 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS: (IEA)

o The entire Act is divided into three Parts and Eleven Chapters.

o Part-1 consists Sections 1 to 55, and explains about "Relevancy of Facts". These fifty five
Sections, including newly inserted Sections 22-A and 47-A, are housed in two Chapters.
Chapter-1 contains the preliminary provisions. Chapter-11, containing Sections 5 to 55,
having the provisions explaining about "the Relevancy of Facts".
o Part-II (Sections 56 to 1 00) contains the provisions explaining about "Proof'. Part-II is
sub-divided into four Chapters. Chapter-Ill (Sections 56 to 58) explains about "the Facts
which need not be proved". Chapter-IV (Sections 59 and 60), explains about "the Oral
Evidence". Chapter-V (Sections 61 to 90-A) contains the provisions about "the Documentary
 Evidence". Chapter-VI (Sections 91 to 100) contains the provisions about "the
Exclusion/Estoppel of Oral Evidence by the Documentary Evidence". Part-Ill (Sections 101
to 167) contains the provisions explaining about "Production and Effect of Evidence".

o Part-III is sub-divided into five Chapters. Chapter-VII (Sections 101 to 114-A) contains the
provisions about "the Burden of Proof'. Chapter-VIII (Sections 115 to 117) contains the
provisions , about "the Estoppel". Chapter-IX (Sections 118 to 134) contains the provisions
about "the Witnesses". Chapter-X (Sections 135 to 166) explains about "the Examination of
Witnesses". The last Chapter, i.e., Chapter-XI contains only one Section, i.e., Section 167,
explains the provisions about "the Improper Admission and Rejection of Evidence".
o The general considerations to supply the groundwork for a systematic and complete
distribution of the subject as follows:---
 (a) preliminary;
 (b) the relevancy of facts in issue;
 (c) the proof of facts according to their nature, by oral documentary or material
evidence;
 (d) the production of evidence; and
 (e) the procedure.
THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
A. Based on the English Common Law

B. Applied to all the judicial proceedings: The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 apply
to the judicial proceedings only. They do not apply to,--- (i) the domestic tribunals; and
(ii) the non-judicial proceedings.
The provisions of the 1872 Act do not apply to,---
(a) the Industrial Tribunals;
(b) the Administrative Tribunals;
(c) the Sales-tax Tribunals;
(d) the Income-tax Tribunals;
(e) the Arbitration Tribunals;
the proceedings conducted under the Courts-martial etc.
The provisions of the 1872 Act do not apply to,---
(a) the Departmental Inquiries;
 (b) the affidavits presented to any Court or Officer; etc.
C. Non-applicability the provisions to the proceedings by tribunals, reasoning
D. Oral and Documentary Evidence
E. Discretion of the Court
 ACT
Part I
RELEVANCY OF FACTS
Chapter I

PRELIMINARY

Section 1. Short title, extent and commencement

CASE LAWS
► Applicability.—The Evidence Act has no application to enquiries conducted by tribunals
even though they may be judicial in character. Rules of natural justice will apply, Union of
India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882.
 The provisions of Evidence Act do not apply to the proceedings under the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1947, Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1962 SC 1764.
Income-tax authorities are not strictly bound by the rules of evidence, CIT v. E.C. Commercial
Co., AIR 1967 SC 768.
The Act is inapplicable to arbitration proceedings, Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Jagan Nath
Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497.
The Act does not apply to a quasi-judicial proceeding, Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957
SC 882.
► Natural Justice.—Technical rules of evidence do not apply in domestic enquiry, but rules of
evidence embodied in natural justice cannot however be ignored, Central Bank of India
Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983; (See also State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977)
2 SCC 491, 493 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298).
Section 2. Repeal of enactments

Section 3. Interpretation clause – Court, Fact, Relevant, Facts in issue, Document, EVIDENCE,
Proved, Disproved, Not proved,

