Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Major Changes are made in Three Facets

They are in –

  • (i) Status of Documents and Electronic Evidence
  • (ii) Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) of the Evidence Act.
  • (iii) Sec. 27 (Recovery/Discovery on confession by accused before Police) of the Evidence Act and

Part I

Documents and Electronic Evidence

Following are the Major changes made in the new Bharatia Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as regards ‘Documents’(when compared to Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

Changes in the Definition

Abstract:

  • It is made clear – Electronic Evidence is included in the category of ‘Documentary Evidence’.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872Bharatia Sakshya Act, 2023
Sec. 3. Interpretation-clause. “Document”. –– “Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
Illustrations
A writing is a document; Words printed lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document; An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document.		Sec. 2(1) In this Adhiniyam, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(d) “document” means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records. 
Illustrations.
(i) A writing is a document.
(ii) Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents.
(iii) A map or plan is a document.
(iv) An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document.
(v) A caricature is a document. 
(vi) An electronic record on emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptop or smartphone, messages, websites, locational evidence and voice mail messages stored on digital devices are documents;
Sec. 3. Interpretation-clause. “Evidence”. ––“Evidence” means and includes ––
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.		Sec. 2(1) In this Adhiniyam, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(e) “evidence” means and includes—
(i) all statements including statements given electronically which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and such statements are called oral evidence;
(ii) all documents including electronic or digital records produced for the inspection of the Court and such documents are called documentary evidence;

Under the Indian Evidence Act, electronic evidence could have been taken as a third category of ‘evidence’, other than ‘oral’ and ‘documentary’ evidences. It is more so in view of the interpretation given to Sec. 65B by the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, (2020)3 SCC 216. In this decision it was said that Electronic Evidence is (specially) dealt with “notwithstanding anything contained” in the Act.

By virtue of the definitions in the new act, it is made clear – Electronic Evidence is included in the ‘Documentary Evidence’. It is definite that it is with a view to expand the scope of the application of Electronic Records in evidence.

Changes on Primary Evidence – Electronic Records are also Included in the category, Primary Evidence

Abstract:

  • (i) electronic record that is stored in another electronic devise along with that in the ‘creating’ devise; and
  • (ii) video recordings (a) simultaneously stored in electronic form and (b) broadcasted.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872Bharatia Sakshya Act, 2023
62. Primary evidence. –– Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1. ––Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document. Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Explanation 2. –– Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.		57. Primary evidence Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1.—Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.
Explanation 2.—Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Explanation 3.—Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.
Explanation 4.—Where an electronic or digital record is created or stored, and such storage occurs simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each such file is primary evidence.
Explanation 5.—Where an electronic or digital record is produced from proper custody, such electronic and digital record is primary evidence unless it is disputed.
Explanation 6.—Where a video recording is simultaneously stored in electronic form and transmitted or broadcast or transferred to another, each of the stored recordings is primary evidence.
Explanation 7.—Where an electronic or digital record is stored in multiple storage spaces in a computer resource, each such automated storage, including temporary files, is primary evidence.

The scope of application of Electronic Records in evidence is further expanded by the Additional Explanations 4 to 7 in Sec. 57 (as to ‘Primary Evidence’). Major changes having practical importance are the following:

  • Under Explanation 4, electronic or digital record that is stored in an electronic devise, simultaneously(or sequentially in multiple files) with that in the ‘creating’ devise, is also taken as ‘primary evidence’.
    • Core-computer system in Banks and storing in ‘iCloud’ etc. are good examples for such storage.
  • Sixth explanation has also wider application. As is clear from the explanation, video recordings (a) simultaneously stored in electronic form and (b) transmitted or broadcasted can also be taken as primary evidence.
  • Explanation 5 renders a rider. Production of electronic or digital record from proper custody (unless it is disputed) is to be treated as ‘primary evidence’.
    • Admission of electronic record contained in a stolen devise seized from the custody of accused is a good example for it.

Scope of Secondary Evidence also Expanded

Abstract:

  • Oral and written admissions, as well as the evidence of ‘skilled persons’, are added in the list of Secondary Evidence.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872Bharatia Sakshya Act, 2023
63. Secondary evidence. –– Secondary evidence means and includes ––
(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(3) copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.		58. Secondary evidence Secondary evidence includes—
(i) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
(ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(iii) copies made from or compared with the original;
(iv) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it;
(vi) oral admissions;
(vii) written admissions;
(viii) 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.

The new clauses in Sec. 58, that speaks about Secondary Evidence, also show the legislative intent of liberalization in evidence in legal proceedings. Certificates and Reports of ‘skilled persons’ (as regards the documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court) are added in the list of Secondary Evidence.

