Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter V: Of Documentary Evidence · Presumptions as to documents
Section 80: Presumption as to documents produced as record of 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The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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.
In plain words
When a document purporting to be a record of evidence given in a judicial proceeding, or of an accused's statement or confession taken according to law, signed by a Judge, Magistrate or authorised officer, is produced, the court must presume it is genuine, that the stated circumstances are true, and that it was duly taken.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorised by law to take such evidence or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume–– that the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.
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 80
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Gireesan Nair & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kerala
- Mathai Mathai v. Joseph Mary @ Marykkutiy Joseph & Ors.
- State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari & Ors.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Others
- Bhagw An Singh v. The State of Punjab