28082675 documentry evidence evidence act project work

8/12/2019 28082675 Documentry Evidence Evidence Act Project Work

1/45

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

THE PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED

IN LIEU OF

PAPER-V OF PART- IV B.A LL.B

PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

ACADEMIC SESSION

2009-2010

SUPERVISED BY:- SUBMITTED BY:-

DR. B.S NIRWAN Ha!""#$%&'(

ROLLNO. )*+


2/45

BABA FARID LAW COLLEE, FARIDOT

CONTENTS

S NO.TOPIC .

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ORAL EVIDENCE. DOCUMENTARY

). E/PERT OPINON

*. CONCLUSION

2


3/45

INTRODUCTION

NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

Every case that comes before a court of

law has a fact story behind it facts out of which cases arise keephappening in the ordinary course of life. There is a crowded road forexample people are moving, vehicle are moving. Everyone is runningat unmitigated speed suddenly two vehicles run against each other.One of them being loaded with dynamite the accident produce anexplosion with a shocking noise as a result of which a noise in a near

by hospital drops a child from hands injuring the child cases arisingout of the accident with flow into the courts.

In each case the nature and cause of theaccident would be in uestion. The facts which led up to the climax

will have to reconstruct before the court. !o that judge is ableconsider the real happening. Only then he will be in position to applythe appropriate law to the fact to arrived at a just solution about theright and liabilities of the parties. Thus, whenever a judge is called

upon to pronounce upon the right and liabilities of parties arising outof fact certain information about the facts involved in his mind as towhat the real facts are facts must be proved in the first instances andthe only the matter is rife for application ofrelevant laws. The practical reality is that the truth or merits ofa case are worth less unless they can be proved to be acceptance of the

judge and there to enable him to act on them. The means by whichfacts are proved are governed by the law of evidence.The function of the law of evidence is lay down rules according to

which the facts of case can be proved or disproved before a court of

law. The means which can be used to prove a fact are all control bythe rules and principleslaid down by the law of evidence. The law of evidence does not affectsubstantive right of parties but only lays down the law for facilitatingthe rules of evidence for the purposes of the guidance of the court. Itis procedural law which provides inter alike how a fact is to be proved.

3


4/45

The evidence means any things by whichany alleged matter of facts is either establish or disproved. "ny thingthat makes the thing in uestion evidence to the court evidence.

#here the uestion is whether an explosion took place before a fireoccurred evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronicrecords can be produced as evidence. Even in criminal matter alsothere can be evidence by means of electronic records including video$conferencing.

The noise of the explosion and its flashare evidence of it. %ersons who can the flash or heard the noise cangive evidence of the fact of the explosion. If the happening of the factis recorded on any thing apart from human meaning, that record isalso an evidence of happening thus, evidence can be defined as anymaterial which tends to persuade the court of the truth or probability

of some fact asserted before.

MODES OF PROOF:-1. Oral evidene!. d"#$en%ar& evidene

Oral Evidene Se%i"n '(:-"ll facts, except the &contents ofdocuments or electronic records' contents of documents, may beproved by oral evidence.

De)ini%i"n ") "ral evidene :- Se * The meaning of expression(oral evidence) is given along with the definition of the term(evidence) in !ec *. this first part of the provision which definesevidence deal with oral evidence it says +$

"ll the statements which the courtpermits or reuires to be made before it by witness in relation to thematter of four under inuiry, such statements are called oral

evidence.

Oral evidence is evidence which is confined to words spokenby the mouth.

4


5/45

W"rd+ ") %,e Se%i"n:- This section is not very happily wordedcontents of documentary may be proved by oral evidence undercertain circumstances , that is to say when such evidence of theircontent is admissible as secondary evidence.

C"n%en%+ ") d"#$en% an n"% e r"ved & "ral evidene :-

It is rule of evidence not one oftechnically but of substance that, where written documentsexist they shall be produced as being two best evidence oftheir own contents.

W,a% )a% $a& e r"ved & "ral evidene:-Oral evidence maysuffice to prove possession oral evidence of credible would be

sufficient to prove a little by prescription.

Oral evidene /ei0, and val#e:-where oral evidence isconflicting and where documentary evidence does not help on incoming to a decisive conclusion the duly proper course is to see whatare the admitted fact in case and what case the circumstancededucible from the can be not doubt this can be the true method ofarising a correct conclusion.

