WritingLaw (Page 291)

ORAL EVIDENCE. 59. Proof of facts by oral evidence.
All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence.

60. Oral evidence must be direct.
Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say-
If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;

Read More →

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 61. Proof of contents of documents.
The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

Comment:
(a) A man may lie but a document will never lie.
Related Case- Afzauddin Ansari v. State of West Bengal, 1997

(b) Admission of a document amounts to admission of its contents and not its truth.
Related Case- Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Narmada Agarwalla, 1993Read More →

67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.
If a 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.

*Admissibility- Non-examination of executants of receipt admissibility of receipts not proper.
Related Case- Ramkrishna Dode v. Anand, 1999

67A. Proof as to electronic signature.Read More →

PRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMENTS. 79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies.
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, or by any officer in the State of Jammu and Kashmir who is duly authorised there to by the Central Government:
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
The Court shall also presume that any officerRead More →

91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grant and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents.
When 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 herein before contained. Read More →

101. Burden of Proof.
Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence to facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 

Illustration-
(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.Read More →

115. Estoppel.
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.

Illustration-
A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it.Read More →

Witnesses. 118. Who may testify?
All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the question put to them, or from giving rational answer to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body and mind, or any other cause of the same kind. 

Explanation-
A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.Read More →

The Examination of Witnesses. 135. Order of production and examination of witness.
The order in which witness 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.

136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.
When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise.Read More →

147. When witness to be compelled to answer.
If any such question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding the provisions of Section 132 shall apply thereto.

148. Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer.
If any such question relates to matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so far it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character, the Court shall decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it and may, if it thinks fit, warn the witness that he is not obliged to answer it. In exercising its discretion the Court shall have regard to the following considerations-

(1) Such questions are proper if they areRead More →

Refreshing Memory. 157. Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact.
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.

158. What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement relevant under Section 32 or 33.Read More →

167. No new trail for improper admission or rejection of evidence.
The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trail 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.Read More →