Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter I: Preliminary
Section 3: Interpretation-clause
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context:–– “Court.”––“Court” includes all Judges9 and Magistrates10, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. “Fact.”––“Fact” means and includes––(1) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
“Relevant.” ––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.”––The expression “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 in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.
Explanation.––Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure,1 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 A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial the following facts may be in issue:–– that A caused B’s death; that A intended to cause B’s death; that A had received grave and sudden provocation from B; that A, at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its nature. “Document.”––“Document”2 means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
Illustrations A writing3 is a document; 3Words 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.”––“Evidence” means and includes––
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court] ; such documents are called documentary evidence. “Proved.”––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.”––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. 2. Cf. the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 29 (w.e.f. 1-5-1861) and the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), s. 3 (18)
“Not proved.”––A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. [“India.”––“India” means the territory of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir.] [the expressions “Certifying Authority”, “[electronic signature]”, [(Electronic 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 (21 of 2000).]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 3
-
Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana.
Conviction of the appellant u/s.302, IPC based on the statement/ dying declaration (Exh. P-34) of the deceased, if ought to be set aside.
-
Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants by the High Court u/s.302 read with s.120-B, IPC and additionally, s.201, IPC for A-4 alone, is justified.
-
P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the statement of an accused u/s.161, Cr.P.C implicating co-accused can be looked into qua such co-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail or regular bail; whether the High Court exercised its discretion in a…
-
Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused persons based on the testimony of the IOs which was founded only on s.161, CrPC statements of the witnesses; whether present was a case…
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Whether, the imported goods is to be treated as Base Oil as claimed by the appellants or High Speed Diesel (HSD) determined by the Customs Authorities, which is contested by the appellants. The High Court had concluded…
-
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were held to be the lawful owners of the ‘Patta Land’.
-
Ramesh A. Naika v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
Appellant-R, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his two minor children, along with his sister-in-law and mother-in-law, in June 2010. His motive stemmed from disapproval of his sister-in-law’s relationship,…
-
Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/ss.306, 498A, and 34 IPC; and incase the first informant dies before stepping into the…
-
Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
The two accused-appellants and their father-the third accused, were convicted by the trial court u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC for assaulting a person with deadly weapons causing his death. High Court upheld the conviction of…
-
A.B. Govardhan v. P. Ragothaman
Whether the respondent-defendant by way of the agreement agreed to create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds for the loan obtained by him from the appellant-plaintiff; whether there was redemption of the…
-
Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi
Appellant was convicted u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife. Courts below whether justified in holding that the statement of Complainant-PW-1 recorded in proceedings u/s.299, Code of Criminal Procedure,…
-
Government of Goa Through the Chief Secretary v. Maria Julieta D’Souza (D) & Ors.
Whether the High Court, while allowing first appeal against judgment of trial court that dismissed the suit filed by respondent for declaration of title and injunction, had wrongly shifted the burden of proof on to the…
-
Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer & Anr.
Whether under the Code of Civil Procedure, there is envisaged a difference between a party to a suit and a witness in a suit, does the phrase plaintiff ’s/ defendant’s witness exclude the plaintiffor defendant…
-
Indrakunwar v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Whether, in explaining the purported incriminating circumstance against her, the convict-appellant ought to have disclosed, over and above denial of any relationship with the deceas ed child, the specifics of her…
-
Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder and attempt to rape relying on the testimony of the prosecution witnes s despite contradictions, only…
- Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Premchand v. The State of Maharashtra
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Subramanya v. State of Karnataka
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Virendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Shishpal @ Shishu v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Rajesh Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P.
- A.T. Mydeen and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department
- M/S Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel
- V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by Lr. & Anr.
- Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc.
- American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd. v. Mmtc Ltd.
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
- Somasundaram @ Somu v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
- Aps Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Ors.
- G H P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Anr.
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- G H M/S. Shree Daneshwari Traders v. Sanjay Jain and Another
- Sanjay Rajak v. The State of Bihar
- Rajesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
- Asar Mohammad and Ors. v. The State of U.P.
- Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
- Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda
- Kalpana Mehta and Others v. Union of India and Others
- Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Kuna@ Sanjaya Behera v. The State of Odisha
- State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors.
- Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana
- R. Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Others
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Ors.
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie
- Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana
- Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan
- Sunil Mehta & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Vijay v. Laxman and Anr.
- R. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
- Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Devinder @ Kala Ram & Ors. v. The State of Haryana
- State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
- Pancho v. State of Haryana
- Mrinal Das & Ors. v. The State of Tripura
- Kodikunnil Suresh @ J. Monian v. N.S. Saji Kumar, Etc. Etc.
- K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
- State of M.P. v. Ramesh and Anr.
- Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra
- Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Another
- Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate
- P.C. Thomas v. P.M. Ismail & Ors.
- Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and Another v. State of Maharashtra
- Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation
- Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharahstra and Another
- All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. L.K. Tripathi and Others
- M. J. Jacob v. A. Narayanan & Ors.
- Santosh Devidas Behade and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- M/S. Kumar Exports v. M/S. Sharma Carpets
- Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh & Anr. v. C.B.I Through Its Director
- State of M.P. and Anr. v. Anshuman Shukla
- Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde
- Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India
- K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan
- Pradeep Kumar@ Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar and Anr.
- Abdul Vahab Abdulmajid Shaikh and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
- Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. Lr. Smt. Sadhna Rai v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.
- M.S. Narayanan Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala and Anr.
- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@Afsan Guru
- Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar
- L.S. Synthetics Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.
- T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- R.V.F Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr.
- The State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai and Anr.
- Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal
- Pandurang Kalu Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
- K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamilnadu by Inspector of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption South Range, Trichy
- Rakesh and Anr. v. State of Haryana
- Lokeman Shah and Anr. Etc. Etc. v. State of West Bengal Etc. Etc.