA: A new note in Section 27 covers trials where an accused runs away. This helps in group trials.

Now, let’s break down each section with simple explanations, top cases, and everyday examples.

Section 26: When Statements of Dead or Unavailable Persons Are Relevant

This section lists eight situations where statements (written or spoken) from a person who cannot be called as a witness become evidence. The person must be dead, impossible to find, too sick to testify, or their attendance would cause too much delay or cost.

Think of it as a safety net. It covers special cases where the statement is reliable due to the context.

Situation 1: Statements About Cause of Death (Dying Declaration)

A statement by a dying person about how they got hurt or died is valid. This is called a dying declaration. It works in any case, not just murder trials.

• Why Reliable? People near death tell the truth. No time for lies.

• Key Rules: The person must believe death is near. No need for a doctor or police to record it. It can be oral, written, or even gestures.

• Limits: If the person survives, it loses value as a dying declaration. Courts may still use it differently.

• Landmark Case: Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) The Privy Council said a dying declaration includes any statement linked to the death cause. Here, a man’s words about meeting the accused before dying were accepted. This case sets the wide scope – not just final words.

• Practical Example: In a hit-and-run accident, a victim whispers to a friend, “The red car driver hit me on purpose.” If the victim dies, this counts in court against the driver. It helps police build the case without the victim’s live testimony.

Situation 2: Statements Made in Course of Business

Statements from duty records, like a shopkeeper’s daily log, are okay if the person is unavailable.

• Why Trusted? People write accurately for work.

• Landmark Case: Mirza Akbar v. Emperor (1940) The court used a deceased clerk’s report as evidence. It showed routine entries are reliable.

• Practical Example: A bank teller notes a fake check deposit before dying. This entry proves fraud in a later trial, even without the teller.

Situation 3: Statements Against the Person’s Own Interest

If the statement hurt the person’s money, reputation, or freedom, it’s admissible.

• Reason: No one lies to harm themselves.

• Landmark Case: R v. Donat (1894) A dead man’s note admitting debt was used against his estate.

• Practical Example: A landowner writes, “I owe rent to the farmer,” before passing away. This helps the farmer claim payment in court.

Situation 4: Opinions on Public Rights or Customs

Statements from old timers about community rules or boundaries.

• Why? They knew from experience.

• Landmark Case: Collector of Gorakhpur v. Palakdhari Singh (1889) Deceased villagers’ words on a river boundary settled a land dispute.

• Practical Example: In a village fight over temple land, a dead elder’s statement about “public use for 50 years” proves it’s common property.

Situation 5: Statements on Family History (Pedigree)

Words about births, marriages, or relations from family members.

• Landmark Case: Garurudhwaja Prasad v. Suparandhwaja Prasad (1900) A deceased aunt’s note on family tree decided inheritance.

• Practical Example: In a will dispute, a dead uncle’s letter saying “She is my niece by blood” confirms her share.

Situation 6: Statements in Wills or Deeds About Relationships

Similar to pedigree, but in legal papers.

• Practical Example: A will from a deceased person states “To my adopted son.” This proves adoption in court.

Situation 7: Statements in Documents About Transactions

Old records mentioning facts.

• Landmark Case: Seethayya v. Subramanya (1929) A dead witness’s sale deed note was key.

• Practical Example: An ancient map by a surveyor (now dead) shows property lines in a boundary case.

Situation 8: Statements from Many People on Feelings

Group opinions on shared emotions or sensations.

• Rare Use: Like crowd reactions in a riot case.

• Practical Example: Deceased protesters’ notes on “fear from police” in a rights trial.

Section 27: Using Past Evidence in New Proceedings

If a witness gave evidence in an old case but cannot come now, that old testimony counts in a new related case.

• Conditions: The old case must be proper. Issues must match. The other side had a chance to question.

• New in BSA: Handles absent accused in joint trials.

• Landmark Case: Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) A witness’s old statement was used after death. Court stressed fair cross-examination.

• Practical Example: In a long fraud trial, a key witness dies. Their earlier deposition in a related inquiry proves the scam in the main case.

• Another Case: Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab (1982) Showed old evidence needs matching facts between cases.

Key Tips for Exam Prep and Application

These rules apply in real courts daily. In murder probes, dying declarations solve 20-30% of cases. Always link to CrPC for recording.

• Strengths: Speeds justice, trusts human honesty.

