Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023`

Introduction

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 marks a pivotal step in modernizing India’s evidence laws, replacing the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Designed to address the complexities of today’s legal framework, this legislation integrates technological advancements and responds to contemporary legal challenges. By bridging gaps in the outdated system, the new Act aims to enhance the efficiency and fairness of judicial proceedings in both civil and criminal cases.

With roots in the venerable Indian Evidence Act, this reform reflects decades of review and recommendations, including pivotal changes in areas such as electronic evidence, custodial violence, and consent in rape cases. By ushering in a progressive and technology-ready framework, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 promises to be a cornerstone for India’s evolving justice system.

Key Definitions under The Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023

 The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 introduces a modern framework for evidence laws in India, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This legislation is designed to streamline the rules of evidence, incorporating technological advancements and addressing contemporary legal challenges. One of the most critical aspects of this Act is the clear and precise definitions it provides, which lay the foundation for its application. Here are the key definitions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023:

1. Court

The term “Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates, along with all individuals legally authorized to take evidence, excluding arbitrators.

2. Conclusive Proof

When a fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall accept it as proved without allowing any evidence to disprove it.

3. Disproved

A fact is considered “disproved” if the Court believes it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent person would act on that assumption.

4. Document

A “document” refers to any matter recorded through letters, figures, marks, or digital means. It includes:

• Writings
• Printed or photographed words
• Maps or plans
• Inscriptions on metal plates or stones
• Digital records, such as emails, server logs, and messages

5. Evidence

Evidence is categorized into two types:

• Oral Evidence: Statements made before the Court, including electronic statements.
• Documentary Evidence: Documents, including electronic or digital records, presented for Court inspection.

6. Fact

A “fact” encompasses:

• Anything perceivable by the senses.
• Any mental condition of which a person is conscious.

Examples:

• A person seeing or hearing something.
• A person’s intention, good faith, or knowledge.

7. Facts in Issue

These are facts directly connected to determining the rights, liabilities, or disabilities under dispute in a suit or proceeding.

8. Presumptions

The Act distinguishes between different types of presumptions:

• May Presume: The Court may regard a fact as proved unless disproved or demand further proof.
• Shall Presume: The Court must accept a fact as proved unless disproved.

9. Proved, Not Proved, and Disproved

• Proved: A fact is considered proved if the Court believes it exists based on the evidence presented.
• Not Proved: A fact is neither proved nor disproved.
• Disproved: The Court concludes that the fact does not exist or deems its non-existence probable.

10. Relevant Facts

A fact is deemed relevant if it is connected to another fact in a manner specified by the provisions of the Act regarding the relevancy of facts.

Relevancy of Facts under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

The concept of relevancy plays a foundational role in the administration of justice, ensuring that only pertinent facts are presented and considered during judicial proceedings. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, encapsulates the principle of relevancy in Section 5, which outlines the scope and boundaries of admissible evidence.

Meaning of Relevancy

Relevancy refers to the connection between a fact and the matter in question. A fact is considered relevant if it has a direct or indirect bearing on the facts in issue or helps to establish the truth in a case. Section 5 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam clearly states that evidence can be given only of:

1. Facts in Issue: These are the primary facts that are directly in dispute in a case. For example, in a murder trial, the fact that the accused caused the victim’s death is a fact in issue.
2. Relevant Facts: These are subsidiary facts that, while not directly in dispute, help to establish or disprove the facts in issue.

The act emphasizes that this provision does not allow evidence of facts that are barred under any existing law, such as the Code of Civil Procedure. This limitation ensures that procedural requirements are upheld, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

The Act provides illustrations to clarify the application of this section:

• In a murder trial, facts such as the accused’s act of beating the victim, the resulting death, and the intent behind the act are all relevant to the case.
• In a civil suit, if a party fails to produce a bond at the first hearing as required under procedural law, this section does not permit them to present it later unless procedural conditions are met.

Understanding Facts Forming Part of the Same Transaction

In legal proceedings, understanding the relevance of facts is crucial for establishing the truth and ensuring justice. One key concept that aids this process is “Facts Forming Part of the Same Transaction.” This principle ensures that certain interconnected facts are considered relevant even if they are not directly at issue in the case. These facts provide a comprehensive understanding of the events, enabling courts to make informed decisions.

What Are Facts Forming Part of the Same Transaction?

Facts that are so closely connected with the main fact in issue or another relevant fact that they form a part of the same occurrence are considered relevant under this principle. These facts may occur at the same time, before, or after the main event, but their connection is significant enough to shed light on the entire transaction.

Key Features of the Principle

1. Interconnected Events: Facts that are intrinsically linked to the main event are relevant. This includes words, actions, or circumstances surrounding the occurrence.
2. Time and Place Irrelevance: These facts may take place at different times or locations but must form part of the broader narrative of the transaction.
3. Contextual Understanding: Such facts help in providing context, ensuring a clearer understanding of the main issue.

Illustrations of the Concept

1. Murder Case: If person A is accused of murdering person B by beating, any statements or actions by A, B, or bystanders during the incident, or shortly before or after it, form part of the same transaction.
2. Insurrection: In cases of armed rebellion involving property destruction and attacks, all related occurrences form part of the transaction, even if the accused wasn’t present for every act.
3. Defamation Case: In a libel suit involving a letter, other correspondence that provides context to the libel, though not containing the libel itself, is relevant.
4. Delivery Dispute: If goods pass through several intermediaries before reaching the intended recipient, each delivery is a relevant fact.

Facts Related to Motive, Conduct & Intent under Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam

In legal proceedings, understanding the context of an act is as important as determining the act itself. Motive, conduct, and intent play a crucial role in interpreting the facts of a case. 

Motive and Its Relevance

Motive refers to the reason behind an individual’s actions. While motive alone cannot prove guilt, it helps establish a logical link between the individual and the act in question. For example:

• If a person accused of a crime benefits financially or otherwise from the act, their motive becomes a relevant consideration.
• Illustration: In a murder trial, evidence showing that the accused would gain inheritance upon the victim’s death may point to a possible motive.

Preparation and Its Significance

Preparation involves actions taken to facilitate an act. It provides insight into whether an act was premeditated or spontaneous. Evidence of preparation strengthens the argument that an act was intentional rather than accidental.

• Illustration: Procuring poison similar to that used in a poisoning case demonstrates preparation, making it a relevant fact.