CASE LAWS
► “Evidence”.—Definition of ―Evidence‖ is exhaustive. Use of words ―means and includes‖ in
definition indicates it is exhaustive, Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92.
► Expression “proved”, “disproved” and “not proved”.—These expressions, lays down the
standard of proof, namely, about existence or non-existence of circumstances from the point of
view of a prudent man, so much so that while adopting the said requirement, as an appropriate
concrete standard to measure ―proof‖, full effect has to be given to the circumstances or conditions
of probability or improbability. , Kuna v. State of Odisha, (2018) 1 SCC 296.
 ► Standard of proof.—Section 3 of the Evidence Act enables a court to apply only the
standards of a prudent man in judging what is to be deemed to be proved according to law, Garib
Singh v. State of Punj, (1972) 3 SCC 418 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 568.
► Fact.—The expression ―fact‖ includes not only the physical act which can be perceived by
the senses but also the psychological fact or mental condition of which any person is conscious and
that it is in the former sense that the word used by the Legislature refers to a material and not to a
mental fact, H.P. Administration v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 88.
► Evaluation of evidence.—Men may lie, but circumstances do not, is the cardinal principle of
evaluation of evidence, State of Assam v. Ramen Dowarah, (2016) 3 SCC 19.
► Circumstantial Evidence.—In cases where the evidence is of substantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be
fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and
they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved, Govinda
Reddy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29.
► Benefit of doubt.—The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubt,
the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and
not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy though unwittingly it may be—or is afraid of the
logical consequences, if that benefit was not given, H.P. Admn. v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249.
► “Document”.—Basis of classifying an article as document depends upon information which
is inscribed and not on where it is inscribed, P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC
161.
Section 4. ―May presume‖

CASE LAWS
► Meaning and Purpose of presumption.—Presumption means taking as true without
examination or proof. It is by which the courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue,
notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence. , Kumar Exports v. Sharma
Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513.
► Presumptions—When may not be invoked.—When truth or fact is known, there is no need
or room for any presumption. . When there is a conflict between a ―conclusive proof‖ envisaged
under law based on a presumption and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the
world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former, Nandlal Wasudeo
Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576.
► Rebuttable Presumption.—Presumption when rebuttable, points out the party on whom lies
the duty of going forward with evidence on the fact presumed, and when that party produced the
evidence tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of presumption is
over, Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P., (1986) 2 SCC 486.
► Conclusive Proof.—When Act enjoins that any evidence would be treated as conclusive
proof of certain factual situations or legal hypothesis, law would forbid other evidence to be
adduced for purpose of contradicting or varying such conclusiveness, State of Kerala v. Mohd.
Basheer, (2019) 4 SCC 260.
 CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
MEANING: The word 'Evidence' is derived from the Latin 'Evidentia', which means "the state of
being evident, i.e., plain, apparent clear". The Latin expression "evidens evidere" means "to show
clearly, to make plain, certain or to prove".
DEFINITIONS:
Bentham, the famous English Jurist, defines: "The evidence is any matter of fact, the effect or
tendency of which is, to produce in the mind a persuasion, affirmative or disaffirmative of the
existence of some other matter of fact."
Taylor defines: "All the legal means, exclusive of mere argument, which tend to prove or
disprove any matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation."
Section 3 (Interpretation Clause) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
 Classification of Evidence:
Primarily according to the definition of "evidence" as given in Section 3 (Interpretation Clause),
evidence is of two kinds, i.e., the Oral Evidence and the Documentary Evidence.
Oral evidence can be divided into two, namely, evidence given by eye-witnesses and hearsay
evidence. [Oral Evidence, Documentary Evidence and Hearsay Evidence in their respective topics.
under the respective Sections in coming pages. Refer to them in their respective Topics, where
elaborae notes are given.] In the academic interest and to know the nature of Evidence found in
various provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence may be classified as under:---
1. Direct and Circumstantial evidence (Hearsay);
2. Real and Personal evidence;
3. Original and Un-original Evidence/Primary and Secondary Evidence;
4. Substantive and Not Substantive; and
5. Positive and Negative.
6. Testimonial Evidence;
7. Judicially Noticed Evidence;
8. Character Evidence;
9. Hearsay Evidence;
10. Opinion Evidence,