The whole base of the Indian Evidence Act is pillared on four questions:

1. WHAT IS EVIDENCE GIVEN FOR?
Answer: Evidence is given for Facts (Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts). Note that evidence is not given for Law.

2. HOW ARE THE EVIDENCE FOR FACTS GIVEN?
Answer: Evidence for facts is given orally called Oral Evidence, or by proper documents called Documentary Evidence.

3. ON WHOM DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES?
Answer: Burden of Proof generally lies on the Plaintiff; that is the party introducing the suit.

Note: There are several instances when burden of proof lies on the defendant. For example, in rape complaints, the defendant (against whom the case has been filed) has the burden to prove that he is innocent.

4. WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH FACTS? / WHAT IS THE EVALUATION OF FACTS?
Answer: The fact is either:
A. proved: Court believes the facts to exist or considers its existence so probable (most likely; expected) that a normal man, under the circumstances of particular case assumes it to exist.
B. disproved: Court believes that the facts do not exist or considers its existence so probable that a normal man, under the circumstances of particular case assumes it not to exist.
C. not proved: When a fact is neither proved nor disproved then it is said to be not proved.

Read Next:
Motto Of Indian Evidence Act
Indian Evidence Act Summary

Indian Evidence Act’s Four Most Important Questions!
WritingLaw

Name of the Act– The Indian Evidence Act (Act number 1 of 1872)
(Meaning of Evidence- PROOF; SABOOT)

Year the Indian Evidence Act Act was passed– 1872
Date the Indian Evidence Act was enacted(meaning passed)– 15 March 1872
Date the Indian Evidence Act was commenced(meaning begin; come into action)– 1 September 1872

Origin of the Indian Evidence Act– The Indian Evidence Act was originally passed by The Imperial Legislative Council during the British Raj.

The Main Motto of the Indian Evidence Act– TO SET A FIXED RULE FOR ALL, REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN INDIAN COURTS. (Click here to read in detail. Link will open in new tab)

Total Number of Parts in the Indian Evidence Act– 3
Total Number of Chapters in the Indian Evidence Act– 11
Total Number of Sections in the Indian Evidence Act– 167

Applicability of the Indian Evidence Act– The Indian Evidence Act is applicable to all judicial proceedings in the court. It is also applicable in Court Martial.
However, The Indian Evidence Act is NOT applicable on affidavits(a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court) and arbitration(use of arbitrator to settle a dispute)
*Meaning of arbitrator- an independent person or body officially appointed to settle a dispute.

Latest Amendment– Year 2013

Notes regarding The Indian Evidence Act–
-The act was introduced in year 1872. India gained independence from Britishers in 1947. Also the united British India was divided into two different countries-India and Pakistan.
After 15 August 1947 The Indian Evidence Act continued to be in force in India(except Jammu & Kashmir) as well as Pakistan. But in year 1984 Pakistan repealed(annulled; declared invalid) this act and replaced it with ‘The Evidence Order’ also know by the urdu name “Qanun-e-Shahadat”
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT CONTINUES TO BE IN FORCE IN INDIA.

-This act is mainly based on the work of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen who was an English lawyer, judge and a writer. At times he is called as THE FATHER OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.

Indian Evidence Act Summary
WritingLaw

The passing of The Indian Evidence Act in 1872 was a ground breaking step. It was to change the entire working of courts as far as admissibility of evidence was concerned in our Indian courts.

Prior to the introduction of this act,
the rules of admissibility of evidence in our Indian courts were based on traditional systems. Different caste, community, social group had their own way of providing/submitting evidence in the court. The submission of evidence was hugely based on faith of a person, his social position and status in society, his community etc.
In short there was no uniform method.

By the introduction of this act everyone came under the same banner. Now there would be no different rules regarding the submission/admission of evidence in Indian Courts.
Now everyone had to follow the same prescribed rule regarding the admissibility of evidence.

It was indeed a path-breaking act which brought uniformity and brought everyone on the same level.