Conduct: Before, During, and After the Act

Conduct refers to the behavior of a person in relation to the act in question. It is relevant when it reflects their state of mind or intent. Conduct can be examined:

1. Before the Act: Actions that indicate planning or motive.
   • Example: Consulting a lawyer about drafting a will shortly before an alleged fraudulent will emerges.
2. During the Act: Behavior that directly relates to the act.
   • Example: Attempting to conceal evidence while committing a crime.
3. After the Act: Actions that suggest guilt or awareness of wrongdoing.
   • Example: Absconding from the scene after being accused of a crime.

Intent: Accidental or Deliberate

Intent is the mental state with which an act is committed. Establishing intent helps determine whether an act was deliberate or accidental. Facts from a series of similar occurrences can be pivotal in determining intent.

• Illustration: If an individual’s previous actions involve fraudulent delivery of counterfeit currency, it strengthens the claim that similar current actions were intentional.

Supporting Evidence and Illustrations

The following examples highlight how motive, conduct, and intent can establish the context of a legal case:

1. Motive: A’s financial gain from the death of B can suggest a motive for murder.
2. Conduct: A running away when confronted about a robbery is relevant as it implies guilt.
3. Intent: A history of fraudulent acts points to intentional wrongdoing rather than accidental actions.

The Role of Statements and Complaints

Statements made in connection with relevant conduct can also be critical:

• Statements that accompany or explain acts are relevant.
• Complaints made shortly after an incident, along with the circumstances and terms, hold evidentiary value.

Principle of Relevance in Judicial Findings

The legal system relies on a sophisticated framework for evaluating evidence, ensuring that only meaningful and substantive information influences judicial decisions. Section 10-14 of the BNS provides critical insights into how courts determine the relevance of facts across various types of legal proceedings.

The Fundamental Principle of Relevant Evidence

At its core, legal evidence serves a singular purpose: to illuminate the truth. When a lawsuit involves damages, courts do not simply accept claims at face value. Instead, they meticulously examine every piece of information that could help determine a fair and precise compensation amount. This approach transforms evidence from mere statements into a comprehensive narrative of events.

Understanding Rights and Contextual Evidence

Legal rights are not abstract concepts but living histories embedded in transactions, claims, and historical practices. Courts investigate the entire ecosystem of a right, analyzing not just ownership documents but the comprehensive context of its creation, exercise, and potential challenges.

For instance, in a dispute over fishing rights, a judge might consider multiple layers of evidence: ancestral deeds, mortgage documents, historical instances of right exercise, and interactions between involved parties. This holistic approach ensures that legal determinations reflect the nuanced realities of property and communal rights.

The Psychological Landscape of Legal Reasoning

Perhaps the most intricate aspect of judicial fact-finding is understanding human intention and mental state. Courts recognize that human actions are rarely straightforward, requiring a deep exploration of context, knowledge, and motivational factors.

Evidence of intention encompasses various dimensions:

• Demonstrable knowledge
• Indicators of good faith
• Patterns of negligence
• Behavioral consistency

In a case involving stolen goods, possession of multiple stolen items can suggest more than coincidence—it can indicate a systematic understanding of criminal activity. Similarly, fraud investigations look beyond immediate actions to examine broader behavioral patterns.

Intentionality and Systematic Behavior Analysis

Distinguishing between intentional and accidental actions represents a sophisticated judicial challenge. Rather than relying on isolated incidents, courts analyze series of similar occurrences to understand true intent. This method proves particularly effective in complex cases involving potential insurance fraud, financial misrepresentation, or systematic misconduct.

Business Practices as Contextual Evidence

Established institutional practices provide another crucial layer of evidentiary analysis. Courts consider standard operational procedures, typical communication methods, and organizational norms when determining the likelihood of specific actions occurring.

Judicial Fact-Finding

Legal relevance transcends mere evidence collection. It represents a nuanced process of understanding human behavior, institutional dynamics, and historical contexts. By examining facts from multiple perspectives—historical, psychological, procedural—courts strive to construct the most accurate representation of events.

Admissions under Relevancy of Facts

In the legal world, admissions are statements made by parties or others involved in a proceeding, which can be used as evidence to suggest certain facts or inferences that are relevant to the case at hand. The concept of admissions plays a critical role in the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam , particularly in relation to the relevancy of facts. This section of the article will break down the concept of admissions, explain their importance, and elaborate on the specific sections under the BSA that govern them.

What is an Admission?

An admission is defined as a statement—whether oral, documentary, or in electronic form—that suggests any inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact in a case. Admissions can be made by the parties involved in the case or by other individuals whose statements are considered relevant in the context of the case.

This section sets the foundation for the general idea of what constitutes an admission and acknowledges that any statement that implies a fact can be used as evidence. Admissions can include not only direct statements but also actions or conduct that imply facts about the case.

Admission by Party to the Proceeding or Their Agent

This section delves deeper into who can make an admission:

1. Party to the Proceeding: Statements made by a party directly involved in the case, or by their agent, can be considered as admissions. This holds true if the agent is expressly or impliedly authorized by the party to make such statements.
   Example: If a person is involved in a lawsuit and their lawyer makes a statement in court admitting a particular fact, that statement is considered an admission.
2. Specific Conditions for Admission: The section further clarifies that:
   • If a party is suing or being sued in a representative capacity (like a trustee or an executor), statements made by them will only be considered admissions if they were made while holding that position.
   • People who have a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the suit (such as a business partner or a co-owner) can also make admissions that are relevant, provided the statement is made while they hold such an interest.

Admissions by Persons Whose Position Must Be Proven Against the Party

Section 17 talks about admissions made by individuals whose position or liability must be proved against a party in the case. If these individuals make statements relevant to their position or liability, those statements are considered admissions.

Example: In a case where A is suing B over unpaid rent, and A denies that rent was due from C to B, a statement made by C saying “I owe rent to B” would be considered an admission. This is especially true if C’s statement helps prove the facts related to the dispute between A and B.

Admissions by Persons Referred to by a Party to the Suit

Section 18 addresses statements made by individuals who are expressly referred to by a party in the suit for information on a disputed matter. These individuals’ statements can be treated as admissions if they are directly related to the matter in dispute.

Example: If A and B are in a dispute about whether a horse sold by A to B is sound, and A tells B, “Go and ask C; C knows all about it,” any statement made by C about the condition of the horse can be treated as an admission.

