Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, 2023 is introduced in Lok Sabha

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA (SECOND) BILL, 2023 (Bill No. 175 of 2023) is introduced in Lok Sabha on 12th December 2023. The bill seek to replace Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Earlier bill presented was withdrawn by Home Minister Amit Shah.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was enacted in the year 1872 with a view to consolidate the law relating to evidence on which the Court could come to the conclusion about the facts of the case and then pronounce judgment thereupon and it came into force on 1st September, 1872.

2. The experience of seven decades of Indian democracy calls for comprehensive review of our criminal laws including the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adopt them in accordance with the contemporary needs and aspirations of the The law of evidence (not being substantive or procedural law), falls in the category of “adjective law”, that defines the pleading and methodology by which the substantive or procedural laws are operationalised. The existing law does not address the technological advancement undergone in the country during the last few decades.

3. Accordingly, a Bill, namely, the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 11th August, The Bill was referred to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs for its consideration and report. The Committee after deliberations made its recommendations in its report submitted on 10th November, 2023. The recommendations made by the Committee have been considered by the Government and it has been decided to withdraw the Bill pending in Lok Sabha and introduce a new Bill incorporating therein those recommendations made by the Committee that have been accepted by the Government.

4. The proposed legislation, inter alia, provides as under:—

(i) it provides that “evidence” includes any information given electronically, which would permit appearance of witnesses, accused, experts and victims through electronic means;

(ii) it provides for admissibility of an electronic or digital record as evidence having the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as any other document;

(iii) it seeks to expand the scope of secondary evidence to include copies made from original by mechanical processes, copies made from or compared with the original, counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them and oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it and giving matching hash value of original record will be admissible as proof of evidence in the form of secondary evidence;

(iv) it seeks to put limits on the facts which are admissible and its certification as such in the courts. The proposed Bill introduces more precise and uniform rules of practice of courts in dealing with facts and circumstances of the case by means of evidence.

5. The Notes on Clauses explain the various provisions of the Bill.

6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.

NEW DELHI;

The 9th December, 2023.

AMIT SHAH.

Notes on clauses

Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to provide for short title, application and commencement.

Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to provide for definition of certain expressions used in the proposed Legislation.

Clause 3 of the Bill relates to evidence given of facts in issue and relevant facts.

It seeks to provide evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts declared to be relevant, and of no others. It further explains that this clause shall not enable any person to give evidence of fact which he is disentitles to prove relating to Civil Procedure.

Clause 4 of the Bill relates to relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.

It seeks to provide that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Clause 5 of the Bill relates to facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue or relevant facts.

It seeks to provide that facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.

Clause 6 of the Bill relates to motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.

It seeks to provides that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

It is proposed that the conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person, an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. It further explains the expression of the word “conduct”.

Clause 7 of the Bill relates to facts necessary to explain or introduce fact in issue or relevant facts.

It seeks to provides that facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything, or person whose identity, is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant insofar as they are necessary for that purpose.

Clause 8 of the Bill relates to things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.

It seeks to provide that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.

Clause 9 of the Bill relates to facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.

It seeks to provide that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant that if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact and if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

Clause 10 of the Bill relates to facts tending to enable Court to determine amount are relevant in suits for damages.

It inter alia provides that suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant.

Clause 11 of the Bill relates to facts relevant when right or custom is in question.

It deals with the question of the existence of any right or custom, the facts are relevant, that any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence and particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.

Clause 12 of the Bill relates to facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling.

It seeks to provide that facts showing the existence of any state of mind such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.

It further provides in Explanations 1 and 2 that the relevant state of mind and previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant fact.

Clause 13 of the Bill relates to facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional.

It seeks to provide that there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

Clause 14 of the Bill relates to existence of course of business when relevant.

It seeks to provide that there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.

Clause 15 of the Bill defined the term “Admission”.

It defined that an admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

Clause 16 of the Bill relates to Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.

It inter alia provides that the statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to make them, are admissions.

It is further proposed that statements made in suits in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character and further persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.

Clause 17 of the Bill relates to admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit.

It seeks to provide that the statements made by persons whose position or liability, it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject to such liability.

Clause 18 of the Bill relates to admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit.

It deals with the statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.

Clause 19 of the Bill relates to admissibility of proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.

It provides that the admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest.

It further provides exception in certain cases in which statement of facts in issue or relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found. It is also exempted that where an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable and if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

Clause 20 of the Bill deals when an oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant.

It provides that oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.

Clause 21 of the Bill deals as to admissions in civil cases when relevant.

It provides that in civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

Clause 22 of the Bill relates to confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.

It provides that confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

Clause 23 of the Bill deals with the confession to police officer.

It explains that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him.

It further provides in the proviso that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Clause 24 of the Bill relates to consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.

It provides that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. It further explains the term “Offence”; and it also explains that the trial conducted in the absence of an accused or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is deemed to be a joint trial.

Clause 25 of the Bill deals that admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop.

It provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppels.

Clause 26 of the Bill relates to the cases in which statement of facts in issue or relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.

It provides inter alia deals with statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves or relevant facts, in case of statement of a person, resulted in his death; in the ordinary course of business; against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person; the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any public right or custom or matters of public or general interest; the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption between persons.

Clause 27 of the Bill deals with the relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding.

It provides that evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross- examine and the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.

Clause 28 of the Bill relates to entries in books of account when relevant.

It provides that the entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.

Clause 29 of the Bill relates to relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty.

It provides that an entry made in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record or an electronic record, is kept, is itself a relevant fact.

Clause 30 of the Bill relates to relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans.

It provides that the Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts, made in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government, as to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts.

Clause 31 of the Bill relates to relevancy of statement as to fact of public nature contained in certain Acts or notifications.

It provides that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any fact of a public nature, any statement of it, made in a recital contained in any Central Act or State Act or in a Central Government or State Government notification appearing in the respective Official Gazette or in any printed paper or in electronic or digital form purporting to be such Gazette, is a relevant fact.

Clause 32 of the Bill relates to relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law books including electronic or digital form.

It provides that when the Court has to form an opinion as to a law of any country, any statement of such law contained in a book purporting to be printed or published including in electronic or digital form under the authority of the Government of such country and to contain any such law, and any report of a ruling of the Courts of such country contained in a book including in electronic or digital form purporting to be a report of such rulings, is relevant.

Clause 33 of the Bill relates to evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers.

It provides that any statement of which evidence is given forms part of a longer statement, or of a conversation or part of an isolated document, or is contained in a document which forms part of a book, or is contained in part of electronic record or of a connected series of letters or papers, evidence shall be given of so much and no more of the statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers as the Court considers necessary in that particular case to the full understanding of the nature and effect of the statement, and of the circumstances under which it was made.

Clause 34 of the Bill relates to previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.

It provides that the existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial.

Clause 35 of the Bill relates to relevancy of certain judgements in exercise of jurisdiction in execution of probate, etc.

It inter alia provide relevancy of final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court or Tribunal, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant and the said judgment, order, decree is conclusive proof.

Clause 36 of the Bill relates to relevancy and effect of judgements, orders or decrees, other those mentioned in clause 35.

It provides that Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in clause 35 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.

Clause 37 of the Bill relates to Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in clauses 34, 35 and 36 when relevant.

It provides that the judgments or orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in clauses 34, 35 and 36 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment or order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Adhiniyam.

Clause 38 of the Bill relates to fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.

It provides that any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under clause 34, 35 or 36, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

Clause 39 of the Bill relates to opinions of experts.

It provides that the Court has to form an opinion of the experts upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts and such specially skilled persons are called experts, and matters relating to any information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is a relevant fact.

Clause 40 of the Bill relates to the facts bearing upon opinions of experts.

It provides that the facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.

Clause 41 of the Bill relates to the opinion as to hand writing and signature, when relevant.

It provides that the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person and electronic signature of any person, is a relevant fact.

It further provides that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the electronic signature of any person, the opinion of the Certifying Authority which has issued the Electronic Signature Certificate is a relevant fact.

It also explains that person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person to write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.

Clause 42 of the Bill relates to relevancy of opinion as to existence of general custom or right. It further explains that expression “general custom or right” includes customs or rights common to any considerable class of persons.

It provides that the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right, the opinions, as to the existence of such custom or right, of persons who would be likely to know of its existence if it existed, are relevant.

Clause 43 of the Bill relates to relevancy of opinion as to usage, tenets, etc.

It provides that the Court has to form an opinion as to the usages and tenets, of any body of men or family, the constitution and governance of any religious or charitable foundation, or the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people, the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge thereon, are relevant facts.

Clause 44 of the Bill relates to relevancy of opinion on relationship.

It provides that the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of persons on the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact, provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act, 1869, or in prosecutions under sections 82 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Clause 45 of the Bill relates to relevancy of grounds of opinion.

It provides that opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is based are also relevant.

Clause 46 of the Bill relates to in civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant.

It provides that in civil cases, the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him, is irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant.

Clause 47 of the Bill relates to criminal cases previous good character relevant.

It provides that in criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is relevant.

Clause 48 of the Bill relates to the evidence of character or previous sexual experience not relevant in certain cases.

It provides that in a prosecution for an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77 or section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is in issue, evidence of the character of the victim or of such person’s previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant on the issue of such consent or the quality of consent.

Clause 49 of the Bill relates to relevancy of previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.

It provides that in criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused has a bad character, is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.

Clause 50 of the Bill relates to character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages which he ought to receive, is relevant in civil cases.

It further explains that this clause does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue and a previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.

Clause 51 of the Bill provides that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need to be proved.

Clause 52 of the Bill relates to the facts of which Court shall take judicial notice.

It provides that the Court shall take judicial notice inter alia, all laws in force in the territory of India including laws having extra-territorial operation; international treaty, agreement or convention with country or countries by India, or decisions made by India at the international associations or other bodies; the course of proceeding of the Constituent Assembly of India, of Parliament of India and of the State Legislatures; the seals of all Courts and Tribunals.

It further provides that on all matters of public history, literature, science or art, the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference and if the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person produces any such book or document.

Clause 53 of the Bill relates to the facts admitted need not be proved.

It provides that no fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings, subject to the condition that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.

Clause 54 of the Bill relates to all facts, except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence.

Clause 55 of the Bill relates to the oral evidence to be direct.

It provides that Oral evidence shall, in all cases whatever, be direct; if it inter alia refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner.

Clause 56 of the Bill relates to the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

Clause 57 of the Bill relates to the primary evidence.

It provides that the primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. It further explains the circumstances under which a document, electronic digital record and video recording is to be treated as primary evidence.

Clause 58 of the Bill relates to the secondary evidence.

It provides that the secondary evidence includes certified copies; copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; copies made from or compared with the original; counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it; oral admissions; written admissions and evidence of a person who has examined a document, the original of which consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.

Clause 59 of the Bill relates to the documents shall be proved by primary evidence except expressly provided otherwise.

Clause 60 of the Bill relates to cases in which secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document. It explains that when existence, condition, or contents of a document is admissible.

Clause 61 of the Bill relates to the admissibility of electronic or digital record.

It provides that nothing in the Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such record shall have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as paper records.

Clause 62 of the Bill relates to special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record.

It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of clause 63.

Clause 63 of the Bill relates to admissibility of electronic records.

It provides that any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form shall be deemed to be also a document and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

Clause 64 of the Bill relates to rules as to notice to produce.

It provides that the secondary evidence of the contents of the documents, shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, or to his advocate or representative, such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case, subject to the condition such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible.

Clause 65 of the Bill relates to proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.

It provides that the document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.

Clause 66 of the Bill relates to proof as to electronic signature.

It provides that the electronic signature of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record, such electronic signature is the electronic signature of the subscriber must be proved.

Clause 67 of the Bill relates to proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.

It provides that the document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, subject to the call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.

Clause 68 of the Bill relates to proof where no attesting witness found.

It provides that no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.

Clause 69 of the Bill relates to admission of execution by party to attested document.

It provides that admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested.

Clause 70 of the Bill relates to the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.

Clause 71 of the Bill relates to an attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.

Clause 72 of the Bill relates to the comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.

It provides to ascertain a signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. It further provides that the Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person and applies with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.

Clause 73 of the Bill relates to proof as to verification of digital signature.

It provides that to ascertain a digital signature is that of the person by whom it purports to have been affixed, the Court may direct the person or the Controller or the Certifying Authority to produce the Digital Signature Certificate and any other person to apply the public key listed in the Digital Signature Certificate and verify the digital signature purported to have been affixed by that person.

Clause 74 of the Bill relates to public and private documents.

It provides public documents includes documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority; official bodies and tribunals; public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of India or of a foreign country; and public records kept in any State or Union territory of private documents. Except all the above others are private documents.

Clause 75 of the Bill relates to the certified copies of public documents.

It provides that public officer having the custody of a public document shall be called certified copies. It further explains that, any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorised to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this clause.

Clause 76 of the Bill relates to the proof of documents by production of certified copies.

It provides that certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.

Clause 77 of the Bill relates to the proof of other official documents, inter alia, Acts, orders or notifications of the Central Government in any of its Ministries and Departments or of any State Government or any Department of any State Government or Union territory Administration, the proceedings of Parliament or a State Legislature, and proclamations, orders or Regulations issued by the President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator or Lieutenant Governor of a Union territory.

Clause 78 of the Bill relates to the presumption as to genuineness of certified copies.

It provides that the Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact, and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Central Government or of a State Government, subject to the document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf and the Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.

Clause 79 of the Bill relates to presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence, etc.

It provides that the any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorised by law to take such evidence or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume that the document is genuine; any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true; and such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.

Clause 80 of the Bill relates to presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, and other documents.

It provides that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the Official Gazette, or to be a newspaper or journal, and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody.

It further explains that, for the purposes of this clause and clause 92, document is said to be in proper custody if it is in the place in which, and looked after by the person with whom such document is required to be kept; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render that origin probable.

Clause 81 of the Bill relates to the presumption as to Gazettes in electronic or digital record.

It provides that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every electronic or digital record purporting to be the Official Gazette, or purporting to be electronic or digital record directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such electronic or digital record is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody.

It further explains that, for the purposes of this clause and clause 93, electronic records are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and looked after by the person with whom such document is required to be kept; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render that origin probable.

Clause 82 of the Bill relates to the presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government.

It provides that the Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate.

Clause 83 of the Bill relates to the presumption as to collections of laws and reports of decisions.

It provides that the Court shall presume the genuineness of, every book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the Government of any country, and to contain any of the laws of that country, and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of the Courts of such country.

Clause 84 of the Bill relates to the presumption as to powers-of-attorney.

It provides that the Court 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 Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated.

Clause 85 of the Bill relates to the presumption as to electronic agreements.

It provides that the Court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement containing the electronic or digital signature of the parties was so concluded by affixing the electronic or digital signature of the parties.

Clause 86 of the Bill relates to the presumption as to electronic records and electronic signatures.

It provides that any proceeding involving a secure electronic record, the Court shall presume unless contrary is proved, that the secure electronic record has not been altered since the specific point of time to which the secure status relates.

It further provides that the case involving secure electronic signature, the Court shall presume secure electronic signature is affixed by subscriber with the intention of signing or approving the electronic record and nothing in this clause shall create any presumption, relating to authenticity and integrity of the electronic record or any electronic signature.

Clause 87 of the Bill relates to presumption as to Electronic Signature Certificates.

It provides that the information listed in an Electronic Signature Certificate is correct, except for information specified as subscriber information which has not been verified, if the certificate was accepted by the subscriber.

Clause 88 of the Bill relates to presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records.

It provides that the Court may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record of any country beyond India is genuine and accurate, if the document purports to be certified in any manner which is certified by any representative of the Central Government, in or for such country, to be the manner commonly in use in that country for the certification of copies of judicial records.

It further provides that, an officer who, with respect to any territory or place outside India is a Political Agent therefor, as defined in clause (43) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, for the purposes of this clause, be deemed to be a representative of the Central Government in and for the country comprising that territory or place.

Clause 89 of the Bill relates to presumption as to books, maps and charts.

It provides that the Court may presume that any book to which it may refer for information on matters of public or general interest, and that any published map or chart, the statements of which are relevant facts, and which is produced for its inspection, was written and published by the person, and at the time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written or published.

Clause 90 of the Bill relates to presumption as to electronic messages.

It provides that the Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.

Clause 91 of the Bill relates to presumption as to due execution of documents not produced.

It provides that the Court shall presume that every document, called for and not produced after notice to produce, was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law.

Clause 92 of the Bill relates to presumption as to documents thirty years old.

It provides that any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.

It further explains that clause 80 shall also apply to this clause.

Clause 93 of the Bill relates to presumption as to electronic records five years old.

It provides that any electronic record, purporting or proved to be five years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the electronic signature which purports to be the electronic signature of any particular person was so affixed by him or any person authorised by him in this behalf.

It further explains that clause 81 shall also apply to this clause.

Clause 94 of the Bill relates to evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document.

It provides that the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions and with few exceptions.

It further provides in Exceptions 1 and 2 that when a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved and Wills admitted to probate in India may be proved by the probate.

It also explains that, this clause applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.

Clause 95 of the Bill relates to exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.

It inter alia provides that no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the proved evidence.

Clause 96 of the Bill relates to exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document.

It provides that the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects.

Clause 97 of the Bill relates to exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts.

It provides that the language used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.

Clause 98 of the Bill relates to evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts.

It provides that the language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.

Clause 99 of the Bill relates to evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons.

It provides that the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.

Clause 100 of the Bill relates to evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies.

It provides that the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.

Clause 101 of the Bill relates to evidence as to meaning of illegible characters.

It provides that evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, of foreign, obsolete, technical, local and regional expressions, of abbreviations and of words used in a peculiar sense.

Clause 102 of the Bill relates to the persons who give evidence of agreement varying terms of document.

It provides that persons who are not parties to a document, or their representatives in interest, may give evidence of any facts tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document.

Clause 103 of the Bill relates to saving of provisions of Indian Succession Act,1925 relating to the construction of wills.

Clause 104 of the Bill relates to burden of proof.

It provides that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist, and when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

Clause 105 of the Bill relates to the person with whom burden of proof lies.

It provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

Clause 106 of the Bill relates to the burden of proof as to particular fact.

It provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

Clause 107 of the Bill relates to the burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.

It provides that the burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.

Clause 108 of the Bill relates to the burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.

It provides that the accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the said Sanhita, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.

Clause 109 of the Bill relates to burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. This clause provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Clause 110 of the Bill relates to burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years.

It provides that the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it.

Clause 111 of the Bill relates to burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.

It provides that the question is whether that a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.

Clause 112 of the Bill relates to burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.

It provides that the persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.

Clause 113 of the Bill relates to burden of proof as to ownership.

It provides that when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.

Clause 114 of the Bill relates to proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.

It provides that the question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.

Clause 115 of the Bill relates to presumption as to certain offences.

It provides that where a person is accused of having committed any offence specified under this clause and it is shown that such person had been at a place in such area at a time when firearms or explosives were used at or from that place to attack or resist the members of any armed forces or the forces charged with the maintenance of public order acting in the discharge of their duties, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that such person had committed such offence.

Clause 116 of the Bill relates to birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.

It provides that the fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child of that man unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.

Clause 117 of the Bill relates to presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.

It provides that a woman committed suicide had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

It further explains that “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Clause 118 of the Bill relates to presumption as to dowry death.

It provides that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. “dowry death” shall have the same.

It further explains that “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Clause 119 of the Bill relates to Court may presume existence of certain facts.

It provides that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

It further provides that Court shall also have regard to such given facts in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it.

Clause 120 of the Bill relates to presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape.

It provides that the prosecution for rape, under sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.

Clause 121 of the Bill relates to Estoppel.

It provides that when one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Clause 122 of the Bill relates to Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession.

It provides that no tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy or any time thereafter, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.

Clause 123 of the Bill relates to Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee.

It provides that no acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to endorse it; nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at the time when the bailment or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such licence.

It further explains that the acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny that the bill was really drawn by the person by whom it purports to have been drawn, and if a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the bailor, he may prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailor.

Clause 124 of the Bill relates to the person who may testify.

It provides that all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.

It further explains that A person with unsound mind is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his unsoundness of mind from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.

Clause 125 of the Bill relates to witness unable to communicate verbally.

It provides that a witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court and evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence, subject to the assistance of interpreter.

It further provides that if the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be videographed.

Clause 126 of the Bill relates to competency of husband and wife as witnesses in certain cases.

It provides that in all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses and in criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness.

Clause 127 of the Bill relates to Judges and Magistrates.

It provides that the no Judge or Magistrate shall, except upon the special order of some Court to which he is subordinate, be compelled to answer any questions as to his own conduct in Court as such Judge or Magistrate, or as to anything which came to his knowledge in Court as such Judge or Magistrate; but he may be examined as to other matters which occurred in his presence whilst he was so acting.

Clause 128 of the Bill relates to communications during marriage.

It provides that the no person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.

Clause 129 of the Bill relates to evidence as to affairs of State.

It provides that no one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit.

Clause 130 of the Bill relates to the official communications.

It provides that no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.

Clause 131 of the Bill relates to the information as to commission of offences.

It provides that no Magistrate or police officer shall be compelled to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenue-officer shall be compelled to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue.

It further explains that “revenue officer” means any officer employed in or about the business of any branch of the public revenue.

Clause 132 of the Bill relates to professional communications.

It provides that no advocate, shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his service as such advocate, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional service, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such service.

It further provides that nothing in this clause shall protect from disclosure of any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose and any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his service as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his service.

It also explains that the obligation stated in this clause continues after the professional service has ceased.

Clause 133 of the Bill relates to privilege not waived by volunteering evidence.

It provides that any party to a suit gives evidence therein at his own instance or otherwise, he shall not be deemed to have consented thereby to such disclosure as is mentioned in clause 132; and, if any party to a suit or proceeding calls any such advocate, as a witness, he shall be deemed to have consented to such disclosure only if he questions such advocate, on matters which, but for such question, he would not be at liberty to disclose.

Clause 134 of the Bill relates to confidential communication with legal advisers.

It provides that no one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others.

Clause 135 of the Bill relates to production of title-deeds of witness not a party.

It provides that no witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledge or mortgagee or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims.

Clause 136 of the Bill relates to production of documents or electronic records which another person, having possession, could refuse to produce.

It provides that no one shall be compelled to produce documents in his possession or electronic records under his control, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession or control, unless such last-mentioned person consents to their production.

Clause 137 of the Bill relates to witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate.

It provides that the witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind.

It further provides that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution forgiving false evidence by such answer.

Clause 138 of the Bill relates to accomplice.

It provides that the accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal if it proceeds upon the corroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Clause 139 of the Bill relates to number of witnesses.

It provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.

Clause 140 of the Bill relates to order of production and examination of witnesses.

It provides that the order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.

Clause 141 of the Bill relates to Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.

It provides that the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise and the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking.

It further provides that if the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact.

Clause 142 of the Bill relates to examination of witnesses.

It provides that the examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief and the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination and subsequent to the cross-examination, by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.

Clause 143 of the Bill relates to order of examinations.

It provides that the witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.

The examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

It further provides that re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.

Clause 144 of the Bill relates to cross-examination of person called to produce a document.

It provides that a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.

Clause 145 of the Bill relates to witnesses to character may be cross-examined and re-examined.

Clause 146 of the Bill relates to leading questions.

It provides that any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question and leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court.

It further provides that the Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved and leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.

Clause 147 of the Bill relates to evidence as to matters in writing.

It provides that any witness may be asked, while under examination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which he is giving evidence, was not contained in a document, and if he says that it was, or if he is about to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which, in the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse party may object to such evidence being given until such document is produced, or until facts have been proved which entitle the party who called the witness to give secondary evidence of it.

It further explains that a witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other persons about the contents of documents if such statements are in themselves relevant facts.

Clause 148 of the Bill relates to cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.

It provides that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

Clause 149 of the Bill relates to questions lawful in cross-examinations.

It provides for testing the veracity of the witness during cross-examination and to discover who he is and what is his position in life or to shake his credit by injuring his character although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him, or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.

It further provides that under given circumstances it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent.

Clause 150 of the Bill relates to circumstances when witness to compel to answer.

It is proposed that if any such question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions of clause 137 shall apply thereto.

Clause 151 of the Bill relates to the Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer and in exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard to the considerations provided under this clause.

Clause 152 of the Bill relates to question not to be asked without reasonable grounds.

It is proposed to provides that no such question as is referred to in clause 151 ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well-founded.

Clause 153 of the Bill relates to procedure of Court in case of question being asked without reasonable grounds.

It provides that the Court is of opinion that any question was asked without reasonable grounds, it may, if it was asked by any advocate, report the circumstances of the case to the High Court or other authority to which such advocate, is subject in the exercise of his profession.

Clause 154 of the Bill relates to indecent and scandalous questions.

It provides that the Court may forbid any questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.

Clause 155 of the Bill relates to questions intended to insult or annoy.

It provides that the Court shall forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form.

Clause 156 of the Bill relates to exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.

It is proposed to provide that when a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

It further provides that if a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction and if a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.

Clause 157 of the Bill relates to question by party to his own witness.

It provides that the Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.

It further provides that nothing in this clause shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-clause (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.

Clause 158 of the Bill relates to impeaching credit of witness.

It provides that how the credit of a witness may be impeached in by the adverse party or with the consent of the Court.

It further explains that a witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

Clause 159 of the Bill relates to questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact, admissible.

It provides that a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives evidence of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other circumstances which he observed at or near to the time or place at which such relevant fact occurred, if the Court is of opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies.

Clause 160 of the Bill relates to former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact.

It provides that in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.

Clause 161 of the Bill relates to matters may be proved in connection with proved statement relevant under clauses 26 or 27.

It is proposed that whenever any statement, relevant under clauses 26 or 27, is proved, all matters may be proved either in order to contradict or to corroborate it, or in order to impeach or confirm the credit of the person by whom it was made, which might have been proved if that person had been called as a witness and had denied upon cross-examination the truth of the matter suggested.

Clause 162 of the Bill relates to refreshing memory of the witness.

It provides that a witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory and further a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of document.

It further provides that the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original and an expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

Clause 163 of the Bill relates to testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in clause 162.

It provides that a witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in clause 162, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.

Clause 164 of the Bill relates to right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.

It provides that any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding clauses shall be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon.

Clause 165 of the Bill relates to production of documents.

It provides that a witness summoned to produce a document in possession or power, bring it Court notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility.

It further provides that the Court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility and if for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It also provides that no Court shall require any communication between the Ministers and the President of India to be produced before it.

Clause 166 of the Bill relates to giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice.

It provides that when a party calls for a document which he has given the other party notice to produce, and such document is produced and inspected by the party calling for its production, he is bound to give it as evidence if the party producing it requires him to do so.

Clause 167 of the Bill relates to using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice.

It provides that when a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court.

Clause 168 of the Bill relates to Judge’s power to put questions or order production. It provides that the Judge may, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts,

ask any question he considers necessary, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their representatives shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question.

It further provides that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Adhiniyam to be relevant, and duly proved and this clause shall not authorise any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under given circumstances.

Clause 169 of the Bill relates to no new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence.

It provides that the improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision.

Clause 170 of the Bill relates to repeal and savings.

It provides that notwithstanding such repeal, if, immediately before the date on which this Adhiniyam comes into force, there is any application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending, then, such application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as in force immediately before such commencement, as if this Adhiniyam had not come into force.

FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM

The proposed legislation, if enacted, is not likely to involve any expenditure, either recurring or non-recurring, from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India.

LOK SABHA

————

A BILL

to consolidate and to provide for general rules and principles of evidence for fair trial.

————

(Shri Amit Shah, Minister of Home Affairs and Cooperation)