• Weaknesses: No cross-check, so courts need extra proof sometimes.

• Exam Focus: Compare with old IEA Section 32-33. Note BSA’s digital updates don’t change this much.

Master these for scenarios like “Is a suicide note a dying declaration?” (Yes, if about death cause). Use cases to explain reliability. This builds strong answers.

BSA 2023: Relevancy of Character and Damages Facts – Essential Study Notes for Judiciary and Competitive Exams

Why This Topic Matters in BSA 2023

In the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, rules about when a person’s character counts as evidence come under Chapter II on Relevancy of Facts. These rules help courts decide what proof is useful. Character means a person’s reputation or general behavior. It does not always help in cases, but in some situations, it can change outcomes like guilt or damage payments. Exams often ask about these because they link to real court decisions. Focus here to answer questions on evidence rules easily.

Think of character as a background check. It is not the main story in most cases, but it can add details when needed. Now, let’s break down each key section with simple explanations, important cases, and everyday examples.

Section 10: Facts That Help Courts Fix Damage Amounts in Damage Claims

This section says that in cases where someone asks for money as damages, any fact that helps the court figure out the right amount is relevant. Damages mean money paid to fix harm, like in accidents or broken promises.

• Core Idea in Simple Terms: Courts look at facts like how bad the harm was, lost income, or pain suffered. These facts make the damage calculation fair.

• When It Applies: Only in suits for damages, such as car crashes or contract breaks. It keeps evidence focused on money matters.

• Landmark Case: Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court said facts about a company’s financial loss due to a strike are relevant to decide compensation. This shows how business impacts count under this rule.

• Practical Example: Imagine a shop owner sues a supplier for late delivery, causing lost sales. Facts like daily sales records and customer complaints become relevant to calculate exact damages, say Rs. 50,000 instead of a guess.

• Exam Tip: Link this to tort law. Questions might ask: “What facts can prove damage amount in a negligence suit?”

Section 46: Character in Civil Cases – Usually Not Relevant

In civil disputes like property fights or contracts, a person’s character does not help prove if they did something right or wrong. It stays out unless the case is directly about character.

• Core Idea in Simple Terms: Character evidence can bias judges, so it is irrelevant. Focus on actions, not who the person is.

• Exception: If character is the main issue, like in a divorce for cruelty, then it counts.

• Landmark Case: Bharpur Singh v. Parshotam Dass (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that in a land dispute, the plaintiff’s past behavior was irrelevant. It stressed sticking to facts of the case, not general character.

• Practical Example: In a loan repayment suit, the lender cannot say the borrower has a “bad reputation for not paying debts” to prove non-payment. Instead, use bank records. But if the suit is for defamation calling someone dishonest, character evidence helps defend the claim.

• Exam Tip: Remember: Irrelevant means “not allowed as proof.” This avoids unfair trials.

Section 47: Good Character in Criminal Cases – Always Relevant

In criminal trials, if the accused shows they have a good character, it counts as evidence. It can create doubt about guilt.

• Core Idea in Simple Terms: A person with good habits is less likely to commit crimes. This helps in close calls or for lighter sentences.

• How It Works: The accused can bring witnesses to speak about their honest life. But it cannot beat strong proof of guilt.

• Landmark Case: Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad (1954): The Supreme Court used the accused’s good character to reduce doubt and assess punishment in a murder case. It showed character aids fairness.

• Landmark Case: K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961): In this famous murder trial, the accused’s good reputation as a navy officer was considered, helping argue self-defense.

• Practical Example: In a theft charge against a teacher with no prior issues, friends testify to his honest nature. This might sway the court to acquit if evidence is weak, or give a shorter jail term.

• Exam Tip: Quote: “Good character is like a shield in doubt.” Exams test if it overrides direct evidence – answer no.

Section 48: Victim’s Character in Sexual Offence Cases – Not Relevant for Consent

This is a new rule in BSA. In crimes like rape or assault where consent matters, the victim’s character or past sexual life cannot be used to question consent.

• Core Idea in Simple Terms: Protects victims from unfair attacks on their reputation. Focus on the act, not the victim’s history.

• When It Applies: For offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections like 64 (rape) or 69 (sexual harassment).

• Landmark Case: Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979, Mathura Case): Though old, it led to reforms. The Supreme Court later criticized using victim’s character, pushing for stricter rules like this section.