Proof of Admissions Against the Person Making Them

Section 19 deals with the admissibility and proof of admissions in court. It specifies that an admission can be used as evidence against the person who makes it or their representative. However, there are certain exceptions where a person may prove their own admission:

1. Admissions That Would Be Relevant Between Third Parties: If the admission is of such a nature that it would be relevant even if the person making it were dead, it may be proved by or on behalf of that person. For example, a statement made by someone about the existence of a fact that would still be relevant if they were no longer alive.
2. State of Mind or Body: An admission made regarding a person’s state of mind or body at a particular time, especially when accompanied by conduct that makes the statement likely to be true, can be proved by the person making it. This is relevant when the state of mind or body is a key issue in the case.
3. Admissions Not Used Solely as Admissions: In certain cases, an admission may be proved by the person who made it if it is relevant for reasons other than being an admission. For example, when the admission explains certain actions or conduct during the dispute.

Illustrations:

• Example 1: If A affirms that a deed is genuine, but B says it is forged, A cannot prove his own statement that the deed is genuine. However, B can prove a statement by A that the deed is genuine.
• Example 2: A, a ship captain, produces a logbook to show the ship was on course. Even if A were dead, this logbook would be admissible between third parties, as it’s relevant to establishing the ship’s route.
• Example 3: A accused of receiving stolen goods can prove that he doubted whether the goods were stolen and consulted an expert, as this can explain his conduct.

Oral Admissions Regarding the Contents of Documents

Section 20 deals with oral admissions related to the contents of documents. Typically, oral statements about the contents of a document are not relevant unless:

• The party proposing the admission can show they are allowed to give secondary evidence of the document’s contents.
• The genuineness of the document is in question.

This ensures that documents are properly authenticated and not just replaced by oral testimony that could be unreliable.

Admissions in Civil Cases When Relevant

In civil cases, admissions are not considered relevant if:

• They were made under an express condition that they should not be used as evidence.
• The circumstances suggest that both parties agreed not to allow the admission to be used in court.

This rule ensures that statements made during negotiations or settlements, where parties may not want to bind themselves, are not unfairly used against them later.

Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat, Coercion, or Promise

Section 22 makes clear that any confession made by an accused person will not be considered relevant if it was made under any form of coercion, inducement, or threat. Confessions that are forced or promised for leniency cannot be used as evidence unless:

• The inducement, threat, or coercion has been removed, and the confession is made voluntarily.
• The confession is otherwise relevant.

This section protects the rights of the accused, ensuring that confessions are not extracted unfairly by authorities.

Confession to a Police Officer

Section 23 is particularly relevant in criminal cases. It states that:

• Confessions to a police officer are not admissible in court. This includes confessions made while the accused is in police custody, unless the confession is made in the presence of a magistrate.
• However, if any facts related to the discovery of evidence are disclosed by the accused while in police custody, those facts may be admitted as evidence, even if the statement amounts to a confession.

This section prevents forced or unreliable confessions from being used against the accused and ensures that confessions are made under proper legal procedures.

Confession Affecting More Than One Person

Section 24 allows the court to consider a confession made by one person in a joint trial for a crime, if the confession affects both the person who made it and others jointly accused of the crime.

Illustration:

• Example 1: A and B are tried for the murder of C. If A confesses, “B and I murdered C,” the court can consider A’s confession as evidence against both A and B.
• Example 2: If B, who is tried separately, says, “A and I murdered C,” this statement is not admissible against A in his trial, as B is not being tried jointly with A.

This ensures that confessions can be used appropriately when multiple defendants are involved in the same crime.

Admissions Not Conclusive Proof but May Estop

Section 25 clarifies that an admission is not conclusive proof of the fact it asserts. However, it may act as an estoppel, which means the person making the admission may be prevented from later denying the fact they have admitted, in certain situations.

For example, if a person admits to owing money but later tries to deny the debt, the admission can act as an estoppel, preventing them from denying it in court.

Statements by Persons who cannot be called as Witnesses under BSA

In legal proceedings, the absence of witnesses can pose significant challenges. However, Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023, provides provisions to ensure that justice is not hindered merely because a person cannot be called as a witness. Sections 26 and 27 of the Act deal with the relevancy of statements made by individuals who are deceased, missing, or otherwise unable to testify. 

Relevance of Statements by Deceased or Unavailable Persons

Section 26 outlines the circumstances under which the statements of a person who cannot be called as a witness become relevant in legal proceedings. These statements, whether written or verbal, are considered relevant if they pertain to specific situations, ensuring that valuable evidence is not excluded due to the unavailability of the individual.

Key Scenarios Where Such Statements Are Relevant

1. Statements Relating to the Cause of Death:
   • If a statement explains the cause of a person’s death or the circumstances leading to it, it becomes admissible when the cause of death is a matter of legal inquiry.
   • Such statements are considered relevant regardless of whether the individual making them expected death at the time.
2. Statements Made in the Ordinary Course of Business:
   • Entries, memos, or records created in the regular course of business are admissible. For instance, business ledgers or professional logs made in good faith can serve as credible evidence.
3. Statements Against Pecuniary or Proprietary Interest:
   • Statements that go against the financial or property interests of the person making them, or which expose them to liability, are admissible as they are presumed to carry a high degree of truthfulness.
4. Statements on Public Rights or Customs:
   • Opinions or declarations about public rights, customs, or general matters of interest are considered relevant if made before any dispute on the matter arose.
5. Statements Regarding Relationships:
   • Declarations concerning relationships, such as those by blood, marriage, or adoption, are admissible if the person making the statement had special knowledge about the matter.
   • Statements recorded in family documents, such as wills or genealogies, are particularly significant.
6. Statements in Official or Commercial Documents:
   • Documents like deeds, wills, or records used in business transactions, created by the unavailable individual, are relevant if they pertain to the matter in question.
7. Statements Reflecting Collective Opinions:
   • Statements made by a group of people, expressing collective feelings or impressions, may also be relevant, particularly in cases involving public sentiment.

Illustrative Examples

• A deceased doctor’s journal entry about delivering a baby on a specific date can be used to verify the birthdate of a person.
• A letter from a deceased agent confirming receipt of rent can establish a rental agreement.
• Family records noting marriages or births are admissible to verify relationships.
• Statements from a village headman about the public nature of a road can be used as evidence in property disputes.