Part II

Changes made to Sec. 65A & 65B (Electronic Records) in Evidence Act

Sec. 61, a New Provision

Abstract:

  • It widened the scope of admissibility of Computer output. It permits to invoke other provisions of the Act also to prove secondary evidence of Electronic Record (other than Sec. 63, old 65B).
Indian Evidence Act, 1872Bharatia Sakshya Act, 2023
    (No specific provision in the Act)61. Electronic or digital record Nothing in this 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, subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.

Importance of this New Provision

The words in the new Sec. 61, “Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility” has great significance. It is made to expand the scope of admissibility of Electronic Evidence.

The non-obstante clause in Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is capable of giving two (divergent) interpretations –

  • First, Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision to admit ‘computer output’ (derived from original)  as ‘document’ itself, in a simpler manner, by the deeming provision (“shall be deemed to be also a document”) ‘notwithstanding anything contained in the Act’. That is, computer output (copy) can also be proved by any other manner provided for proving any other document.
  • Second, a computer output (copy) can be proved only under the provisions of Sec. 65 B, ‘notwithstanding anything contained in the Act’. (It is the view taken By the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao,  2020-3 SCC 216.)

The words in the new Sec. 61, “Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility” makes an emphatic delineation of the legislative intent on the following two matters –

  • 1. Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision to admit ‘computer output’ (copy)  by the  deeming provision ‘notwithstanding anything contained in the Act’.
  • 2. The interpretation given to Sec. 65B that a ‘computer output (copy) can be proved only’ under the provisions of Sec. 65B,  ‘notwithstanding anything contained in the Act’(the view taken in Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, 2023 SCC 216), is not accepted by the legislature.
    •  “Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility” applies to Sec. 63 also. Therefore, the interpretation given in Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, 2023 SCC 216, will not remain in force.
    • The words, “subject to section 63” (BSA), in Section 61 (BSA), only directs to undergo the requirements in Sec. 63 (that is production of Sec. 63(4) certificate and HASH certificate etc.) to prove the Computer output, in case (or, only when) one opts to prove it under the provisions of Sec. 63.

Note: 1. If this interpretation is not given, Sec. 61 stands meaningless.

Note: 2. This interpretation is also necessary to give effect to the legislative intent (liberalization of evidence).

Changes to Sec. 65A and 65B

Abstract:

  • No substantial change to Sec. 65A.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872Bharatia Sakshya Act, 2023
65A. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record. –– The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B.62. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record. The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63.

No material change is made by this new provision which stands as an introductory provision to Sec. 63.

Abstract of changes to Sec. 65B:

  • Sec. 63 read with Sec. 61 (BSA) allows to prove the copy or print-out of an electronic record invoking other provisions of the Sakshya Act, also.
  • Mandatory requirement of HASH certificate is introduced.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872Bharatia Sakshya Act, 2023
65B. Admissibility of electronic records – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information 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.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:–
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether–
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers,
all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, —
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section,
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; —
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.
Explanation. — For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process  		63. Admissibility of electronic records –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, 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 (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information 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.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer or communication device during the period over which the computer was used regularly to create, store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer or communication device;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or communication device was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by means of one or more computers or communication device, whether—
(a) in standalone mode; or
(b) on a computer system; or
(c) on a computer network; or
(d) on a computer resource enabling information-creation or providing information—processing and storage; or
(e) through an intermediary
all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission, namely:—
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer or a communication device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3);
 (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief  of the person stating it in the certificate specified in the Schedule.
 (5) For the purposes of this section,—
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer or communication device if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer or communication device whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment or by other electronic means as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3).

Changes made to Sec. 65B

The proposed Bhartiya Sakshya Act, 2023 introduces significant changes in Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It updates Sec. 65B, as under:

  • Now, under Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, copy or print-out of an electronic record can be proved only by producing the certificate provided under Sec. 65B(4), in view of the Supreme Court decision in Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, 2020-3 SCC 216.  
  • The proposed Bhartiya Sakshya Act, 2023, (Sec. 63 read with Sec, 61) allows to prove the copy or print-out of an electronic record invoking other provisions of the Evidence Act (such as Sec. 63 and 65 IEA = Sec. 58 and 60 BSA) that permits to prove a secondary evidence (copy) of a document.
  • If  a computer output (copy) is sought to be proved invoking Sec. 63, Bhartiya Sakshya Act, 2023, the “certificate (HASH) specified in the Schedule” is necessary. It is to be produced “along with the electronic record” also.

A Discordant Note

The Certificate required in Sec. 63(4)(c) of the new Act must be “in the form specified in the Schedule”. It appears that this certificate is needed in addition to the Certificate that is required in sub-section (4) as regards the matters enumerated therein; or the Certificate should contain (additionally) the matters enumerated in sub-section (4).

