Secondary Evidence
Reference: The Indian Evidence Act
Secondary evidence of a document cannot be given unless:
1. The non-production of the original is accounted for so as to bring it under one of the exceptions of Section 65. (Krishna Kishori Chowdhrani v. Kirshori Lal Roy, 1887)
2. The original document is admissible.
A conjoint reading of Section 65 (b) and Section 22 of the IEA shows that the admission of a document amounts to the admission of its contents but not of its truth. (Section 22 speaks of when oral admissions regarding the contents of documents are admissible.)
If secondary evidence is sought to be given under Section 65 (c) because of the loss of the original, it must first be proved that the original has been lost. (Illustration (b) to Section 104)
A party who is in custody of the original document cannot give secondary evidence of its contents. (Hira Lal v. Ganesh Prasad, 1882)
Section 65 (d) applies to such things as tombstones, writing on a wall etc. which would be impractical to bring into a Court. It has been held in a number of cases though that this rule applies to ‘written documents’ in the strict sense of the term. It does not extend to films, tapes, etc. And, in Mertimer v. M Challan, 1840, it was held that the rule applied to books of the Bank of England as removing the originals would cause a great deal of public inconvenience.
Section 65 (e) is mainly to protect public documents from possibly damage that they may sustain from being continually produced in evidence.
Section 65 (f) can be read along with Sections 76, 78 and 86 which deal with certified copies of public documents, proof of other official documents and presumptions regarding certified copies of foreign judicial records respectively.
The object of Section 65 (g) is simply to expedite Court proceedings by saving time.
Secondary evidence of a document cannot be given unless:
1. The non-production of the original is accounted for so as to bring it under one of the exceptions of Section 65. (Krishna Kishori Chowdhrani v. Kirshori Lal Roy, 1887)
2. The original document is admissible.
A conjoint reading of Section 65 (b) and Section 22 of the IEA shows that the admission of a document amounts to the admission of its contents but not of its truth. (Section 22 speaks of when oral admissions regarding the contents of documents are admissible.)
If secondary evidence is sought to be given under Section 65 (c) because of the loss of the original, it must first be proved that the original has been lost. (Illustration (b) to Section 104)
A party who is in custody of the original document cannot give secondary evidence of its contents. (Hira Lal v. Ganesh Prasad, 1882)
Section 65 (d) applies to such things as tombstones, writing on a wall etc. which would be impractical to bring into a Court. It has been held in a number of cases though that this rule applies to ‘written documents’ in the strict sense of the term. It does not extend to films, tapes, etc. And, in Mertimer v. M Challan, 1840, it was held that the rule applied to books of the Bank of England as removing the originals would cause a great deal of public inconvenience.
Section 65 (e) is mainly to protect public documents from possibly damage that they may sustain from being continually produced in evidence.
Section 65 (f) can be read along with Sections 76, 78 and 86 which deal with certified copies of public documents, proof of other official documents and presumptions regarding certified copies of foreign judicial records respectively.
The object of Section 65 (g) is simply to expedite Court proceedings by saving time.
Labels: Evidence
<< Home