Relevance of Evidence in Subsequent Proceedings

Section 27 deals with situations where evidence provided in earlier proceedings can be used in later proceedings. This ensures that the unavailability of a witness does not lead to the loss of critical evidence.

Conditions for Admissibility

1. Same Parties or Their Representatives:
   • The earlier and subsequent proceedings must involve the same parties or their legal representatives.
2. Opportunity for Cross-Examination:
   • The adverse party in the initial proceeding must have had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
3. Substantially Similar Issues:
   • The questions in issue must be substantially the same in both proceedings.

In criminal cases, the prosecutor and the accused are deemed to represent the same parties in subsequent proceedings. This provision ensures that continuity is maintained in the judicial process, and evidence from prior stages is not disregarded.

Illustrative Examples

• If a witness’s testimony in a previous trial involved the same parties and issues, it can be used in subsequent trials if the witness becomes unavailable.
• In a case of property dispute, depositions from an earlier proceeding can be admitted if the conditions of Section 27 are met.

Statements Made Under Special Circumstances

In legal proceedings, certain statements and records hold significance when made or maintained under specific conditions. These statements are considered relevant, but they often require corroborative evidence to establish their validity fully. 

Entries in Books of Account

Entries in books of account, including those maintained electronically, are relevant if they pertain to a matter under judicial inquiry. However, these entries alone are insufficient to establish liability.

Illustration: If A sues B for ₹1,000 and produces account book entries showing B owes this amount, the entries are relevant. Yet, additional evidence is necessary to prove the debt conclusively.

Entry in Public Records or Electronic Records 

Public records or electronic records made by public servants in their official capacity, or by individuals fulfilling legal obligations, are relevant facts. These records are recognized for their credibility due to the duty-bound process of their creation.

Statements in Maps, Charts, and Plans 

Facts stated in published maps, charts, or plans offered for public sale, or those created under government authority, are deemed relevant. This provision ensures reliability in representations made for public reference.

Statements of Public Nature in Acts or Notifications

When determining the existence of a public fact, statements in Central or State Acts, government notifications in official gazettes, or their electronic forms are relevant. Such documents are trusted sources for establishing public facts.

Statements in Law Books 

When courts need to understand the laws of a country, statements in officially published law books, including electronic versions, are relevant. Additionally, reports of court rulings in recognized legal publications are admissible.

Practical Implications

These provisions emphasize the importance of verifying statements made under special circumstances. While they are admissible as evidence, corroborative proof is often required to substantiate claims. For instance, entries in account books or public records need supplementary evidence to prove liability or authenticity.

Judgement of Courts when Relevant under BSA

The relevance of judgments, orders, and decrees issued by courts is a cornerstone of legal proceedings. The Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023 meticulously outlines the circumstances under which such judgments become significant, particularly in Sections 34 to 38. These sections provide a framework to ensure that prior judicial decisions are appropriately utilized while maintaining fairness and judicial integrity.

Preventing Repetition of Suits

Section 34 addresses scenarios where an existing judgment, order, or decree by law prevents a court from entertaining a new suit or holding a trial. This provision emphasizes the importance of judicial finality and efficiency, ensuring that matters conclusively decided are not re-litigated.

For instance, if a judgment already exists on a specific matter, it becomes a relevant fact in determining whether a court should take cognizance of a subsequent suit concerning the same issue. This principle is rooted in the doctrine of res judicata, which aims to prevent repetitive litigation and promote the effective use of judicial resources.

Relevancy of Judgments in Probate, Matrimonial, Admiralty, or Insolvency Jurisdictions

Section 35 pertains to final judgments, orders, or decrees passed by competent courts in specific jurisdictions such as probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency. These judgments are considered relevant when they confer or take away a legal character or establish entitlement to property absolutely, without regard to any particular individual.

The section further elaborates that such judgments are conclusive proof of the following:

1. The legal character conferred by the judgment is deemed to have accrued from the time the judgment takes effect.
2. The legal character revoked by the judgment ceases to exist from the time specified in the judgment.
3. Absolute entitlement to a property declared by the judgment is conclusively established from the date specified.

For example, a final probate judgment declaring a person as the rightful heir to an estate conclusively establishes their legal character as the heir and their absolute entitlement to the property.

Relevancy of Judgments on Public Matters

Section 36 focuses on judgments, orders, or decrees that relate to matters of public interest. These judgments are relevant when the issues they address are pertinent to the inquiry at hand. However, it is important to note that while such judgments may be relevant, they are not conclusive proof of the facts they state.

An illustration of this principle can be seen in cases involving public rights. For instance, if A sues B for trespass and B claims a public right of way over the land, a prior decree in favor of B in a similar case against C regarding the same right of way becomes a relevant fact. However, this decree does not conclusively establish the existence of the public right of way.

Judgments Outside Sections 34, 35, and 36

Section 37 deals with judgments, orders, or decrees that do not fall within the scope of Sections 34, 35, or 36. These judgments are generally irrelevant unless their existence is directly in issue or they are deemed relevant under another provision of the BSA.

This section highlights specific scenarios where such judgments might be considered:

1. In cases where the judgment itself is a fact in issue.
2. When the judgment’s relevance is established through another applicable legal provision.

For example, if A and B separately sue C for libel, and A obtains a judgment against C for damages, this judgment is irrelevant in B’s case against C, even if the allegations are similar. Similarly, a criminal conviction in one case does not automatically influence a civil claim in another case unless explicitly relevant.

Proof of Fraud, Collusion, or Incompetency of Court

Section 38 provides a safeguard against misuse of judgments, orders, or decrees. It allows parties to challenge the validity of a judgment by proving:

1. The incompetency of the court that delivered the judgment.
2. Fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment.

For instance, if a judgment is alleged to have been secured through fraudulent means, such as misrepresentation or bribery, evidence proving this can render the judgment irrelevant. Similarly, if the court that passed the judgment lacked jurisdiction, the judgment can be contested on these grounds.

Opinions of Third Persons When Relevant Under Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam

In legal proceedings, the relevance of third-person opinions is a significant factor in aiding the court’s understanding and decision-making on matters that require specialized knowledge or insight. Under the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, the opinions of individuals possessing expertise or special means of knowledge are deemed relevant in specific contexts. These provisions ensure that the court can rely on qualified insights in areas where technical, scientific, or experiential understanding is essential. 

Opinions of Experts

Section 39 establishes the admissibility of expert opinions in matters requiring specialized knowledge. Experts are defined as persons skilled in foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or any other field relevant to the case. The court may rely on their opinions to form judgments on technical or specialized issues.

Illustrations:

1. Cause of Death: If a question arises regarding whether a person’s death was caused by poison, expert opinions on the symptoms associated with the suspected poison become relevant.
2. Mental Capacity: In cases where the mental soundness of an individual is questioned, experts can opine on whether the exhibited symptoms indicate unsoundness of mind.
3. Handwriting Analysis: If the authorship of a document is disputed, handwriting experts may compare the disputed document with a verified sample to determine if both were written by the same person.

Sub-section (2): This subsection addresses matters related to electronic evidence. When the court needs to form an opinion about information stored in digital or electronic form, the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence, as defined under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is considered relevant. The explanation categorically states that an Examiner of Electronic Evidence qualifies as an expert.

Facts Bearing Upon Opinions of Experts

This section highlights the relevance of facts that either support or contradict the opinions of experts. Such facts gain significance when they provide a basis for validating or disputing the expert’s findings.

Illustrations:

1. Poisoning Cases: If other individuals poisoned by the same substance display similar symptoms, such facts either corroborate or contradict the expert’s opinion regarding the poison’s effects.
2. Harbor Obstructions: In determining whether a sea wall caused obstruction to a harbor, the condition of other similar harbors without sea walls becomes relevant to support or refute the expert’s opinion.

Opinion as to Handwriting and Signature

Under Section 41, the court may consider the opinion of individuals acquainted with a person’s handwriting or signature. Such individuals may include those who have observed the person write, habitually received correspondence from them, or examined their documents in the course of business.

Explanation: A person is said to be acquainted with handwriting if they have directly or indirectly dealt with documents written by the individual in question.

Illustration: If a merchant in Bengaluru regularly receives letters purportedly written by a merchant in Itanagar, the opinion of the Bengaluru merchant, their clerk, or broker regarding the handwriting’s authenticity is deemed relevant.

Sub-section (2): Opinions about electronic signatures are also relevant. In such cases, the certifying authority that issued the Electronic Signature Certificate provides the necessary expert opinion.

Opinion as to Existence of General Custom or Right

This section pertains to opinions regarding the existence of general customs or rights. Individuals likely to have knowledge of such customs or rights—due to their association with the concerned community or practice—can provide relevant opinions.

Explanation: General customs or rights include those applicable to a significant group or class of people.

Illustration: If the right of villagers to use a particular well is in question, the opinions of those familiar with the village customs become relevant.

Opinion as to Usages, Tenets, and Other Matters

This section deals with opinions concerning:

1. Usages and tenets of a community or family.
2. Governance of religious or charitable institutions.
3. Interpretation of words or terms used by specific groups or regions.

Illustration: If the governance of a religious foundation is disputed, individuals with specialized knowledge of its constitution and practices can provide relevant opinions.

Opinion on Relationship

Section 44 focuses on opinions regarding personal relationships. The opinions of family members or others with special knowledge of the relationship are relevant. However, such opinions alone cannot establish marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act, 1869, or in prosecutions under certain sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Illustrations:

1. If a couple is treated as husband and wife by their social circle, this fact is relevant to establishing their relationship.
2. If a child is consistently treated as legitimate by the family, such treatment is relevant in determining legitimacy.

Grounds of Opinion

This section mandates that experts disclose the grounds or reasoning behind their opinions. Such grounds provide clarity and enable the court to evaluate the validity of the expert’s conclusions.

Illustration: An expert performing experiments to form an opinion about a particular chemical reaction must detail these experiments and their outcomes.

Character When Relevant under Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam

The relevance of a person’s character in legal proceedings is an important aspect of evidence law. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, lays down clear principles on when character can be considered in both civil and criminal cases. 

Character in Civil Cases

• General Rule (Section 46): In civil cases, a person’s character is irrelevant in proving or disproving any conduct attributed to them. This means that whether a person has a good or bad character does not affect the determination of their actions in a dispute. However, character can be considered if it is inferred from other relevant facts.
• Character Affecting Damages (Section 50): When assessing damages, the character of the person seeking damages may be relevant. This means that a person’s general reputation and disposition might influence the compensation awarded.

Character in Criminal Cases 

• Good Character (Section 47): If a person accused of a crime has a reputation for good character, this fact can be presented in court as relevant evidence. It may support the argument that the accused is unlikely to have committed the offense.
• Bad Character (Section 49): Generally, an accused person’s bad character is not admissible as evidence. However, if the defense presents evidence of the accused’s good character, the prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence of their bad character in response.
  • Explanation 1: This section does not apply when the bad character itself is a fact in issue.
  • Explanation 2: A prior conviction is considered relevant evidence of bad character.

Character in Cases of Sexual Offenses

In cases involving sexual offenses under sections 64 to 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the law provides additional protections for victims:

• If the issue of consent arises, the character or previous sexual history of the victim cannot be used as evidence.
• This ensures that victims are not unfairly judged based on their past and that consent is evaluated based on the circumstances of the alleged offense rather than personal history.

Facts Which Need Not Be Proved Under BSA

The Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam establishes fundamental principles regarding the presentation and admission of evidence in legal proceedings. Among its crucial provisions are Sections 51, 52, and 53, which outline specific categories of facts that need not be proved in court. These sections streamline legal proceedings by eliminating the need to prove certain self-evident or already established facts, thereby enhancing judicial efficiency.

Judicially Noticeable Facts

Section 51 establishes the basic principle that facts of which the Court will take judicial notice need not be proved. This provision serves as the foundation for judicial economy by preventing the unnecessary expenditure of time and resources on proving widely acknowledged facts.

Understanding Judicial Notice

Judicial notice refers to the court’s acceptance of certain facts without requiring formal evidence. This principle recognizes that some facts are so well-established, widely known, or easily verifiable that requiring their proof would be superfluous.

Mandatory Judicial Notice

Categories of Facts

The law mandates courts to take judicial notice of several categories of facts, including:

1. Legal Framework
   • All laws in force within India
   • Laws with extra-territorial operation
   • International treaties and agreements
   • Decisions made by India in international associations
2. Constitutional and Legislative Proceedings
   • Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly
   • Parliamentary proceedings
   • State Legislature proceedings
3. Official Seals and Authentication
   • Seals of Courts and Tribunals
   • Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction seals
   • Notaries Public seals
   • Constitutional and statutory seals
4. Public Officials and Offices
   • Appointments to public offices
   • Names, titles, and functions of public officers
   • Official signatures
5. International Relations
   • Existence and recognition of countries
   • National flags
   • State of hostilities with other nations
6. General Information
   • Time divisions
   • Geographical divisions
   • Public holidays and festivals
   • Indian territory
   • Rules of the road

Reference Materials

This subsection provides courts with the authority to:

• Consult appropriate reference materials
• Request supporting documentation before taking judicial notice
• Make informed decisions about matters of public history, literature, science, or art

Admitted Facts

This section addresses facts admitted by parties, establishing that:

1. Types of Admissions
   • Facts admitted during the hearing
   • Facts admitted in writing before the hearing
   • Facts deemed admitted through pleadings
2. Judicial Discretion
   • Courts retain discretion to require proof despite admissions
   • This safeguard ensures the integrity of legal proceedings

Practical Implications

These provisions serve several crucial functions in the legal system:

1. Judicial Efficiency
   • Reduces time spent on proving undisputed facts
   • Streamlines court proceedings
   • Allows focus on contested issues
2. Cost Reduction
   • Minimizes expenses related to proving well-established facts
   • Reduces the burden on parties involved
3. Consistency
   • Ensures uniform treatment of commonly known facts
   • Prevents contradictory findings on established matters

Proof of Documentary Evidence under the BSA

In legal proceedings, documentary evidence plays a crucial role in establishing facts and supporting claims. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam outlines the provisions for proving the contents of documents, ensuring their authenticity and admissibility in court. 

Proof of Contents of Documents

According to Section 56, the contents of a document can be proved through primary or secondary evidence. This provision ensures that documents presented in court are authenticated and reliable.

Primary Evidence

Primary evidence refers to the original document itself, produced for the court’s inspection. Several explanations clarify the scope of primary evidence:

• If a document is executed in multiple parts, each part constitutes primary evidence.
• Counterparts of a document signed by different parties serve as primary evidence against the executing party.
• Identical documents produced by a uniform process (e.g., printing, lithography) are primary evidence of each other but not of the original document.
• Electronic records stored simultaneously in multiple files or transmitted digitally are considered primary evidence.

Secondary Evidence

Secondary evidence includes certified copies, mechanical reproductions, oral accounts, and written admissions. The law recognizes the need for secondary evidence in situations where primary evidence is unavailable.

Illustrations:

• A photograph of an original document is secondary evidence if proven to be an accurate representation.
• A transcript compared with the original is admissible, while an unverified transcript is not.

Proof by Primary Evidence

As a general rule, documents must be proved by primary evidence unless exceptions apply.

Situations Allowing Secondary Evidence

Secondary evidence is permissible in cases where:

• The original is in the possession of an adversary who refuses to produce it.
• The original is lost or destroyed without fault of the claimant.
• The original is immovable or a public document.
• Certified copies are allowed under law.
• The document consists of voluminous records, and a summary is required.

Electronic and Digital Records 

Electronic records are admissible in evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, ensuring they hold the same validity as physical documents. Section 63 provides specific conditions for admitting electronic records, including:

• Regular usage of a computer system for data storage.
• Proper functioning of the system at the time of record generation.
• A certificate attesting to the authenticity of the record.

Notice for Producing Documents

Secondary evidence of certain documents requires prior notice to the opposing party. However, the court may waive this requirement in specific circumstances, such as fraud or loss of the document.

Proof of Handwriting and Signatures (Sections 65-66)

If a document’s authorship is disputed, proof of handwriting or signature is required. In cases of electronic signatures, secure digital authentication is necessary.

Proof of Attested Documents under BSA

Proof of Execution of Attested Documents

If a document is legally required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence unless at least one attesting witness is called to prove its execution. However, this requirement is waived if:

1. The document is not a will.
2. The document has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
3. The document’s execution is not specifically denied by the person who executed it.

When No Attesting Witness is Available

If no attesting witness is found, the proof of execution must rely on:

• Verification that at least one attesting witness’s signature is genuine.
• Confirmation that the person who executed the document indeed signed it.

Admission of Execution

If a party to the document admits in court that they executed the document, no further proof is required against them. This simplifies the proof process in many cases.

When an Attesting Witness Denies Execution

If an attesting witness denies or does not remember the execution of the document, the execution can still be proved using other evidence. This ensures that documents are not rejected solely due to a witness’s refusal or lapse in memory.

Proof of Documents Not Required to be Attested

For documents that do not legally require attestation, they can be proved in court as if they were unattested. This simplifies their verification process.

Comparison of Signatures and Digital Verification 

To determine the authenticity of a document, courts may compare signatures, handwriting, or seals. Digital signatures can be verified using the Digital Signature Certificate and associated cryptographic keys.

Proof of Public Documents under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Public documents hold immense legal significance as they serve as official records maintained by government authorities. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, specific provisions regulate the proof and authentication of such documents to ensure their credibility and admissibility in legal proceedings.

What Constitutes a Public Document?

As per the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, public documents include:

• Records of acts of the sovereign authority.
• Official documents from tribunals and government bodies.
• Legislative, judicial, and executive records of India or foreign countries.
• Public records of private documents maintained by State or Union Territory authorities.

Any document that does not fall under these categories is considered a private document.

Certified Copies of Public Documents

To ensure accessibility, every public officer holding a public document must provide certified copies upon request and payment of legal fees. These certified copies include:

• A statement that the document is a true copy.
• The date and signature of the certifying officer.
• An official seal if the officer is authorized to use one.

Such certified copies serve as valid proof of the original public document.

Proof of Public Documents

Public documents can be proved through their certified copies, making them admissible in courts without needing the original. This simplifies the legal process and ensures efficiency in verifying government records.