The Form in the Schedule directs to state as under:

  • “I state that the HASH value/s of the electronic/digital record/s is …… ……… …… , obtained through the following algorithm –
  • SHA1:
  • SHA256:
  • MD5:
  • Other …….. …….. …….. (Legally acceptable standard)
  • (Hash report to be enclosed with the certificate)”

The requirement for this certificate is unnecessary, especially in situations where there is no dispute regarding the computer output (copy or print-out). It may be more feasible for many litigants to bring the original device, such as a computer, laptop, or mobile phone, to court than to get the HASH value fixed through an expert.

What is HASH value (in simplest terms)?

  • HASH value is a string of unique characters, usually represented by letters and numbers.
  • It is a scientific method (algorithm) commonly used to find out tampering, if any, on an electronic record.
  • HASH value of every electronic record can be fixed.
  • Any modification or change made thereto – no matter how small, even addition of a comma (,) – will result in a completely different hash value.

Part III

Changes made in Sec. 27 (Recovery/Discovery)

Abstract:

  • Sec. 25, 26 and 27 of IEA are consolidated to one section.
  • The word “thereby” in Sec. 27 is removed.
Section 25, 26 and 27, Indian Evidence ActSection 23, Bhartiya Sakshya Act
25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. –– No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. –– No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a policeofficer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
Explanation.––In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 18827 (10 of 1882).
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. –– Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence 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.		23. Confession to police officer.  
(1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.  

(2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him:  

Provided 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 discovered, may be proved

The proposed Bhartiya Sakshya Act, 2023 introduces two significant changes in Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Changes in the New Act (Made to Sec. 27, IEA)

First –

  • Now, from the words of Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is clear (i) what is to be proved by Sec. 27 is the fact deposed by the Investigating Officer in court; and (ii) it must be as to the ‘discovery’ on ‘information’ (or disclosure) from the accused.
  • From the words of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, it could be shown or argued (though not correct) that the fact ‘discovered’ embraces (a) the “recovery” (b) of the “object” (c) in the immediate presence of the accused – to have it “in consequence of (his) information”.
  • The possibility of these (incorrect) arguments are averted by removing the word “thereby” in Section 27 (in the proviso to Section 23 of the new Bhartiya Sakshya Act).

Second –

  • Now, the Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act begins with a ‘Proviso’.
  • This impropriety is removed by clubbing Section 25, 26 and 27 (of the Indian Evidence Act) in the new  Bhartiya Sakshya Act (in Sec. 23).

A Discordant Note

  • Now, under Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. But, if it falls under Sec. 27 (that is, if it leads to a discovery as provided in Sec. 27), it can be proved.
  • Though Section 25 is retained in the new Bhartiya Sakshya Act, 2023, under Sec. 23(1), the proviso is not made applicable to the Section, 23(1).
  • Note: 1. The proviso is limited (or made applicable) to subsection (2) of Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Act (alone) – See the colon (:) at the end of subsection (2).
  • Note: 2. It appears to be a mistake in drafting the section; because,
    • (i) Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act is a general provision which governs Sec. 26 also; and Sec. 27 applies to both Sec. 25 and 26;
    • (ii) but, the proviso in Sec. 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Act is made applicable to Sec. 23(2) alone, and not to Sec. 23(1); thereby the vigor of Sec. 23(1) prevails – without being governed by the Proviso to Section 23(2);
    • (iii) and, in such a case, Section 23(2) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Act, cannot work at all, inasmuch as Sec. 23(1) makes a total bar – “No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence”.  

Sec. 27 Indian Evidence Act (Proviso to Sec. 23 Bhartiya Sakshya Act) Analysed

Who has to “depose” – It is by the police officer, and before the court. 

What is to be Deposed – It is the fact he discovered as disclosed by the accused.

“As Discovered” (in consequence of information from accused)

  • It is the fact deposed to (as disclosed by the accused) by the police officer before the court. It should have been ‘discovered’ from the “Place of Concealment”.

‘Fact discovered‘ embraces Place of Concealment and Knowledge of Accused

The classic Privy Council verdict, Pulukuri Kotayya v. King ­Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, consistently followed by the courts in India, made it clear, as regards the concealment of a knife, as under-

  • “In their Lordships’ view it is fallacious to treat the “fact discovered” within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge; and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If the statement of the accused contains the words ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.”

‘Fact Discovered’ is the “Place to the Knowledge of the Accused”

From Pulukuri Kotayya v. King ­Emperor it is clear –

  • Even if the knife was discovered many years ago,
  • if the fact that the knife was concealed in a place (to the knowledge of the accused) is discovered,
  • it is relelvent and admissible under Sec. 27 Evd. Act.

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Power of attorney

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Principles and Procedure

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Law on Documents

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Will

Arbitration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment