Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter V: Of Documentary Evidence
Section 62: Primary evidence
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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.
Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1.––Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document. Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Explanation 2.––Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. 1. Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92 and the Second Schedule, for “contents of documents” (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
Illustration A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.
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 62
-
M/s Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Limited v. Regional PF
Present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-EARC and further directing that the amount deposited, vide order dated 02.02.2023, be…
-
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.
-
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,…
-
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
-
State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida
The High Court rejected the applications filed by the prosecution u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-189 and to permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act,…
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
- Nand Ram (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad (D) Through Lrs.
- State Rep. by the Drugs Inspector v. Manimaran
- Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.