Methods of Proving Official Documents

Different public documents require specific methods of proof:

• Government Acts and Orders: Certified records from the respective department or printed copies issued by government order.
• Legislative Proceedings: Official journals, published Acts, or authenticated copies.
• Presidential and Gubernatorial Orders: Extracts from the Official Gazette.
• Foreign Legislative and Executive Acts: Recognized publications, certified copies, or authenticated foreign government records.
• Municipal or Local Body Proceedings: Certified copies or official publications.
• Foreign Public Documents: Originals or certified copies verified by a Notary Public, an Indian Consul, or a diplomatic agent.

Proof of Presumptions as to Public Documents under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Public documents play a crucial role in legal proceedings by providing authenticated and reliable evidence. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam establishes specific presumptions regarding the authenticity and admissibility of public documents to streamline judicial processes and ensure trust in governmental records. These legal presumptions help in reducing unnecessary disputes about the genuineness of official documents, making the process of proving facts in court more efficient.

Presumption of Genuineness of Certified Copies

Under Section 78, courts presume the authenticity of certified copies of documents that are legally admissible as evidence. If such documents are duly certified by an authorized government officer, they are accepted as genuine unless proven otherwise. However, they must be executed in the manner prescribed by law.

Presumption Regarding Judicial Records 

Any document that is a record of judicial proceedings or a statement made by an accused, signed by a judge or an authorized officer, is presumed to be genuine. This includes depositions of witnesses, confessions, and statements made in legal proceedings.

Presumption Regarding Government Gazettes and Newspapers

Courts accept the authenticity of documents such as the Official Gazette, newspapers, and other official records. Digital and electronic versions of the Official Gazette are also presumed to be genuine if maintained in accordance with legal provisions and kept in proper custody.

Presumption of Accuracy of Government Maps and Plans

Maps or plans created under the authority of the government are presumed to be accurate. However, if maps are created for a specific legal dispute, they must be independently proven for accuracy.

Presumption Regarding Law Books and Court Decisions

Legal books published under the authority of a government, containing laws or judicial decisions of a country, are presumed to be genuine and reliable references for legal proceedings.

Presumption Regarding Power of Attorney 

A document purporting to be a power of attorney, executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, Judge, Magistrate, or other authorized official, is presumed to be properly executed.

Presumption Regarding Electronic Records

With the advancement of technology, electronic agreements and signatures have gained legal recognition. The courts presume that electronic agreements bearing digital signatures are valid and have been executed with the intent of signing or approving the document. Secure electronic records are also presumed to be unaltered unless proven otherwise.

Presumption of Authenticity of Foreign Judicial Records 

Certified copies of foreign judicial records are presumed to be genuine if they are certified in a manner recognized by the laws of that country and verified by a representative of the Central Government.

Presumption Regarding Books, Maps, and Charts 

Books, maps, and charts that contain statements of public interest are presumed to be written and published by the person and at the place and time they claim to be.

Presumption Regarding Electronic Messages

Emails and electronic messages sent through official servers are presumed to be accurate copies of the message entered into the system. However, no presumption is made regarding the identity of the sender.

Presumption of Due Execution of Unproduced Documents 

If a document that has been called for is not produced, the court presumes that it was executed, attested, and stamped as required by law.

Presumption Regarding Old Documents 

Documents that are at least 30 years old and maintained in proper custody are presumed to have been duly executed and attested. Similarly, electronic records that are at least five years old are presumed to have been signed or authorized by the person whose signature appears on them.

Production And Effect of Evidence in the Burden of Proof under the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023

The burden of proof is a fundamental concept in the legal system that determines which party must present evidence to support their claims. It plays a crucial role in ensuring fair judgments by requiring the asserting party to prove their case. 

What is the Burden of Proof?

The burden of proof refers to the legal obligation of a party to prove the existence of certain facts in a dispute. If a party fails to provide sufficient evidence, they risk losing the case. This principle is crucial in both civil and criminal cases and varies based on the nature of the claim.

Types of Burden of Proof

1. Legal Burden vs. Evidential Burden

• Legal Burden: The responsibility of a party to prove their case throughout the trial.
• Evidential Burden: The obligation to present initial evidence to support a claim.

2. Burden of Proof in Civil vs. Criminal Cases

• Civil Cases: The burden of proof lies on the claimant, who must establish their case based on the preponderance of evidence.
• Criminal Cases: The prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

1. The Party Making the Claim

The party asserting a claim must present evidence to support it. For example:

• If A accuses B of a crime, A must provide proof of B’s wrongdoing.
• If A claims ownership of land that B occupies, A must substantiate their claim with legal documents.

2. The Party That Would Fail Without Evidence

If no evidence is presented, the party that would fail bears the burden of proof. Examples include:

• A sues B for land ownership based on a will. If A fails to provide evidence, B retains possession.
• A sues B for money owed on a contract. If B claims fraud but provides no evidence, A wins by default.

3. Burden of Proof for Particular Facts

When a specific fact is in dispute, the party that wishes the court to believe it must prove it. For example:

• If A prosecutes B for theft and claims B confessed to C, A must prove the confession.
• If B claims an alibi, B must provide evidence proving they were elsewhere at the time of the crime.

How Evidence Influences the Burden of Proof

1. Establishing Admissibility of Evidence

Certain conditions must be met before evidence is admissible:

• If A wants to introduce a dying declaration by B, A must first prove B’s death.
• If A presents a lost document’s secondary evidence, A must prove the original document was lost.

2. Shifting the Burden of Proof

In some cases, once a party presents strong evidence, the burden may shift to the opposing party to disprove it. For instance:

• If A provides a signed contract, B must prove fraud to dispute its validity.
• If A presents CCTV footage of a theft, B must counter it with substantial evidence.

Burden of Proof in Legal Exceptions

If a defendant claims an exception under the law, they must prove it. Examples include:

• Insanity Defense: If A, accused of murder, claims insanity, A must provide medical proof.
• Provocation Defense: If A, accused of assault, claims sudden provocation, A must establish it.

Burden of Proof for Facts Within Special Knowledge

If a fact is exclusively within a person’s knowledge, they must prove it:

• A railway passenger accused of traveling without a ticket must prove they had one.
• A person claiming to act under special circumstances must provide supporting evidence.

Burden of Proof in Specific Legal Situations

1. Burden of Proving that a Person is Alive After Seven Years of Absence

When the question arises whether a person is alive or deceased, and it is established that they have not been heard from for seven years by those who would naturally have received communication if they were alive, the burden of proving that the person is still alive shifts to the one affirming their existence. This principle is crucial in cases involving inheritance, insurance claims, and legal status.