SECTION 2.3 Oral evidene $#+% e dire% Oral evidence must, in all cases

whatever, be direct that is to say-if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a

witness who says he saw itif it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a

witness who says he heard itif it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or inany other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he

perceived it by that sense or in that mannerif it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion isheld, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion onthose grounds+%rovided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatisecommonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinionsare held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the

5


6/45

author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of givingevidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delayor expense which the ourt regards as unreasonable+%rovided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or conditionof any material thing other than a document, the ourt may, if itthinks fit, reuire the production of such material thing for itsinspection.

PRINCIPLE:- The first degree of moral evidence and that which ismost satisfactory to the mind is afforded by our own sense, this beingthe direct evidence of the highest nature. #here this can not be hadas is generally the case in the proof of fact by oral testimony.

Te+%i$"nial ele$en%+:-#hen a witness statement is offered as a

basis of an evidence in reference inference to the fact stated./oreover in the function fulfilled by each these three element orprocesses are to be found in general from the fundamental can not forassigning to each its probative value. Thus the nation of perceptionthat the external event has is some way or other impressed itself oncorrespond to the witness, then should adeuately respected orcorrespond to the fact itself as it objectively existed or exist. Thestrength of the inference depends on the probability of a fairlyaccurate on the part of witness.

4eneral ,#$an %rail+ a))e%in0 %e+%i$"n&: - 0ut the individualwitness testimony is affected not merely by the condition inherent inthere three elements of testimony, but also by enabled to generali1e.These generali1e common to large of individual may at time find himset.

Rae:-In respect to the element of testimony perception,recollection and narration professional any scientific observationhave thus for contributed little knowledge that is serviceable in

estimating the influence of value upon testimony in judicialproceeding.

In this connection there are severalmore condition pertaining to general sense perception.2irst of all there is that so called vicariousness of sense which!ubstitute. One sense for another in representation.

6


7/45

The vicariousness of visual sensation are the most humerous and themost important. "ny body who has been pushed or beaten and hasfelt the blow will of other circumstance permit and the impulse bestrong be strong enough be convicted that he has been seen hisassaulter and manner of the assault.

CASE:-ASHO5 5UMAR ROUT 6 ETC V7S STATE OF 8IHAR

FACT:- "dmissibility of oral evidence faction of statement and truthof statement of all hearsay statement and truth of statement of allhearsay statement is not inadmissible. There is distinction between proving the faction

of statement and proving truth of statement. It is admissible if

such evidence proposes to establish only the faction ofstatement made by other person and not the truth of statement.

3uidance of informant only proposed toestablish faction of statement which was given to him by eye

witness. Therefore, it is admissible and it can not be rejected.

4 D"#$en%4.4 5ocument4 6& means any matter expressed ordescribed upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks,or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or whichmay be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.Ill#+%ra%i"n+ :- " writing 7& is a document+7& #ords printed lithographed or photographed are documents+ " map or plan is a document+ "n inscriptionon a metal plate or stone is a document+ " caricature is adocument.4 Evidence.44 Evidence4 means and includes$$ 869 all statements

which the ourt permits or reuires to be made before it bywitnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inuiry such

statements are called oral evidence 879 all documents produced forthe inspection of the ourt such documents are calleddocumentary evidence.4 %roved.4 " fact is said to be proved when,after considering the matters before it, the ourt either believes itto exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent manought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon

7


8/45

the supposition that it exists.4 5isproved.4 " fact is said to bedisproved when, after considering the matters before it, the ourteither believes that it does not exist, or considers its non$ existenceso probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of

the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does notexist.4 :ot proved.4 " fact is said not to be proved when it is neitherproved nor disproved.4 India.4 *& India4 means the territory ofIndia excluding the !tate of ;ammu and


9/45

without affording an opportunity to be other party to test the veracityof its contents by cross$examination, cannot be a proof of its contents.

SECTION !.3 Pri$ar& evidene:-

%rimary evidence means thedocuments itself produced for the inspection of the ourt.

Explanation 6 $ #here a document is executed in several parts, eachpart is primary evidence of the document+

#here a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart beingexecuted by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart isprimary evidence as against the parties executing it.

Explanation 7$ #here a number of documents are all made by oneuniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, orphotography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest but,

where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primaryevidence of the contents of the original.

Ill#+%ra%i"n+:-

" person is shown to have been in possession ofa number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. "nyone of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other,

but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.

SECTION *.3 Se"ndar& evidene:

!econdary evidence means and includes$

869 ertified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained

9


10/45

879 opies made from the original by mechanical processes which inthemselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared

with such copies.

8*9 opies made from or compared with the original

8F9 ounterparts of documents as against the parties who did notexecute them

8G9 Oral accounts of the contents of a documents given by someperson who has himself seen it

Ill#+%ra%i"n:-

8a9 " photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents,

though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thingphotographed was the original.

8b9 " copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copyingmachine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it isshown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from theoriginal.

8c9 " copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with theoriginal, is secondary evidence but he copy not so compared is notsecondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it

was transcribed was compared with the original.

8d9 :either an oral account of a copy compared with the original, noran oral account of a photograph or machine copy of the original, issecondary evidence of the original.

1. Cer%i)ied "ie+ #nder %,e r"vi+i"n 0iven in %,e EvideneA% :-

!ection CB of the evidence act laysdown that every public officer having custody of a publicdocument shall give to a person, on demand of, and onpayment of legal fee s, a copy of it 8public document9.

10


11/45

!. C"ie+ $ade )r"$ %,e "ri0inal & $e,anial r"e++:-

"cc to this clause,

8a9 copies made from the original by mechanical process

8b9 copies compared with such copies, are secondary evidence oforiginal.

*. C"ie+ $ade )r"$ "r "$ared /i%, %,e "ri0inal:-

If a copy is prepared wordto word from the original it is secondary evidence of the original. Inthis case even a copy of a document which is not a public documentcan be given in secondary evidence.

CASE:-

5. LA;MANAN V7S THE55A9I PADMINI AND

OTHERS

AIR 2009 S.C 951

FACT:- Onus of proving the will is on the pro$ponder. The%ro$ponder has to prove the legality of execution andgeniuses of the will by proving absence of suspiciouscircumstances surrounding the testator capacity and thesignature of the testator. #hen there are suspicious

circumstances regarding the execution of the will, the onus isalso on the pro$ponder to explain then to the satisfaction ofthe court and only when such responsibility is discharged.The court would accept the will as genuine.

11


12/45


13/45

(!econdary evidence should not be allowed unless the circumstances

are a sufficient justification under the Evidence "ct for reception of

secondary in lien of primary evidence.) In "IH 6DGF ! GB, It was

observed that, (" foundation must first be laid for the reception ofsecondary evidence. /erely stating that a document could not be

found is not sufficient to permit the admission of secondary

evidence.) It was held in "IH 6DGL "% F6G (50) that. !ection BG

permits that leading of secondary evidence only where the original

has been lost. It must be establish that the party has exhausted all the

for it or loss thereof proved, secondary evidence cannot beallowed.

SECTION =.3Pr"") ") d"#$en%+ & ri$ar& evidene:-

5ocuments must b proved by

primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.

!ection BF lays down the best evidence with reference to

documentary evidence. It says that the best evidence of the contents

of the document is the document itself i.e., the original document.

SECTION '.3 Ca+e+ in /,i, +e"ndar& evidene rela%in0%" d"#$en%+ $a& e 0iven:-

!econdary evidence may be given of

the existence, condition or contents of a document in the followingcases+

8a9 #hen the original is shown or appears to be in the possession orpower of the person against whom the document is sought to beproved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the processof the ourt, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when,

13


14/45

after the notice mentioned in !ection BB, such person does notproduce it

8b9 #hen the existence, condition or contents of the original havebeen proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom itis proved or by his representative in interest

8c9 #hen the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the partyoffering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason notarising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time

8d9 #hen the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable

8e9 #hen the original is a public document within the meaning of!ection CF

8f9 #hen the original is a document of which a certified copy ispermitted by this "ct, or by any other law in force in India to be givenin evidence

8g9 #hen the originals consist of numerous accounts or otherdocuments which cannot conveniently be examined in ourt, and thefact to be proved is the general result of the whole collections.

