Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter V: Of Documentary Evidence
Section 65: Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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.
Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:––
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power–– of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; 1. see s. 76, infra.
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to be given in evidence2;
(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
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 65
-
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.
-
Vijay v. Union of India & Ors.
Whether the bar of admissibility created by s.35, Stamp Act 1899 applies to the agreement(s) to sell dtd. 04.02.1 988 executed by the parties; can a copy of a document be adduced as secondary evidence when the original…
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Manik Majumder and Others v. Dipak Kumar Saha
- 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.
- Jagmail Singh & Anr. v. Karamjit Singh & Ors.
- Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.
- Union of India & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Etc.
- Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Sonu@Amar v. State of Haryana
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation India Private Limited
- Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri and Others
- Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of U.P.