• Landmark Case: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996): The Court said victim’s past cannot discredit her testimony in rape cases, aligning with this protection.

• Practical Example: In a workplace harassment trial, the defense cannot bring up the victim’s past relationships to say she “consented.” Courts ignore that and look at messages or witnesses instead.

• Exam Tip: This promotes gender justice. Questions may compare with old IEA rules.

Section 49: Bad Character in Criminal Cases – Irrelevant Unless Challenged

The prosecution cannot bring up the accused’s bad character unless the accused first claims good character. Then, it becomes fair game.

• Core Idea in Simple Terms: Keeps trials clean. Bad past does not prove current guilt.

• Exceptions: If bad character is the main fact (like being a habitual thief) or past convictions show pattern.

• Landmark Case: Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009): The Supreme Court held bad character evidence inadmissible unless the accused opens the door by claiming good character.

• Landmark Case: Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra (1963): In a conspiracy case, the Court said good character evidence allows rebuttal with bad acts, but value is limited.

• Practical Example: In a fraud case, if the accused says “I’m a respected businessman,” the prosecution can then show past cheating complaints. Without that, bad character stays out.

• Exam Tip: Explanations matter: Past conviction equals bad character evidence.

Section 50: Character That Affects Damage Amounts – Relevant in Civil Cases

In civil suits, a person’s character can influence how much damages they get. This is an exception to general irrelevance.

• Core Idea in Simple Terms: If someone’s reputation is low, they might get less money for harms like defamation.

• Explanation: Character covers reputation (what others think) and disposition (personal traits). Use general views, not specific stories.

• Landmark Case: Scott v. Sampson (1882): An English case adopted in India, saying only general reputation evidence for damages, not isolated bad acts.

• Practical Example: In a libel suit where a politician sues for false corruption claims, if his general reputation is already poor (known for scandals), damages might drop from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs.

• Exam Tip: Links to Section 46. Questions: “How does plaintiff’s character reduce damages in torts?”

Wrapping Up: Smart Ways to Remember and Apply

These rules in BSA 2023 balance fairness and focus. Character is a tool, not the whole case. For exams, practice with hypotheticals: “Is bad character relevant here?” Use cases to back answers. Read sections with IEA parallels (46=52, 47=53, 49=54, 50=55) for mixed questions. This topic scores in mains – explain with examples for full marks. Stay updated on BSA changes for 2025 exams!

BSA 2023: Study Notes on Burden of Proof and Presumptions for Indian Competitive Exams

Introduction to Burden of Proof and Presumptions in BSA 2023

The Burden of Proof and Presumptions form a core part of evidence law in India. In BSA 2023, these rules appear in Chapter VII, titled “Of the Burden of Proof.” This chapter covers Sections 104 to 120. It explains who must prove facts in court, how the burden shifts, and when courts can presume certain facts. These ideas help ensure fair trials. They balance the rights of all parties. Understanding them is key for exams, as questions often test how burden shifts in criminal or civil cases. Remember, BSA replaces the old Indian Evidence Act (IEA) 1872, but the ideas are similar with updated numbering.

Core Idea: What is Burden of Proof?

Burden of proof means the duty to show that a fact is true. It decides who loses if no proof is given. In simple terms, if you claim something, you must back it up. This prevents unfair judgments. Exams often ask about when the burden starts and when it moves to the other side.

Key Rules on Burden of Proof (Sections 104-109)

Let’s break down the main sections step by step. Each includes the rule, why it matters, landmark cases, and practical examples. This way, you can connect theory to real life.

Section 104: Basic Rule – Who Must Prove Facts for Judgment

• Simple Explanation: If you want the court to rule in your favor based on certain facts, you must prove those facts exist. The person claiming a right or liability has the burden.

• Why Important: This is the starting point. It applies to both civil and criminal cases. In exams, link it to “onus probandi” (burden to prove).

• Illustrations from Law: (a) If A says B committed a crime, A must prove it. (b) If A claims land from B, A must show the facts supporting the claim.

• Landmark Case: Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) – The Supreme Court said the plaintiff must prove their case first. If they fail, the defendant wins without proving anything.

• Practical Example: In a property dispute, a brother claims his sister forged their father’s will. The brother has the burden to prove the forgery. If he can’t, the sister keeps the property. This shows how burden protects against baseless claims.

Section 105: Burden in Suit or Proceeding

• Simple Explanation: The burden lies on the person who would lose if no evidence is presented by anyone.

• Why Important: It helps decide the initial onus. In civil cases, it’s often on the plaintiff. In criminal, always on prosecution.

• Illustrations from Law: (a) In a land suit, if A claims B’s land via will, burden on A since B holds possession. (b) In a bond debt case, if fraud is alleged, burden on the one claiming fraud.

• Landmark Case: Rangammal v. Kuppuswami (2011) – The court ruled that burden is on the party challenging a document’s validity. If no evidence, the document stands.

• Practical Example: A worker sues a company for unpaid wages. If no proof from either side, the company wins because the worker must show the debt exists. This rule ensures claims are supported.

Section 106: Burden for Particular Facts

• Simple Explanation: If you want the court to believe a specific fact, you must prove it, unless law says otherwise.

• Why Important: It targets special claims. Exams test this in scenarios where one party raises a unique fact.

• Illustration from Law: If A accuses B of theft and says B admitted it to C, A proves the admission. If B claims alibi, B proves it.

• Landmark Case: Atyam Veerraju v. Pechetti Venkanna (1966) – Supreme Court held that the party alleging a fact must prove it, even if negative.

• Practical Example: In a car accident case, the driver says the brakes failed suddenly. The driver must prove this fact, as it’s their specific claim. This prevents vague defences.

Section 107: Burden to Enable Evidence

• Simple Explanation: To use evidence of one fact, you must first prove related facts needed for it.

• Why Important: It ensures evidence is admissible only after basics are proven.

• Illustrations from Law: (a) To use a dying declaration, prove the person died. (b) For secondary evidence of a lost document, prove the loss.

• Landmark Case: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) – Court said to rely on secondary evidence, loss of original must be proven first.

• Practical Example: A tenant wants to show a rent receipt copy because original is lost. Tenant must prove the original existed and is lost. This keeps evidence reliable.

Section 108: Burden in Criminal Defences

• Simple Explanation: In crimes, accused must prove defenses like insanity or exceptions. Court presumes no such defense unless proven.

• Why Important: Shifts burden to accused for special pleas, but prosecution proves guilt first.

• Illustrations from Law: (a) Accused claims insanity in murder – burden on them. (b) For provocation defense, prove it.

• Landmark Case: Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. (1990) – Supreme Court said accused must prove private defense on balance of probabilities.

• Practical Example: In a self-defense killing, prosecution proves attack, but accused proves it was self-defense. This balances fairness.

Section 109: Facts Within Special Knowledge

• Simple Explanation: If a fact is only known to you, you must prove it.

• Why Important: Prevents hiding key info. Common in fraud or intent cases.

• Illustrations from Law: (a) If act suggests one intent, prove different intent. (b) In ticketless travel, prove you had a ticket.

• Landmark Case: Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) – Court ruled employee must prove special facts about accounts only they know.

• Practical Example: A employee accused of embezzlement knows transaction details. They must explain missing funds. This stops evasion.

Shifting Burden and Relationship Presumptions

These sections deal with how burden shifts in specific situations, like life, death, or relationships.

Section 110-111: Presumption About Life and Death

• Simple Explanation: If someone was alive within 30 years, presume alive unless proven dead (110). If missing for 7 years, presume dead unless proven alive (111).

• Why Important: Helps in inheritance or missing person cases.

• Landmark Case: LIC of India v. Anuradha (2004) – Supreme Court applied 7-year presumption for insurance claims.

• Practical Example: In a will dispute, if a heir is missing 8 years, presume dead for property division. Family claiming alive must prove it.

Section 112: Burden in Relationships

• Simple Explanation: If people act as partners or landlord-tenant, presume they are, unless proven otherwise.

• Why Important: Based on conduct, shifts burden to denier.

• Landmark Case: Gackwad Baroda State Railway v. Habib Ullah (1934) – Presumed partnership from actions.

• Practical Example: If A collects rent from B for years, presume A is landlord. B claiming no tenancy must prove.

Section 113: Ownership from Possession

• Simple Explanation: If in possession, presume owner unless proven not.

• Why Important: Protects possessors.

• Landmark Case: Nair Service Society v. K.C. Alexander (1968) – Possession raises ownership presumption.

• Practical Example: Finder of lost jewelry presumed owner if no claim. True owner must prove title.

Section 114: Good Faith in Fiduciary Transactions

• Simple Explanation: In trust relationships, prove good faith if questioned.

• Why Important: Protects vulnerable parties.

• Illustrations from Law: Advocate must prove fair sale from client.

• Landmark Case: Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity (2003) – Burden on dominant party.

• Practical Example: Guardian selling ward’s property must show fairness. Ward can challenge without initial proof.

Special Presumptions in Sensitive Cases (Sections 115-120)

These are “shall presume” or conclusive rules for serious issues like violence or rape.

Section 115: Presumption in Disturbed Areas

• Simple Explanation: In troubled areas, presume offense if at scene with weapons.

• Why Important: Aids law enforcement in unrest.

• Practical Example: During riots, person at attack site with gun presumed involved unless proven innocent.

Section 116: Conclusive Proof of Legitimacy

• Simple Explanation: Child born during marriage or within 280 days after divorce presumed legitimate unless no access proven.

• Why Important: Protects child status.

• Landmark Case: Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) – No forced DNA; prove non-access.

• Practical Example: Wife divorces, has baby 200 days later. Presume ex-husband’s child unless he proves no contact.

Section 117: Presumption of Abetment of Suicide

• Simple Explanation: If married woman suicides within 7 years and faced cruelty, presume abetment by husband/relatives.

• Why Important: Combats domestic abuse.

• Landmark Case: Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) – Presumption if cruelty proven.

• Practical Example: Woman hangs herself after 5 years of beatings for not cooking. Presume husband abetted; he must rebut.

Section 118: Presumption of Dowry Death

• Simple Explanation: If woman dies within 7 years from dowry cruelty, presume caused by harasser.

• Why Important: Links to IPC 304B for justice.

• Landmark Case: Hem Chand v. State of Haryana (1994) – Conviction on dowry demands leading to death.

• Practical Example: Bride burned after demands for car. If within 7 years, presume dowry death; accused proves otherwise.

Section 119: General Presumptions (May Presume)

• Simple Explanation: Court may presume likely facts from natural course, conduct, or business.

• Why Important: Flexible for judges; rebuttable.

• Illustrations from Law: (a) Stolen goods possession presumes theft. (b) Accomplice needs corroboration.

• Landmark Case: Tulsiram v. State (1953) – Presumed theft from recent possession.

• Practical Example: Man with stolen phone day after robbery. Presume he stole it unless explains.

Section 120: Presumption in Rape Cases

• Simple Explanation: If intercourse proven and woman says no consent, presume no consent.

• Why Important: Supports victims.

• Landmark Case: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) – Strengthens victim testimony.

• Practical Example: In assault trial, if act proven and victim denies consent, presume rape; accused proves consent.

Wrapping Up: Why Master This for Exams?

Burden and presumptions ensure trials are fair and efficient. In BSA 2023, they adapt old rules to modern needs. For exams, practice shifting burden in hypotheticals. Link to CrPC or IPC for mains. Use cases to show depth. This topic often appears in 10-15 mark questions. Study with examples to remember applications.

BSA 2023: Estoppel – Complete Study Notes for Judiciary, CLAT-PG, APO, AIBE & UPSC Law

What is Estoppel? (Simple Meaning)

Estoppel is a rule of evidence that stops (estops) a person from saying something opposite to what he has already said or done earlier, when another person has acted believing the first statement or act.

In short: “You cannot speak from both sides of your mouth.”

BSA has placed the entire law of estoppel in Chapter VIII (Sections 126–136).

Three Main Types of Estoppel under BSA 2023

1. Estoppel by Record (Section 126)

– Also called Estoppel by Res Judicata – If a court has already decided an issue between the same parties, no one can deny that decision in a later case. Example: A sues B for ownership of land and loses. Later A cannot file another case saying “I am the owner”. The earlier judgment estops him.

Landmark Case → Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960) Supreme Court said: Parties and those claiming through them are bound by the earlier judgment.

2. Estoppel by Deed (Section 127)

– If a person makes a statement of fact in a registered deed/document and later someone acts on it, he cannot deny that fact. Example: A sells land to B through a registered sale deed and writes “I am the absolute owner”. Later A cannot say “Actually I was only a co-owner”. The deed estops him.

Landmark Case → Mohanlal v. Vinayak (1988) Recitals in a sale deed bind the seller.