In cases 8a9, 8c9 and 8d9, any secondary evidence of the contents of thedocuments is admissible.

In case 8b9, the written admission is admissible.

In case 8e9 or 8f9, a certified copy of the document, but no other kindof secondary evidence, is admissible.

In a+e >0?@ evidene $a& e 0iven a+ %" %,e 0eneral re+#l% ") %,e

d"#$en%+ & an& er+"n /," ,a+ ea$ined %,e$@ and /," i+ +Billed

in %,e ea$ina%i"n ") +#, d"#$en%+.

Cases in which secondary evidence of document may be given:-

Acc to Sec 65 the secondary evidence about the contents of a

document is admissible under the following circumstances:

14


15/45

4#ra Sin0, Alia+ 8aa Sin0, v+ 8,al Sin0, And O%,er+

I: T?E ?I3? O@HT O2%@:;"0 ":5 ?"HM":" "T ?":5I3"H"ppeal :o. F6D of6DLC

I: T?E ?I3? O@HT O2 %@:;"0 ":5 ?"HM":" "T ?":5I3"H?

"ppeal :o. F6D of 6DLC8695ate of 5ecision+ "ugust 7B, 7D

earned counsel for the appellant contends that since

@nregistered mortgage deed has neither been produced nor acertified copy there of has been produced, thus, oral evidence ofcontents of such mortgage can be led in terms of !ection BG8c9 of the

Evidence "ct.

?e has relied upon /st. 0ibi "isha and others vs. The 0ihar !ubai!unni /ajlis "vaaf

and others,

"IH 6DBD ! 7G*. It is contended that sections D6 and D7 of theEvidence "ct exclude oral evidence of contents of the document whenthe document is available. 0ut when the document is being proved by

secondary evidence, it can consistof oral evidence of the contents ofthe document as well. Heliance is placed upon ;upudi


16/45

@nder section BF, documents must be proved by primary

evidence except in cases mentioned thereafter. !ection BG allowssecondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or

contents of a document in circumstances specified in lauses 8a9 to8g9 thereof. @nder !ection D6 when the relevant portion of a contractor of a grant or of any other disposition of property has been reducedto the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of theterms except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contentsin cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under theprovisions here in before contained.

Ca+e:- 4"al 5ri+,na 5#$ar V. P#ran Sin0,

The 5ocument reffering to payment by cheue, excuted bydefenedant in favour of plaintiff. The impugned document could besaid to be said to be in possession of defendant.

The plea of defendant that the saiddocument was is in possession of income tax department. 0estevidence which was very foundation of said document was also inpossession of defendant. It was held by %unjab K ?aryana ?igh ourtthat grant of permission to plaintiff to lead secondary evidence inrespect of it was proper. It should not be intrerfered with. ?oweverthe permission should stand subject to the condition that leave begranted to the plaintiff to summon witness from income taxdepartment.

SURINDER 5AUR VS. SARDAR MAN4AL SIN4H.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCEACT, 1872

C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

%resent revision petition has been filed for setting aside orders dated6Gth 5ecember 6DDC and Gth /ay, 6DDL,

16


17/45


18/45

8G9 #hen the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of thedocument

8B9 #hen the person in possession of the document is out of reach of,or not subject to, the process of the ourt

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

K.sundasrse V. State AIR 1950 !ad "5#

Dwar$a V. %ar&anand 1# A'( #11

SECTION .3 Pr"") ") +i0na%#re and ,and/ri%in0 ")er+"n alle0ed %" ,ave +i0ned "r /ri%%en d"#$en%r"d#ed

If a document is alleged to besigned or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, thesignature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is allegedto be in that personQs handwriting must be proved to be in his hand

writing.

!ection BC of the Indian Evidence "ct 6LC7 provides inter aliathat if a document is alleged to be signed by any person thesignature must be proved to be in his handwriting.!ections FG and FC of the said "ct prescribed the method in

which such signature can be proved. @nder !ection FG, theopinion of the handwriting experts is relevant while under!ection FC the opinion of any person acuainted with thehandwriting of the person who is alleged to have signed thedocument is admissible.The explanation to the section explains when a person can besaid to be acuainted with the handwriting of another person.

S%a%e O) U.P V7S Hari M",an and "%,er+

etter written by deceasedto her father stating that she should be immediately taken back

18


19/45

from house of in$ laws otherwise her in$ laws and the husbandwould kill her. ?andwriting of deceased was proved by testimonyof her brother. :o effort was made by the accused to get itcompared with admitted handwriting of accused.

SECTION -A. Pr"") a+ %" di0i%al +i0na%#re:-

Except in the case of asecure digital signature, if the signature of any subscriber isalleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the factthat such digital signature is the digital signature of the

subscriber must be proved.

@nder this section therefore, all non$secure digital signatures need to be proved with the personsubmitting such a document also ensuring at his cost andresponsibility verification of the digital signature as per!ection C*" of the Indian Evidence "ct which reuires4!ome other person to apply the public key listed in thedigital signature certificate and verify the digital signature

purported to have been affixed by that person4.

SECTION .PPr"") ") ee#%i"n ") d"#$en% reG#ired &la/ %" e a%%e+%ed:-

If a document is reuired by law tobe attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witnessat least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, ifthere be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of thecourt and capable of giving evidence +

%rovided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness inproof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has

been registered in accordance with the provisions of the IndianHegistration "ct, 6DL 86B of 6DL9, unless its execution by the person

by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.

19


20/45

CASE:- V. LaB+,$inara&an V7S S.V 8ala+#ra$anian

AIR 2009)N*C+10"2)!AD+

Fa%:- %laintiff and defendant are sons of deceased who had

executed will first defendant one of sons of testator alleged that willis not genuine. Thought at testing witness were not alive to beexamined, identifying witness who was a known family friendcategorically stated that testator was in sound disposing state ofmind. The other sons and daughters of deceased had not disputesgenuineness of will. Explanation given by plaintiff regardingdifference dates of presentation and registration of will wasacceptable plaintiff is entitled to decree in testamentary suit.


21/45

all or any of them, who is alive, is not capable of giving evidence, or ifthe document purports to be executed in united kingdom, the courtcannot compel the production of the attesting witnesses.

SECTION 2.3 Ad$i++i"n ") ee#%i"n & ar%& %" a%%e+%edd"#$en% The admission of a party toan attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficientproof of its execution as against him, though it be a documentreuired by law to be attested.

!cope+$ This section lays down that if a document, reuired by law tobe attested, is produced in a proceeding and if the executant admitsits execution, it shall be sufficient proof of its execution against him. "files a suit against 0 for recovery of the plots in dispute in his favour.

" files the mortgage deed before the court, 0 admits the execution ofthe mortgage deed. It shall be presumed against 0 that the mortgage

was executed.

SECTION 1 .3 Pr"") /,en a%%e+%in0 /i%ne++ denie+ %,eee#%i"n - If the attesting witness

denies or does not recollect the execution of the document itsexecution may be proved by other evidence.

Prinile.3 !ection C6 provides that witness denies or does notrecollect the execution of a document, its execution may be proved byany other evidence .very often it happens that when a witness is called

by party to a proceeding he colludes with the opposite part y anddeposes that he does not recollect anything about the deed. In suchcases it becomes difficult for the parties producing the deed to provethe document through him. 2or such contingencies !ection C6 makes

a provision that in such cases document may be proved by otherevidence. This section is one of the exception to the rule laid down insection BL !ection C6 applies only when an attesting witness is calledand he fails prove the document.

In


22/45

It was held bysupreme court that !ection C6 of evidence act is the nature ofsafeguard to possible to prove the execution of will by callingattestation witness.

SECTION !.3 Pr"") ") d"#$en% n"% reG#ired & la/ %" ea%%e+%ed.3 "n attested document notreuired by law to be attested may b proved as if it was unattested.

Prinile.3The section lays down the procedure of proving adocument which though not reuirement by law to be attested, If adocument is not reuired by law to be attested but the parties beingover1ealous for making the document legal had got it attested , it mayproved like a deed which is not reuired by law to be attested. "

executes a sales$deed in favour of 0. he signs the deed and gets itattested by and 5. 0 files a suit against " on the basis of this sale$deed for possession. " denied the execution of sale$deed. 0 summonsthe scribes of the deed and then deposes that the deed was executed

by " and signed by him in presence of the witness. The deed will betaken to be proved. The attestation is to be proved.

SECTION *.3 C"$ari+"n ") +i0na%#re@ /ri%in0 "r +eal

/i%, "%,er+ ad$i%%ed "r r"ved. - In order toascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person bywhom it purports to have been written or made, any signature,writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the ourt tohave been written or made by that person may be compared with theone which s to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal hasnot been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The ourt may direct any person present in ourt to write any wordsor figures for the purpose of enabling the ourt to compare the words

or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have beenwritten by such person.

This section applies also with any necessary modifications, to finger$impressions.

22


23/45

CASE.3 Vela0a +ivara$e 5ri+,na V. Vela0a Veera,adraRa" 6 Anr

AIR !22(

#henever a party disputes the signature on a particular documenttwo remedies are open to him either to reuest the court to comparethe signature or to file an application to send to document to theexpert for comparisons. #hen the petitioner opted to file anapplication expert, no prejudice will caused to either party.

!ection C* of the Indian Evidence "ct provides that in order toascertain. #hether a writing is that of the person by whom it purportsto have been written any writing admitted or proved to thesatisfaction of the court to have been written by that person may becompared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature,

writing has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. %ara7 of the section provides that the court may direct any person presentin court to write in words or figures for the purpose of enabling thecourt to compare words or figures alleged to have been written bysuch person.

In the course of criminal proceedings before a magistrate theprosecution alleged that one of the basic documents which was of

vital importance to establish the case against the accused was in thehandwriting of the accused but it could not be compared by thehandwriting expert with any specimen writing of the accused becausethe latter avoided to give any specimen writing and that in theinterest of justice the court should direct him to give his specimen

writing. Exercising the courtQs power under s. C* of the Evidence "ctthe /agistrate directed the accused to give his specimen handwritingto have it examined by a handwriting expert.

SECTION *-A.3Pr"") a+ %" veri)ia%i"n ") di0i%al

+i0na%#re.3 In order to ascertain whether a digital signature is thatof the person by whom it purports to have been affixed, the court maydirect$

)a+ that person or the controller or the certifying authority toproduce the digital signature certification

23


24/45

)-+ "ny other person to apply the public key listed in the digitalsignature certificate and verify the digital signaturepurported to have been affixed by that person.)

Explanation.P 2or the purposes of this section (ontroller) meansthe controller appointed under sub$section 869 of section 6C of theInformation technology "ct, 7.

P#li D"#$en%+

SECTION =.3P#li d"#$en%+ -The following documents are%ublic documents$

869 5ocuments forming the acts, or records of the acts

8a9 Of the sovereign authority,

8ii9 Of Official bodies and the Tribunals, and

8iii9 Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part ofIndia or of the ommonwealth, or of a foreign country.

879 %ublic records kept in any !tate of private documents.

CASE. T,e #li In)"r$a%i"n O))ier V7S A.P In)"r$a%i"n6 Anr.

AIR !22(

/untakhab is essentially document with list of names with numberoffields heldby originalgranter or his successors. " certificate issued

by competent authority recogni1ing succession froms part ofmuntakhab and sometimes by itself is a muntakhab. #hen a

document recogni1es successors on title and such decision is based onenuiry essentially there is determination of right.

It is certain by not only between rivars staking claim to propertymentioned in muntakhab but declaration contained the operatesagainst entire word in the sense it is judgment in rem.

24


25/45

SECTION '.3 Priva%e d"#$en%+ - All "%,er d"#$en%+ areriva%e.

Distinction Between Public Document and Private Document

1. %ublic document is prepared by public %ublic servants indischarge of his public duties.

1. %rivate documents are those documents which are prepared bya person for his private right.

2. %ublic documents are available for inspection to public in publicofficer during appointed time after payment of fixed fee.

7. %rivate documents are kept in custody of the person to whom itbelongs and is not available for general inspection to public.

3. The secondary copy of public document is to be admitted injudicial proceedings.

3. 0efore proving one of conditions laid down under section BG thesecondary evidence of original.

F. "s general rule the public document is proved by secondaryevidence.

4. "s general rule the private document is to proved by originalprimary evidence.

