Scribd
Upload
2 views

Expanded_Proof_of_Documents_BSA_2023[1]

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reforms India's evidentiary law by replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and introduces a modern framework for handling documentary evidence. It covers definitions, methods of proof, classifications, and the admissibility of electronic records, supported by relevant case laws. The Act enhances evidentiary efficacy through statutory presumptions and procedural safeguards, addressing contemporary challenges in document-based evidence.

Uploaded by

Dinesh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views

Expanded_Proof_of_Documents_BSA_2023[1]

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reforms India's evidentiary law by replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and introduces a modern framework for handling documentary evidence. It covers definitions, methods of proof, classifications, and the admissibility of electronic records, supported by relevant case laws. The Act enhances evidentiary efficacy through statutory presumptions and procedural safeguards, addressing contemporary challenges in document-based evidence.

Uploaded by

Dinesh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023

ASSIGNMENT

SUBMITTED BY

NAME - N DINESH

COURSE - B.A.LL.B

SEMESTER - VIII

REG. NO. - 42321231059

SUBMITTED TO

FACULTY – Mr. S.B.N. PRAKASH Sir

RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW,

BANGALORE – 560 054.


Proof of Documents under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Abstract
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, marks a substantial reform in India’s
evidentiary law by replacing the colonial Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This new legislation
reflects a more technologically conscious and procedurally adequate structure. Among its
core areas is the proof of documents, vital to litigation. This paper analyzes documentary
evidence under the Act—covering definitions, methods of proof, classifications,
electronic records, presumptions, and judicial interpretations—complemented by relevant
case laws. The research offers a deep dive into how BSA 2023 addresses challenges in
modern document-based evidence handling.

Introduction
Documentary evidence is indispensable in judicial processes. As society increasingly
relies on written and digital records, legal systems have evolved to ensure that such
documents meet rigorous standards of admissibility and proof. With the introduction of
the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA 2023), India embraces a modern statutory
framework for handling documentary evidence. This research explores the legal
dimensions of proving documents under BSA 2023, highlighting substantive provisions,
case laws, and procedural changes.

1. Definition and Scope of Documentary Evidence


Section 2(1)(d) of BSA 2023 defines a 'document' broadly, encompassing any matter
expressed by means of letters, figures, marks, or any other method for recording
information, including electronic records. This inclusive definition ensures adaptability to
emerging technologies such as digital signatures and cloud storage.

Case Law: In *State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu* (2005) 11 SCC 600, the Supreme
Court accepted the relevance of electronic records such as call data as admissible
evidence under Section 65B of the IT Act.

2. Primary Evidence and the Best Evidence Rule


Section 57 of BSA 2023 defines primary evidence as the document itself. It emphasizes
the 'best evidence rule,' ensuring that courts have access to the original record for
reliability.

The section includes:


- Multiple originals.
- Counterparts.
- Copies from mechanical reproduction.
Case Law: In *Satish v. State of Uttar Pradesh* (2018) SCC OnLine All 775, the
Allahabad High Court reiterated that the absence of the original document could
undermine the credibility of the evidence presented.

3. When Secondary Evidence Is Admissible


Section 58 outlines when secondary evidence is permissible, such as when the original is
lost, destroyed, or withheld by the adversary. Acceptable forms include certified copies
and oral accounts.

Case Law: *Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (2013) 10 SCC 758, where the Supreme
Court allowed a photocopy of a dying declaration due to the unavailability of the original.

4. Mode of Proof of Execution of Documents


Section 59 provides that a document’s contents must be proved via primary or secondary
evidence, and execution may be established through witnesses or expert evidence.

Case Law: In *J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani* (2007) 5 SCC 730, the Court ruled that
proof of handwriting or signature may be offered by comparison or expert opinion, but
primary evidence is always preferred.

5. Presumptions Regarding Documentary Evidence


Presumptions simplify legal proceedings by shifting the burden of proof:

- Section 64: Genuineness of certified copies.


- Section 65: Authenticity of 30-year-old documents.
- Section 66: Electronic records presumed genuine.
- Section 67: Presumption of regularity in official acts.

Case Law: *Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India* AIR 1983 Bom 1, held that a 30-
year-old sale deed could be presumed genuine if produced from proper custody.

6. Electronic Records: Admissibility and Authenticity


Electronic records form a substantial portion of modern litigation. Section 66 and related
provisions draw from the Information Technology Act, 2000. Digital signatures, hash
values, and timestamps are methods of authentication.

Case Law: *Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer* (2014) 10 SCC 473 emphasized strict
compliance with Section 65B of the IT Act for admissibility of electronic records.

7. Classification: Public vs. Private Documents


Section 60 categorizes documents:
- Public: Created by public officials.
- Private: All others.

Proof of public documents requires certified copies; private documents need primary or
secondary evidence.

Case Law: *State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh* AIR 1983 SC 684 clarified that
public documents must be produced in a prescribed manner to claim admissibility.

8. Burden of Proof and Rebuttals in Documentary Evidence


Sections 102–106 deal with the burden of proof. The party relying on a document must
prove its authenticity. Once proved, the burden may shift to the opposing party to rebut it.

Case Law: *LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen* (2010) 4 SCC 491 held that once
execution is proved, onus shifts to the party challenging its authenticity.

9. Proof of Attested and Testamentary Documents


Section 61 makes it mandatory to call at least one attesting witness for documents
required by law to be attested, such as wills.

Case Law: *Benga Behera v. Braja Kishore Nanda* AIR 2007 SC 1975 confirmed the
rule requiring proof by attesting witnesses.

10. Harmonization with Judicial Precedents


Although BSA 2023 is new, courts continue to apply earlier precedents unless expressly
overruled. Harmonization is essential for continuity.

Case Law: *Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh* (2015) 7 SCC 178 emphasized that
adverse inference may be drawn if electronic evidence is withheld.

Conclusion
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 significantly refines the approach toward proof
of documents. Its provisions harmonize classical evidentiary rules with modern demands,
especially with the increasing relevance of electronic records. Through statutory
presumptions, clearer classification, and robust procedural safeguards, the Act enhances
evidentiary efficacy. Supported by judicial interpretation, BSA 2023 provides a
comprehensive and adaptive framework for the proof of documentary evidence in India.
References
1. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of
India.

2. Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for historical comparison).

4. Satish v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 SCC OnLine All 775.

5. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.

6. J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730.

7. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.

8. Kaliya v. State of M.P., (2013) 10 SCC 758.

9. Om Prakash Berlia v. UTI, AIR 1983 Bom 1.

10. Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178.

You might also like