Next-
Section 1 to Section 4 of Indian Evidence Act→

Other important links (opens in new tab)-
Four Basic Questions of Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act Summary

Motto of Indian Evidence Act 1872
WritingLaw

There are total three parts in Indian Evidence Act (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Lets us get to know each parts briefly.

PART 1

The first part of Indian Evidence Act deals with RELEVANCY OF FACTS.
Relevancy means “the quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate” ; “appropriate to the current time, period, or circumstances”
Chapter I and Chapter II fall under Part 1.
Section 1 to Section 55 fall under Part 1.

Chapter I (1-4) is the preliminary chapter which has basic definitions and is the  introduction part of this act.
Preliminary means – “introductory; Initial; Opening; Done in preparation for something fuller or more important.”

Chapter II (5-55) deals with the relevancy of facts.

PART 2

The second part of Indian Evidence Act deals with PROOF.
Chapter III, Chapter IV, Chapter V and Chapter VI fall under Part 2.
Section 56 to Section 100 fall under Part 2.

Chapter III (56-58) is regarding “FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED”

Chapter IV (59,60) is regarding “ORAL EVIDENCE”

Chapter V (61-90A) deals with “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE”

Chapter VI (91-100) is regarding “EXCLUSION OF ORAL EVIDENCE BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” meaning ‘when documentary evidence is given preference over oral evidence’

PART 3

The third part of Indian Evidence Act deals with PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE.
Chapter VII to Chapter XI fall under part 3.
Sections 101 to Section 167 fall under Part 3.

Chapter VII (101-114A) deals with BURDEN OF PROOF.

Chapter VIII (115,116,117) deals with ESTOPPEL.
Estoppel means “the rule which prevents a person from saying opposite or conflicting to something which he has said before or which is clear as result of previous judicial determination”

Chapter IX (118—134) deals with WITNESSES.

Chapter X (135-166) deals with THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESS.

Chapter XI (167) deals with IMPROPER EVIDENCE AND REJECTION OF EVIDENCE.

You have got the brief overview of Indian Evidence Act. Now you know what all is there in this act.
Now let us start detailed systematic reading from Chapter I of The Indian Evidence Act.
(There will be important questions at the end of Chapter I)
Before we do that make sure you have read INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT SUMMARY. (Link will open in new tab)

If you have already read Indian Evidence Act Summary then,
Take a sip of water and let us start chapter first. It is very basic and very easy. You can finish it in few minutes.
LETS GO →

Parts of Indian Evidence Act
WritingLaw

PART I

PRELIMINARY – INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

1. Short title, extent and commencement.

This Act may be called the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial, other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act, or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934, or the Air Force Act but not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator;

Commencement of Act – And it shall come into force on the first day of September, 1872.

(The words “except the State of Jammu and Kashmir” omitted by Act 34 of 2019, s. 95 and the Fifth Schedule (w.e.f. 31-10-2019).)

2. Repeal of enactments.

This section was repealed by the Repealing Act 1938.

3. Interpretation Clause.

This section has basic legal definitions. The words may seem fancy but it is just simple definitions.

In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following sense. Unless a contrary intention appears from the context-

Court-

Includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence.

Fact-

Fact means and includes-
i) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses.
ii) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
For Example-
That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
That a man said certain words, is a fact.
That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
That a man holds a certain opinion is a fact.
Man has a certain intention is a fact.
Man acts in goods faith or acts fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particulars sensation, are all facts.

Relevant-

Relevant simply means ‘Appropriate to the time, period or circumstances.’
One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.

Facts in issue-

Simply speaking, WHEN PLAINTIFF MENTIONS A FACT AND THE OTHER PARTY DENIES IT, THIS GIVES RISE TO FACTS IN ISSUE.
According to the act facts in issue means and includes,
Any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied on any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.

Explanation-
Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue is a fact in issue.

Illustrations-
Ramesh is accused for the murder of Jignesh.
At the trial the following facts may be in issue-
That Ramesh caused Jignesh’s death.
That Ramesh had the intention to cause Jignesh’s death.
That at the time of murder Ramesh was out of town.
All the above are facts related to this case.

Documents-

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.
Simply understand that ‘A WRITING IS A DOCUMENT’. Map, plans, sketches, prints, photographs etc are all documents.

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.

Evidence-

Simply evidence means PROOF, CONFIRMATION. In Hindi SABOOT.
Evidence can be oral evidence or documentary evidence.

Oral evidence- all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made orally before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry.
Documentary evidence- all document including electronic records produced for the inspection by the Court.

Proved-

Court believes the facts to exist or considers its existence so probable(most likely; expected) that a normal man, under the circumstances of particular case assumes it to exist.

A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.

Disproved-

Court believes that the facts do not exist or considers its existence so probable that a normal man, under the circumstances of particular case assumes it to not exist.

A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.

Not Proved-

When a fact is neither proved nor disproved then it is said to be not proved.

India means the territory of India excluding the state (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir.

The expressions— Certifying Authority, Digital Signature, Digital Signature Certificate, Electronic Form, Electronic Records, Information, Secure Electronic Record, Secure Digital Signature and Subscriber, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. May Presume-

Whenever it is provided by this Act that Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

Shall presume-

Whenever it s directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it disproved.

Conclusive proof-

When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.

Next,
Chapter II (Section 5 to Section 16) – Relevancy of Facts→

PRELIMINARY – Section 1-4 of Evidence Act, Chapter I
WritingLaw

RELEVANCY OF FACTS – EVIDENCE ACT

5. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.

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 which are declared to be relevant, and of no others.
Note- This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure.

Illustrations-
(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death.
At A’s trial the following facts are in issue:-
A’s beating B with the club;
A’s causing B’s death by such beating;
A’s intention to cause B’s death.

(b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This section does not enable him to produce the bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of he proceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Law Note: Relevant Facts Under the Indian Evidence Act

6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.

Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue 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.

Illustrations-
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly or after it as to form part of the transaction and is a relevant fact.

(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed troops are attacked and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.

(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.

(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.

Related Law Note: Res Gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act

7. Facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.

Facts which are 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.

Illustrations-
(a) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, shortly before the robbery B went to a fair with money in his possession, and that he showed it or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third persons are relevant.

(b) The question is whether A murdered B.
Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.

(c) The question is whether A Poisoned B.
The state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.

8. Motive preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
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.

Explanation 1-
The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.

Explanation 2-
When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.

Illustrations-
(a) A is tried for the murder of B.
The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C, and B had tried to had extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.

(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond.
The fact that, at the time when the bound was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.

(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.
The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.

(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A.
The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate that the consulted Vakils in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant.

(e) A is accused of a crime.
The acts that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A proved evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.

(f) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in and A’s presence – “the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B” and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.

(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000.
The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C in A’s presence and hearing – “I advise you not to trust A, for he B 10,000 rupees,” and that A went away without making any answer, are relevant facts.

(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The fact that A absconded after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was being made for the criminal and the contents of the letter, are relevant.

(i) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property of the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing if, are relevant.

(j) The question is, whether A was ravished.
The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.

The fact that, without, making a complaint, she said that she had been ravished is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.

(k) The question is, whether A was robbed.
The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which the complaint was made, are relevant.

The fact that he said he had been robbed, without making any complaint, is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1), or as corroborative evidence under section 157.

9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.

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 relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing 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 in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.

Illustrations-
(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A.
The state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.

(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libelous is true.
The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue.
The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant it is affected the relations between A and B.

(c) A is accused of a crime.
The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant, under section 8 as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.
The fact that at the time when he left home he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.
The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.

(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A. C, on leaving A’s service, says to A— “I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer”.
This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C’s conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.

(e) A accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A’s wife. B says as he delivers it— “A says you are to hide this”. B’s statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.

(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.

10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.

Where 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 as for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose showing that any such persons was a party to it.

Illustration-
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India.
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C collected in Calcutta for a like object D persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, E published writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from Delhi to G at Kabul the money which C had collected at Calcutta, and the contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the conspiracy, and to prove A’s complicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they were done were strangers to him, and although they may have taken place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.