5. The court is bound to presume the genuinenss of publicdocument from their duly certified secondary copy.

6. :o presumption is made about genuinenss of originaldocument from secondary evidence of private document exceptin some exceptional circumstances.

SECTION .3 Cer%i)ied "ie+ ") P#li D"#$en%+ -Everypublic officer having the custody of a public document, which anyperson has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copyof it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate

written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such documentor part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be datedand subscribed by such officers with his name and his official title,and shall be sealed whenever such officer is authori1ed by law to

25


26/45

make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be calledcertified copies.

Explanation -"ny officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty,is authori1ed to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have thecustody of such documents or parts of the public documents of whichthey purport to be copies.

SECTION .3 Pr"") ") d"#$en%+ & r"d#%i"n ")er%i)ied "ie+ - !uch certifiedcopies may be produced in proof of the contents of the publicdocuments or parts of the public documents of which they purport to

be copies.

S"e.3!ection CC lays down that when the contents of publicdocuments are to be proved before the court of law, the original neednot be produced before the court. Instead of a certified copy takenfrom the office according to section CB may be produced before thecourt and the court will accept it. The idea underlying this principle isthat the record of a court should not be taken away from its place ofcustody into courts. If public records are summoned in courts it

would make it impossible for the time being for others to use records.ases take years to be decided. !uppose a particular public documentis produced in one court in 6D*B and the case linger on upto 6DFB.

CASE.3 4ee%a Marine Servie+ v%. L%d 6 Anr

V7+

S%a%e 6 Anr.

AIR !22( >NOC? ('1 8"$

In trial for offence of dishonour of cheue where after filling of

affidavit of examination$in$chief and after recording formalexamination$in$chief of the concerned witness an objection warraised regarding proof of documents or insufficiency of proof, it hasto be death with immediately by the learned magistrate beforeproceeding with the recording of cross examination.Only in a case

where the said adjudication involes a decision on complicated

26


27/45

uestion. #hich reuire a very detailed adjudication. It can bepostponed till the final hearing.

SECTION .3 Pr"") ") "%,er "))iial d"#$en%+:-Thefollowing public documents may be proved as follows+$

869 "cts, orders or notifications of the entral 3overnment in any ofits departments, or of the rown Hepresentative or of any !tate3overnment or any department of any !tate 3overnment,$$

by the records of the departments, certified by the heads of thosedepartments respectively, or by any document purporting to beprinted by order of any such 3overnment or as the case may be, of therown Hepresentative

879 the proceedings of the egislatures,$$

0y the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published "cts oabstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed by order of the3overnment concerned

8*9 proclamations, orders or regulations issued by ?er /ajesty or bythe %rivy ouncil. Or by any department of ?er /ajesty>s3overnment,$$

by copies or extracts contained in the ondon 3a1ette, or purportingto be printed by the Rueen>s printer

8F9 the acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the egislature of aforeign country,$$

by journals published by their authority, or commonly received inthat country as such, or by a copy certified under the seal of thecountry or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in some entral "ct

8G9 the proceedings of a municipal body in a !tate,$$

by a copy of such proceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, orby a printed book purporting to be published by the authority of suchbody

27


28/45


29/45


30/45

presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority ofthe entral 3overnment or any !tate 3overnment were so made, andare accurate, but maps or plans made for the purposes of any causemust be proved to be accurate.

SECTION =.3Pre+#$%i"n a+ %" "lle%i"n+ ") la/+ andre"r%+ ") dei+i"n+ $ The ourt shallpresume the genuineness of every book purporting to be printed andpublished under the authority of the 3overnment of any country, andto contain any of the laws of that country

and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of theourts of such country.

SECTION'.3 Pre+#$%i"n a+ %" "/er+-")-a%%"rne& .- Theourt shall presume that every document purporting to be a power$of$ attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by,a notary public, or any ourt, ;udge, /agistrate, Indian onsul or

Nice$ onsul, or representative of the entral 3overnment, was soexecuted and authenticated.

SECTION '.A3Pre+#$%i"n a+ %" ele%r"ni a0ree$en%+.3The ourt shall presume that every electronic record purporting to bean agreement containing the digital signatures of the parties.