2. Burden of Proof in Relationships Involving Trust

The burden of proving the existence or termination of specific relationships lies with the party claiming that they do not exist. These relationships include:

• Partnerships: If parties have conducted themselves as partners, the burden of proving they are not partners or have dissolved their partnership falls on the one asserting such.
• Landlord and Tenant: If a person has been in a landlord-tenant relationship, the burden of proving its termination rests on the person denying it.
• Principal and Agent: If a person has acted as an agent, the burden of proving that the relationship has ended is on the one affirming its termination.

3. Burden of Proof in Ownership Disputes

When a person is in possession of an asset, the presumption is that they are its owner. If another party claims otherwise, the burden of proving that the possessor is not the rightful owner falls upon them. This principle is often applied in property disputes and claims regarding possession rights.

4. Proof of Good Faith in Transactions Involving Confidence

When a transaction occurs between parties where one holds a position of active confidence, the burden of proving that the transaction was conducted in good faith falls on the party in the position of confidence. Examples include:

• A client selling property to their advocate—here, the advocate must prove the transaction was conducted in good faith.
• A newly independent son selling property to his father—the father must establish that the transaction was fair and legitimate.

Legal Presumptions in Criminal Cases

5. Presumption in Certain Offenses

Under certain legal conditions, courts may presume a person has committed an offense unless proven otherwise. If an accused individual was present in a disturbed area where firearms or explosives were used to attack authorities, it is presumed that they committed the offense unless they can provide evidence to the contrary. This applies to:

• Rioting and unlawful assembly under sections 147, 148, 149, and 150 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Criminal conspiracy or abetment related to offenses under sections 149 and 150 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Presumptions Related to Family and Marriage

6. Birth During Marriage as Conclusive Proof of Legitimacy

A child born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days of its dissolution while the mother remains unmarried, is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband unless it is proven that the husband and wife had no opportunity for marital relations during the relevant period. This principle is essential in cases involving inheritance, parental rights, and legitimacy disputes.

7. Presumption of Abetment in the Suicide of a Married Woman

When a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and there is evidence that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, the court may presume that the suicide was abetted by the husband or his relatives. This presumption is drawn in cases where:

• The woman suffered documented instances of cruelty.
• The circumstances indicate a connection between the mistreatment and her suicide.

8. Presumption as to Dowry Death

When a woman dies under suspicious circumstances, and it is established that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death, the court shall presume that the accused was responsible for the dowry death. This presumption is derived from Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and is a crucial legal safeguard against dowry-related violence.

9. Court’s Discretion to Presume Certain Facts

Courts may presume the existence of facts based on natural events, human conduct, and the usual course of business or legal affairs. This discretion allows judges to infer conclusions from established patterns of behavior and factual circumstances.

Illustrations of Presumptions by the Court:

• A person found in possession of stolen goods soon after a theft is presumed to be the thief or an accomplice unless proven otherwise.
• The testimony of an accomplice is generally considered unreliable unless corroborated.
• A bill of exchange, once endorsed or accepted, is presumed to have been accepted for valid consideration.
• A legal state of affairs recently proven to exist is assumed to continue unless shown otherwise.
• Judicial and official acts are presumed to have been performed lawfully and regularly.
• Standard business practices are presumed to be followed unless contrary evidence is presented.
• Withheld evidence is presumed to be unfavorable to the party withholding it.
• A person refusing to answer a question that is not legally protected from disclosure may be assumed to have something unfavorable to hide.
• If an obligor possesses a document creating an obligation, it is presumed that the obligation has been discharged.

Considerations for Presumptions in Specific Cases:

• A shopkeeper who frequently handles currency might not be guilty if a stolen marked rupee is found in their possession.
• If multiple arrested accomplices independently implicate a suspect, the court may presume their statements are reliable.
• If a river’s course was established five years ago but floods occurred, the presumption of continuity might not apply.
• If a letter was posted but a postal disruption occurred, the presumption of receipt might not apply.
• If a man refuses to produce a minor contract document that might harm his family’s reputation, the refusal may not indicate guilt.

10. Presumption of Absence of Consent in Certain Rape Prosecutions

In cases of rape under Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where sexual intercourse is proven and the alleged victim states in court that she did not consent, the court shall presume a lack of consent. This shifts the burden of proof to the accused, reinforcing protections for survivors.

Estoppel under Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam

Estoppel is a crucial legal doctrine that ensures fairness in legal proceedings by preventing individuals from contradicting their previous statements, actions, or omissions when another person has relied on them. 

What is Estoppel?

Estoppel is a rule of evidence that stops a person from making assertions contrary to their previous statements or conduct if someone else has acted upon them in good faith. It safeguards parties from fraudulent, misleading, or unfair practices.

Key Provisions of Estoppel Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

1. General Principle of Estoppel (Section 121)

When a person, by their declaration, action, or omission, has caused another person to believe in a particular fact and act on it, they cannot later deny the truth of that fact.

Example:

A falsely tells B that he owns a plot of land and convinces B to purchase it. Later, when A actually acquires the property, he cannot deny the original transaction to set aside the sale.

2. Estoppel of Tenants and Licensees (Section 122)

A tenant or a person holding a license to use a property cannot dispute the landlord’s or licensor’s title at the time of the agreement. This principle ensures that tenants and license holders respect the ownership rights of property owners.

Example:

If X rents a shop from Y, X cannot later claim that Y was never the owner of the shop, even if a dispute over ownership arises.

3. Estoppel of Acceptors, Bailees, and Licensees (Section 123)

This provision applies to financial transactions and property custody agreements:

• An acceptor of a bill of exchange cannot deny the authority of the person who issued the bill.
• A bailee (someone holding goods on behalf of another) cannot deny the owner’s authority.
• A licensee cannot deny the licensor’s authority at the time of granting the license.

Explanations Under Section 123:

• An acceptor may challenge the bill’s authenticity if it was forged.
• A bailee may deliver goods to someone else if that person has a stronger legal claim than the bailor.

Types of Estoppel

1. Promissory Estoppel – When a party makes a promise, and another party relies on it to their detriment, the promisor cannot renege.
2. Equitable Estoppel – Prevents unfair contradictions in legal claims where a party has previously taken a clear stance.
3. Collateral Estoppel – Prevents relitigation of issues already decided in prior legal proceedings.