11. When Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.

Facts not otherwise relevant, are relevant,
a- if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact.
b- 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.

Illustrations-
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.
The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.
The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed. Which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.

(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A,B,C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else and that it was not committed by either B, C or D is relevant.

12. In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine amount are relevant.

In 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.

13. Facts relevant when right or custom is in question.

Where the question is as to existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant;
(a) 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.

(b) Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised, or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted, or departed from.

Illustrations-
The question is whether A has a right to a fishery.
A deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, instances in which A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s neighbours, are relevant facts.

14. Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body or bodily feeling.

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.

Explanation 1-
A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally but in reference to the particular matter in question.

Explanation 2-
But where, upon the trail of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this Section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.

Illustrations-
(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article.
The fact that at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession to be stolen.

(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin which, at the time when he delivered it, he know to be counterfeit.
The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit is relevant.
The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.

(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s which knew to be ferocious.
The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.

(d) The question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that the name of the payee was fictitious.
The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the payee, is relevant, as showing that a knew that the payee was a fictitious person.

(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the reputation of B.
The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-will on the part of A towards B, is relevant, as proving A’s intention to harm B’s reputation by the particular publication in question.
The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A repeated the matter complained of as he heard, it are relevant, as showing that A did not intend to harm the reputation of B.

(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent, whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss.
The fact that, at the time when A represented C to be solvent, C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by persons dealing with him, is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith.

(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which A is owner, by the order of C, a contractor.
A’s defence is that B’s contract was with C.
The fact that A paid C for the work in question is relevant, as proving that A did, in good faith make over to C the management of the work in question, so that C was in a position to contract with B on C’s own account, and not as agent for A.

(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which he had found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated it, he believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found.
The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the property could not be found.
The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant, as showing the fact that A knew of the notice did not disprove A’s good faith.

(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show A’s intent, the fact of A’s having previously shot at B may proved.

(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved as showing the intention of the letters.

(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife.
Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelly, are relevant facts.

(l) The question is, whether A’s death was caused by poison.
Statements made by A during his illness as to his symptoms, are relevant facts.

(m) The question is, what was the state of A’s health at the time when an assurance on his life was effected.
Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the time in question, are relevant facts.

(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured.
The fact that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that particular carriage, is relevant
The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriage which he let to hire, is irrelevant.

(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead.
The fact that A, on other occasions shot at B is relevant; as showing his intention to shoot B.
The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them, is irrelevant.

(p) A is tried for a crime.
The fact that he said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant.
The fact that he said something indicating a general disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.

15. Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional.

When 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 occurrence, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

Illustrations-
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.
The facts that a lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires. A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive.
The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional.
The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, relevant.

(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit rupee.
The question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental.
The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.

16. Existence of course of business when relevant.

When 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.

Illustrations-
(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched.
The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place, are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A.
The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Dead Letter Office, are relevant.

Next,
Section 17 to Section 31 – ADMISSION→

RELEVANCY OF FACTS – Section 5-16 of Evidence Act, Chapter II
WritingLaw

ADMISSION – EVIDENCE ACT

17. Admission defined.

An admission is a statement, oral or documentary 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.

Comment:
Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact-
Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness.
Related Case- Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, 1974

Evidentiary value of admission-
Admission is based evidence against the meter and it can be inferred from the conduct of the party. Admission implied by conduct is strong evidence against the maker but he is at liberty to prove that such admission was mistaken or untrue.
Related case- Income Tax Officer versus Mangat Ram Norata Ram, 2011

Requirements of admission-
An admission must be clear and unambiguous in order that such an admission should relieve the opponent of the burden of proof of the fact said to have been admitted.
Related case- Joshna Gouda v. Brundaban Gouda, 2012

18. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.

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 authorized by him to made them, are admissions.
By suitor in representative character– Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character. 

Statements made by-
(1) by party interested in subject matter; 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
(2) by person from whom interest derived; 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.

19. Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit.

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 the made if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject of such liability. 

Illustration-
A undertakes to collect rent for B.
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.
A denies that rent was due from C to B.
A statement by C that he owned B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.

20. Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit.

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. 

Illustration-
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B “Go and ask C. C knows all about it” C’s statement is an admission.

COMMENT:
In eviction suit where person having power of attorney for tenants admits arrears of rent tenant subsequently cannot resile(abandon a position/back off) from such admission.
Related case- Ram Sahai v. Jai Prakash, 1993

21. Proof of admission against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.

Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they con not be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases-

(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead it would be relevant as between third person under section 32. 

(2) 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. 

(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

Illustration-
(a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged.
A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that the deed is forged ; but A cannot prove a statement y himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.

(b) A, the Captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away.
Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course.
A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day to day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course, A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under Section 32, clause (2).

(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta.
He produces a letter written by himself and date at Lahore on that day, and bearing the Lahore post mark of that day.
The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under section 32, clause (2).

(d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.
He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value.
A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.

(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit.
He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that person did examine it and told him it was genuine.
A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration.

22. When oral admission as to contents of documents are relevant.

Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant unless and until the party proposing 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.

22A. When oral admissions as to contents of electronic records are relevant.

Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.

23. Admission in Civil cases, when relevant.

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. 

Explanation-
Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader, attorney or Vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under Section 126.

24. Confession by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat 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 proceeding against him.

Related to this Section-
Section 316 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

25. Confession to police officer not to be proved.

No confession made to police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

Related to this Section-
Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

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 police-officer, 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, 1882 (10 of 1882)

27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.

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 thereby discovered, may be proved.

28. Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise, relevant.

If such a confession as is referred to in Section 24 is made after the impression caused by any inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court been fully removed it is relevant.

29. Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secretary etc.

If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become it was made under a promise of secrecy. or in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to question which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those question, or because he was not warned that he was bound to make such confession, and that the evidence of it might be given against him.

30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trail for same offence.

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.
Explanation-
“Offence” as used in this Section, includes the abutment of, or attempt to commit, the offence. 

Illustrations-
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C.
It is proved that A said- “B and I murdered C”. the court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
(b) A is on his trail for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said, “A and I murdered C”.
The statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A as B is not being jointly tried.

31. Admissions not conclusive proof but may estop.

Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.

(Next is easy and easily understandable)

Next,
Section 32 and Section 33 – STATEMENTS BY PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE CALLED AS WITNESSES→

ADMISSION – Section 17-31 of Evidence Act
WritingLaw

STATEMENTS BY PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE CALLED AS WITNESSES – EVIDENCE ACT

32. Case in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc is relevant.

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 relevant facts in the following cases- 

(1) When it relates to cause of death – When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. 

Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. 

(2) Or is made in course of business – When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgement written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him. 

(3) Or against interest of maker – When the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when, if true it would expose him or would have exposed him to criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages. 

(4) Or gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general interest – When the statement gives the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any public right or custom or matter of public or general interest of the existence of which if it existed, he would have been likely to be aware, and when such statement was made before any controversy as to such right, custom or matter had arisen. 

(5) Or relates to existence of relationship – When the statement relates to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption between persons as to whose relationship by blood, marriage or adoption the person making the statement had special means of knowledge, and when the statement was made before the question in dispute was raised. 

(6) Or is made in will or deed relating to family affairs – When the statement relates to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption between persons deceased, and is made in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such deceased person belonged, or in any family pedigree, or upon any tombstone, family portrait or other thing on which such statements are usually made, and when such statement was made before the question in dispute was raised. 

(7) Or in document relating to transaction mentioned in section 13, Clause (a). – When the statement is contained in any deed, will or other document which relates to any such transaction as is mentioned in Section 13, Clause (a). 

(8) Or is made by several persons and express feelings relevant to matter in question – When the statement was made by a number of persons, and expressed feelings or impressions on their part relevant to the matter in question. 

Illustrations–
(a) The question is, whether A was murdered by B ;
or
A dies of injuries received in a transaction in the course of which she was ravished. The question is, whether she was ravished by B;
or
The question is, whether A was killed by B under such circumstances that a suit would lie against B by A’s widow.
Statements made by A as to the cause of his or her death, referring respectively to the murder, the rape, and the actionable wrong under consideration, are relevant facts. 

(b) The question is as to the date of A’s birth.
An entry in the diary of a deceased surgeon, regularly kept in the course of business, stating that, on a given day he attended A’s mother and delivered her of a son, is a relevant fact. 

(c) The question is, whether A was in Calcutta on a given day.
A statement in the diary of a deceased solicitor, regularly kept in the course of business, that, on a given day, the solicitor attended A at a place mentioned, in Calcutta , for the purpose of conferring with him upon specified business, is a relevant fact. 

(d) The question is, whether a ship sailed from Bombay harbour on a given day.
A letter written by a deceased member of a merchant’s firm, by which she was chartered, to their correspondents in London to whom the cargo was consigned, stating that the ship sailed on a given day from Bombay harbour, is a relevant fact. 

(e) The question is, whether rent was paid to A for certain land.
A letter from A’s deceased agent to A, saying that he had received the rent on A’s account and held it at A’s orders, is a relevant fact. 

(f) The question is, whether A and B were legally married.
The statement of a deceased clergyman that he married them under such circumstances that the celebration would be a crime, is relevant. 

(g) The question is, whether A, a person who cannot be found, wrote a letter on a certain day. The fact that a letter written by him is dated on that day, is relevant. 

(h) The question is, what was the cause of the wreck of a ship.
A protest made by the Captain, whose attendance cannot be procured, is a relevant fact. 

(i) The question is, whether a given road is a public way.
A statement by A, a deceased headman of the village, that the road was public, is a relevant fact. 

(j) The question is, what was the price of grain on a certain day in a particular market.
A statement of the price, made by a deceased banya in the ordinary course of his business is a relevant fact. 

(k) The question is, whether A, who is dead, was the father of B.
A statement by A that B was his son, is a relevant fact. 

(l) The question is, what was the date of the birth of A.
A letter from A’s deceased father to a friend, announcing the birth of A on a given day, is a relevant fact. 

(m) The question is, whether, and when, A and B were married.
An entry in a memorandum-book by C, the deceased father of B, of his daughter’s marriage with A on a given date, is a relevant fact. 

(n) A sues B for a libel expressed in a painted caricature exposed in a shop window. The question is as to the similarity of the caricature and its libellous character. The remarks of a crowd of spectators on these points may be proved.

Comments:

Admissibility of dying declaration-

i) There can be no dispute that dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction however such a dying declaration has to be proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful and further that the maker must be in fit medical conditions to make it.
Related case- Waikhom Yaima Singh v. State of Manipur, 2011

ii) Dying declaration should be such which should immensely strike to be genuine and stating true story of its maker. It should be free from all doubts and on going through it, an impression has to be registered immediately in mind that it is genuine, true and not tainted with doubts. Further it should not be the result of torturing.
Related case- Nanhar v. State of Haryana, 2010

iii) It would be very unsafe and hazardous to sustain the conviction of the accused charged for offences under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by special executive magistrate and police officer separately.
Related case- Dada Machindra Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 1999

iv) Where there were infirmities in declaration regarding state of deceased to make oral dying declaration and unnatural conduct of witness to whom dying declaration was allegedly given by the deceased which was disclosed to the police after two days of death of deceased, accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Related case- Ram Sai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994

v) Where deceased victim knew assailants and gave their names to his family members at first opportunity his dying declaration could be relied upon.
Related case- Prakash v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1993

Admissions are not conclusive-

There is no doubt that admissions are good piece of evidence and they can be used against its maker. Admissions are however not conclusive and unless they constitute estoppel, the maker is at liberty to prove that they are mistaken or are untrue.
Related case- Jagdish Prasad v. Sarwan Kumar, 2003

Dying declaration-

That the FIR as well as the statement given by the injured to the investigating officer is not admissible as dying declaration under section 32.
Related case- Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000

Dying declaration must be made by deceased only-

The declaration made by the deceased cannot be called dying declaration because it was not voluntary and answers were not given by her, it was her husband who was answering.
Related case- Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal, 2004

Reliability of dying declaration-

Is the dying declaration has been recorded in accordance with law, is reliable and gives a cogent and possible explanation of the occurrence of the events, then the dying declaration can certainly be relied upon by the court and could form the sole piece of evidence resulting in the conviction of the accused.
Related case- Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012

Survival of victim-

When a victim making a dying declaration survives the said dying declaration does not remain substantive evidence.
Related case- Sunder Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, 2010

When dying declaration does not require further corroboration-

Once the court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthfull version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration.
Related case- Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, 1958

When more than one dying declaration-

i) In case of two conflicting dying declarations one recorded by doctor in the presence of two more doctors and second by a person attested by Sarpanch, in second one being not proved by competent witness cannot be relied upon.
Related case- Harbansh Lal v. State of Haryana, 1993

ii) Where there are more than one dying declarations and they are inconsistent; there is not possible to pick out one such declaration wherein accused is implicated and base the conviction on the sole basis of that dying declaration.
Related Case- Kamla v. State of Punjab, 1993

Among three dying declaration recorded by doctor, police and magistrate with no infirmity in any, the fact that third declaration was not in question and answer form is not material.
Related case- Ganpat Mahadeo Mane v. State of Maharashtra, 1992

33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated.

Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a letter stage of the same judicial proceedings, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept our of the way by the adverse party or if his presence cannot be obtained without, an amount of delay of expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable;
Provided–
That 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;

That the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. 

Explanation-
A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.

Next,
Section 34 to Section 38 – STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES→

STATEMENTS BY PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE CALLED AS WITNESSES – Section 32-33 of Evidence Act
WritingLaw

STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES – EVIDENCE ACT

34. Entries in books of account including those maintained in an electronic form, when relevant.

Entries in books of accounts 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. 

Illustration-
A sues B for Rs. 1,000, and shows entries in his account-books showing B to be indebted to him to this amount. The entries are relevant, but are not sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the debt.

*Admissibility-
Entries in account books regularly kept in the course of business are admissible though they by themselves cannot create any liability.
Related Case- Ishwar Das v. Sohan Law, 2000

Unbound sheets of paper are not books of account and cannot be relied upon.
Related Case- Dharam Chand Joshi v. Satya Narayan Bazaz, 1993

Books of account being only corroborative evidence must be supported by other evidence.
Related Case- Dharam Chand Joshi v. Satya Narayan Bazaz, 1993

35. Relevancy of entry in public [record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty.

An entry 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.

*Documents made ante litem motam-
Documents made ante litem motam can be relied upon safely, when such documents are admissible under section 35.
Related case- Murugam versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2011

*Relevancy of Baptism certificate-
It has been held regarding proof about legitimacy of child that the British certificate proceeding on the basis of baptism certificate, containing fact that baptism record was read and checked before the godparents and signed by person along with godparents, such certificate is valid. Thus British certificate proceeding on basis of baptism certificate legally recognised legitimacy.
Related case- Luis Caetano Viegan v. Esterline Mariana R.M.A. Da’Costa, 2003

36. Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans.

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 facts.

37. Relevancy of statement as to fact of public nature, contained in certain Acts or notifications.

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 Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or in any Central Act, Provincial Act, or a State Act, or in a Government notification or notification by the Crown Representative appearing in the Official Gazette or in any printed paper purporting to be the London Gazette or the Government Gazette of any Dominion, colony or possession of His Majesty is a relevant fact.

38. Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law books.

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 under the authority of the Government of such country and to contain any such law, any report of a ruling of the Courts of such country contained in a book purporting to be a report of such rulings, is relevant.

Next,
Section 39 – HOW MUCH OF A STATEMENT IS TO BE PROVED→

STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES – Section 34-38 of Evidence Act
WritingLaw

HOW MUCH OF A STATEMENT IS TO BE PROVED – EVIDENCE ACT

39. What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers.

When 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.

Next,
Section 40 to Section 44 – JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE, WHEN RELEVANT→

HOW MUCH OF A STATEMENT IS TO BE PROVED – Section 39 of Evidence Act
WritingLaw