SECTION '.83Pre+#$%i"n a+ %" ele%r"ni re"rd+ anddi0i%al +i0na%#re.3

)1+ In any proceeding involving a secure electronic record,the court shall presume unless contrary is proved, thatthe secure electronic record has not been altered sincethe specific point of time to which the secure statusrelates.

)2+ In any proceedings, involving secure digital signature,

the court shall presume unless the contrary is provedthat$

)a+ the secure digital signature is affixed by subscriberwith the intention of signing or approving theelectronic record

30
http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/indian-evidence-act/Section85A-Indian-Evidence-Act.htmlhttp://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/indian-evidence-act/Section85A-Indian-Evidence-Act.htmlhttp://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/indian-evidence-act/Section85A-Indian-Evidence-Act.htmlhttp://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/indian-evidence-act/Section85A-Indian-Evidence-Act.html


31/45

)-+ except in the case of a secure electronic record or asecure digital signature, nothing in this section shallcreate any presumpting relating to authenticity andintegrity of the electronic record or any digitalsignature.

SECTION'-C.3Pre+#$%i"n a+ %" di0i%al +i0na%#reer%i)ia%e+.3 The court shallpresume, unless contrary is proved that the information listed in adigital signature certificate is correct, except for information specifiedas subscriber information which has not been verified, if thecertificate was accepted by the subscriber.

SECTION.3Pre+#$%i"n a+ %" er%i)ied "ie+ ") )"rei0n

#diial re"rd+. - The Courtsmay presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy ofany judicial record of any country and not forming part of India or of?er /ajesty>s dominions is genuine and accurate, if the documentpurports to be certified in any manner which is certified by anyrepresentative of the entral 3overnment in or for such country to bethe manner commonly in use in that country for the certification ofcopies of judicial records.

"n Officer who, with respect to any territory or place not forming part

of India or ?er /ajesty>s dominions, is a %olitical "gent therefore, asdefined in section *, clause 8F*9, of the 3eneral lause "ct, 6LDC,shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be arepresentative of the entral 3overnment in and for the countrycomprising that territory of place.

SECTION .3 Pre+#$%i"n a+ %" ""B+@ $a+ and ,ar%+.-The ourts may presume that any book to which it may refer forinformation on matters of public or general interest, and that anypublished map or chart, the statements of which are relevant facts

and which is produced for its inspection, was written and publishedby the person and at the time and place, by whom or at which itpurports to have been written or published.

SECTION .3 Pre+#$%i"n a+ %" Tele0ra,i Me++a0e+ $

31


32/45


33/45


34/45


35/45


36/45


37/45


38/45


39/45


40/45


41/45


42/45

be proved by oral evidence but the best evidence rule generallyexcludes oral evidence where documentary evidence existed, asdocumentary evidence is principle is found in sec D6 to D7 of theIndian evidence act, which make documentary evidence ofexclusive evidence of certain matter and conclusive of other.

!ec D6+$ Excludes the oral evidence* of certain matter which are+$

869 Heuired by law to be reduced in the form of a documeny.(2) "s the terms of all contracts, grants are disposition of property

where such term have been reduced to writing by the own sweetwill of the parties to such contract, grant or disposition ofproperty.

!ec D7+$of the Indian evidence act makes oral evidenceinadmissible to contradict very add or subtract from the terms of acontract grant or disposition of property or any matter reuired bylaw to be reduced to the form of a documents. ?owever may begiven to prove the facts as mentioned in the provision 86 to B9 ofthe sec D7.

42


43/45


44/45

The source of direct evidence is the personwho present in the court and giving evidence but on the opposite sidevalue of primary evidence is the highest value. 2rom the abovediscussion primary evidence has more than oral evidence.

BIBLIORAPHY

2or research work I have used no. of reference books and various law

journals. Those are as follows:-

8OO5 REFERRED:-

1. T,e La/ ") Evidene JJJ.33333Mr.8a%#B Lal!. T,e Prinile ") la/ ") Evidene..33Dr Av%ar Sin0,*. T,e La/ ") EvideneJJJ.33333Mr.Ra%%an Lal 6

D,ira Lal

=. 8a+#K+ La/ ") EvideneJJ33333Mr. P.M 8aB+,i

LAW


45/45

=. S#re$e C"#r% Ca+e+ WeeBl&

28082675 documentry evidence evidence act project work

Documents