3. Estoppel by Conduct / Equitable Estoppel / Estoppel in Pais (Section 128)

– Most important & most asked in exams – If by words or conduct you make someone believe a fact, and that person changes his position relying on it, you cannot later deny that fact.

Classic Example (repeated in every exam): A tells his tenant B, “Don’t worry about rent for 5 years, I will never ask.” B spends ₹10 lakh improving the property. Later A cannot suddenly demand rent for those 5 years. A is estopped by conduct.

Landmark Cases for Section 128 (Old S.115 IEA = New Section 128 BSA)

1. Pickard v. Sears (1837) – Foundation case of equitable estoppel

2. Mercantile Bank of India v. Central Bank (1938) – Bank allowed customer to overdraw → estopped from denying authority

3. Turnwell v. Union of India (1986) – Government officer gave wrong information → Government estopped

4. B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddyappa (2003) – Power of attorney holder sold property beyond authority but owner kept quiet → owner estopped

Special Types Asked in Judiciary & APO Exams

4. Estoppel of Tenant and Licensee (Section 129)

– A tenant or licensee cannot deny the title of his landlord during the tenancy. Example: Ramesh takes a shop on rent from Suresh. Ramesh cannot later say in court “Suresh is not the real owner” while still living in the shop.

Landmark → Kumar Harish Chandra Singh v. Bansidhar Mohanty (1965)

5. Estoppel of Acceptor of Bill of Exchange (Section 130)

– Person who accepts a bill of exchange cannot say the drawer had no authority.

6. Estoppel against Bailee or Licensee (Section 131)

– Similar to tenant estoppel.

7. Estoppel against Minor (Section 132) – NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST A MINOR

– Very important negative point – A minor can plead minority even after representing himself as major. Landmark → Vaikuntarama Pillai v. Athimoolam Chettiar (1914)

Feeding the Estoppel – Section 133 (New Provision)

If a person feeds wrong information to another and the other acts on it, the first person is estopped. Example: Government wrongly tells a contractor “your tender is accepted”. Contractor buys machinery worth crores. Later Government says “sorry, mistake”. Government is estopped.

Most Repeated Practical Examples for Mains Answer Writing

1. A allows B to build a house on his land believing it is B’s land. Later A cannot ask B to remove the house. (Section 128)

2. Father tells bank “my 17-year-old son is major”. Bank gives guarantee. Bank cannot recover from father when son defaults. (No estoppel against minor – Section 132)

3. X takes flat on rent from Y. X stops paying rent saying “Y is not owner”. Court will not allow X to stay without paying rent. (Section 129)

4. A sells car to B saying “I am owner”. Sale deed is registered. Later real owner comes. B is protected because A is estopped by deed (Section 127).

Quick Revision One-Liners (Perfect for Last Minute)

• Estoppel is a rule of evidence, not a cause of action (except promissory estoppel against Govt).

• Estoppel binds only parties & privies.

• There is NO estoppel against a statute or sovereign acts.

• Section 128 = Old S.115 → most important section.

• Section 129 = Tenant cannot deny landlord’s title.

• Section 132 = No estoppel against minor.

• Promissory estoppel applies against Government also (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP, 1979).

Now revise these points, remember the 6–7 landmark cases, and you can easily solve any objective or 10–15 mark mains question on Estoppel under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

All the best for your judiciary/APO/CLAT-PG exam! Save & revise this note 3 times – Estoppel will become your scoring topic.

BSA 2023: Of Witnesses & Examination of Witnesses | Study Notes For Competitive Exams

Why this topic is extremely important

• 12–20 marks almost guaranteed in every Judiciary/APO Prelims & Mains

• Favourite area for 10–15 mark compulsory questions in Mains

• Directly linked with courtroom practice and trial advocacy skills

Chapter IX – Of Witnesses (Sections 66 to 77 BSA)

Who is competent to testify? (Section 66)

Every person is competent to testify unless the court considers that:

• he is unable to understand questions, or

• he cannot give rational answers because of tender age, old age, disease of mind or body.

Practical example: A 5-year-old child saw her mother being killed. Court will first conduct a small voir-dire test (preliminary questioning) to check if the child can understand questions and speak truth.

Landmark case: Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952) – Child witness is competent if she understands the duty to speak truth. No oath required for children.

Dumb witnesses (Section 67)

A witness who cannot speak can give evidence by writing or signs. Writing/signs will be treated as oral evidence. Real example: In sexual assault cases, speech-and-hearing-impaired victims often give evidence through sign-language interpreter.

Can husband/wife be witness against each other? (Section 70)

Yes, in both civil and criminal cases, except:

• Husband/wife cannot be forced to disclose marital communication made during marriage (Section 70 proviso).

Case: M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan (1970) – Letters written by husband to wife during marriage are privileged.

Accomplice Evidence – Section 73 (Most Important & Repeated Section)

An accomplice is a competent witness against the accused. Conviction on the sole testimony of an accomplice is not illegal, BUT it is an established rule of prudence that courts must look for independent corroboration in material particulars.

Landmark cases every aspirant must remember:

1. Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. (1952)

2. Haroom Haji v. State of Maharashtra (1968)

3. State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh (1958) – Corroboration must connect the accused with the crime, not merely confirm the incident.

Practical courtroom tip: Defence lawyers always argue – “My Lord, he is an approver, pardon-granted witness, his evidence needs strong corroboration.”

Hostile Witness (Section 75 + Section 133)

When a witness turns hostile (gives statement opposite to his previous Section 161 CrPC/Section 180 BSA statement), the party who called him can ask court to declare him hostile and cross-examine him.

Case: Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976) – Mere contradiction does not make a witness hostile. He must show active enmity or deliberate attempt to suppress truth.

Chapter X – Of Examination of Witnesses (Sections 78 to 88)

This is the heart of trial advocacy.

Three stages of examination (Section 78)

1. Examination-in-Chief – by the party who calls the witness

2. Cross-Examination – by the opposite party

3. Re-examination – again by the party who called him (only to explain matters raised in cross)

Leading Questions (Section 80–82) – Very important for objective questions

• Allowed in cross-examination

• Not allowed in examination-in-chief or re-examination (except introductory matters or undisputed facts)

Example: Wrong (in chief): “Did the accused stab the deceased with a knife?” (leading) Correct: “What did you see the accused do?” (open)

Case: Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala (1993) – Too many leading questions in chief can reduce weight of evidence.

Questions to attack character or impeach credit (Section 83–85)

In cross-examination you can ask:

• questions to test veracity

• questions to discover who he is and his position in life

• questions to shake his credit (previous convictions, bias, etc.)

Most famous illustration: Ask a witness – “Have you been convicted earlier for perjury?” If he denies, you can prove it with documents (Section 85).

Hostile witness cross by own side (Section 75 read with Section 83)

Once declared hostile, the party who called him can:

• cross-examine him

• confront him with his previous statement (Section 180 BSA)

• ask character-attacking questions

Case: Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai v. State of Gujarat (1964) – Evidence of hostile witness does not get completely washed off. Court can still rely on the part that is corroborated.

Refreshing Memory (Section 87)

A witness can refresh memory by looking at:

• any writing made by himself at the time or soon after

• or any document made by any other person but seen and verified by him at the time

Real courtroom scene: Police officer reads from case diary to recall exact time of arrest – perfectly allowed.

Judge’s power to ask questions (Section 88)

Judge can ask any question at any time to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts. No party can object.

Case: Ram Chander v. State of Haryana (1981) – Judge must not take over cross-examination, but can clear doubts.

Quick Revision One-Liners (Memorise these for MCQs)

• Child witness → competent if understands duty to speak truth – Rameshwar case

• Accomplice is competent but needs corroboration in material particulars – Section 73 + Kashmira Singh

• Husband/wife privileged only for marital communication – Section 70

• Leading questions allowed only in cross – Section 80

• Hostile witness can be cross-examined by own side – Section 75

• Judge can put questions any time – Section 88

• Previous statement can be used to contradict witness – Section 180 BSA (old 145 IEA)

Practical Mains Answer Tip

Whenever you get a problem question on witnesses:

1. First mention the relevant section (e.g., Section 73 BSA)

2. Quote the principle from landmark case (Kashmira Singh or Sat Paul)

3. Apply to facts

4. Conclude – “Hence evidence of PW-5 is admissible but requires corroboration.”

Master these two chapters and you will comfortably score 25–35 marks in Evidence paper of any judicial service exam. Happy studying!

BSA 2023: Oral and Documentary Evidence | Study Notes

Part A – Oral Evidence (Chapter XII – Sections 101–102)

Rule in simple words

All facts (except contents of documents or electronic records) can be proved only by oral evidence.

Section 101 BSA (old Section 59 IEA)

• Everything you hear in court from a witness’s mouth = oral evidence.

• Photographs, video clips, audio recordings shown through a witness are still treated as oral evidence if the witness is only describing what he saw/heard.

Section 102 BSA (old Section 60 IEA) – The Golden Rule of Oral Evidence

• “Oral evidence must be direct” Meaning: The witness must have

  1. Seen it himself (if it is something to be seen), OR

  2. Heard it himself (if it is something to be heard), OR

  3. Perceived it by other senses (touch, smell, taste), OR

  4. Formed the opinion himself (for opinion evidence).

Practical examples that come in exams every year

1. A says “My friend told me that B was drunk.” → This is hearsay → Not direct → Inadmissible.

2. A says “I myself saw B drinking alcohol.” → Direct → Admissible.

3. Police officer says “The informer told me the accused keeps drugs in his house.” → Hearsay → Cannot be used to prove drugs were actually there.

Landmark cases (must remember names)

• Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri (2007) – SC repeated: “Hearsay evidence is no evidence.”

• Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) – If a witness only heard from someone else that murder took place, his evidence is worthless.

Part B – Documentary Evidence (Sections 103–126)

Two big categories

1. Primary Evidence (Section 103)

2. Secondary Evidence (Section 104–108)

Primary Evidence – The Best Evidence (Section 103)

• Original document itself.

• If there are multiple originals (e.g., carbon copies signed at the same time), every copy is primary. Example: Original sale deed, original Will, original cheque.

Secondary Evidence – Allowed only in 5 situations (Section 104)

1. Original is with opposite party and he fails to produce after notice.

2. Original is with a person who cannot be compelled (e.g., President of India).

3. Original is lost or destroyed.

4. Original cannot be easily moved (land record in registry office).

5. Original is a public document (certified copy is enough).

Most important change in BSA 2023

Old Section 65B certificate is now merged inside the Act. New Section 63 BSA = Admissibility of electronic records (replaces old 65B).

• No separate certificate is needed if the party follows the conditions given in Section 63(2.

• Conditions are almost the same: device was working properly, information was regularly fed, duplicate is accurate, etc.

Public Document vs Private Document (Section 105)

Public document → Certified copy is enough (Section 105 & 74 old IEA). Examples: Birth certificate, FIR copy, voter list, revenue records. Private document → Original must come (unless secondary is allowed).

30-Year Old Document Presumption (Section 108 – old Section 90)

If a document is 30 years or older and produced from proper custody → Court will presume:

• Signature is genuine

• Document was duly executed No need to call attesting witness (very useful in old sale deeds, wills).

Landmark judgments every aspirant must quote

1. Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay (1957) – Even a telegram is a document.

2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) – Old 65B certificate was compulsory (now replaced by Section 63 BSA).

3. Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao (2020) – SC clarified conditions for Section 65B (same conditions now in Section 63).

4. State of Delhi v. Mohd. Afzal (2003) – Call data records (CDR) are electronic records → need certificate (now Section 63 compliance).

5. Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka (2000) – Mere photocopy without explaining original is worthless.

6. H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (2011) – Registered sale deed older than 30 years → presumption applies even if original is torn.

Quick Revision One-Liners (write on top of your notebook)

• Oral evidence → must be direct (Section 102)

• All documents = either primary or secondary

• Original lost → secondary allowed

• Electronic record → follow Section 63 conditions (no separate certificate)

• Public document → certified copy = primary evidence

• 30-year document from proper custody → signature & execution presumed

• Photograph of original document = secondary evidence

• Video recording played in court with Section 63 compliance = valid documentary evidence

Practical Mains Answer Tip

Whenever a question asks “Whether Exhibit P-5 (photocopy) is admissible?”, structure your answer like this:

1. Classify → Is it primary or secondary?

2. If secondary → Check any of the five conditions of Section 104 is satisfied.

3. If electronic → Check Section 63 compliance.

4. Conclude + cite one case.

These notes cover 90 % of the questions asked on Oral & Documentary Evidence in the last 5 judiciary and APO exams. Revise them 4–5 times and you are safe for both prelims and mains!

All the best for your exam!