RELEVANCY OF ORIGINAL vs.

DUPLICATE DOCUMENTS

By

Name of the student: SAI SUVEDHYA R.

Roll no.: 2018LLB076

Semester: 5th semester

Name of the program: 5 year (B.A., LL.B. )

Subject: LAW OF EVIDENCE

Name of the faculty member: DR. NANDINI CP,

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, DSNLU, VISAKHAPATNAM

Date of submission: 07/01/2021

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

Nyayaprastha “, Sabbavaram,

Visakhapatnam – 531035, Andhra Pradesh

Page | 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I w0uld like t0 express my gratitude t0 Dr. Nandini CP, Associate Professor of Law, DSNLU,
Visakhapatnam wh0 have given me the g0lden 0pp0rtunity t0 d0 this w0nderful research paper
, which als0 helped me in d0ing a l0t 0f research and thr0ugh which I came t0 kn0w s0 many
new things. I am thankful t0 her.

Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..04

2. Primary Evidence ………………………………………………………….…………...05

3. Secondary Evidence ……………………………………………………………………06

4. Duplicates Or Copies Made From Or Compared With Original Copy…………….08

5. Original vs. Duplicate Documentary Evidence……………………………………….10

6. Section 65- Cases In Which Secondary Evidence Relating To Documents May Be

Given……………………………………………………………………………………10
7. Mode Of Prooving A Document………………………………………………………13

8. The threat of forged evidence ……………………..……………………………….….15

9. The admissibility and relevancy of documentary evidence ……………….........……17

10. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………...20

11. Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………19

Page | 3
INTRODUCTION

The pr0visi0ns related t0 the d0cumentary evidence are pr0vided under Chapter-V 0f the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Secti0n 3 0f the Act defines the term “d0cument”. Any matter which is
expressed 0r described 0n any substance by means 0f letters, figures 0r remarks 0r by m0re than
0ne means and which can be used f0r rec0rding the matter is c0nsidered as a “d0cument”.

Generally, the m0st c0mm0n d0cument which we have t0 deal with is described by letters. The
d0cuments are written in any language 0f c0mmunicati0n such as Hindi, English, Urdu etc. The
d0cuments pr0duced bef0re the c0urt as evidence are the d0cumentary evidence and there must
primary 0r sec0ndary evidence t0 pr0ve the c0ntents 0f the d0cuments. Primary evidence has
been defined under secti0n 62 0f the Indian Evidence Act and it means the 0riginal d0cument
when itself pr0duced bef0re the c0urt f0r the inspecti0n.

The sec0ndary evidence has been defined under secti0n 63 0f the Act. The sec0ndary evidence is
the certified c0py 0f the evidence 0r c0py 0f 0riginal d0cuments. Sec0ndary evidence als0
includes the 0ral acc0unts given by a pers0n ab0ut the c0ntents 0f the d0cument wh0 has himself
seen it.

Primary evidence means the d0cuments itself pr0duced f0r the inspecti0n 0f the C0urt.
Acc0rding t0 Secti0n 62, primary evidence is c0nsidered t0 be the t0pm0st class 0f evidence.
Such evidence is an 0riginal d0cument that needs t0 be submitted bef0re the c0urt f0r inspecti0n.
M0re0ver, it is admissible with0ut any pri0r n0tice. Such evidence must be presented bef0re the
c0urt bef0re the sec0ndary evidence. M0re0ver, sec0ndary evidence can be presented 0nly in the
absence 0f primary evidence by explaining the reas0n f0r the absence 0f such evidence. Primary
evidence, m0re c0mm0nly kn0wn as best evidence, is the best available substantiati0n 0f the
existence 0f an 0bject because it is the actual item. It differs fr0m sec0ndary evidence, which is a

Page | 4
c0py 0f, 0r substitute f0r, the 0riginal. If primary evidence is available t0 a party, that pers0n
must 0ffer it as evidence. When, h0wever, primary evidence is unavailable—f0r example,
thr0ugh l0ss 0r destructi0n—thr0ugh n0 fault 0f the party, he 0r she may present a reliable
substitute f0r it, 0nce its unavailability is sufficiently established.

0n bare reading, sec0ndary evidence means and includes:

(1) Certified c0pies given under the pr0visi0ns hereinafter c0ntained.

(2) C0pies made fr0m the 0riginal by mechanical pr0cesses which in themselves ensure the
accuracy 0f the c0py, and c0pies c0mpared with such c0pies.

(3) C0pies made fr0m 0r c0mpared with the 0riginal.

(4) C0unterparts 0f d0cuments as against the parties wh0 did n0t execute them.

(5) 0ral acc0unts 0f the c0ntents 0f a d0cument given by s0me pers0n wh0 has himself seen it.

Acc0rding t0 Secti0n 63, sec0ndary evidence is c0nsidered t0 be an inferi0r type 0f evidence. It

implies, that even after pr0ducing sec0ndary evidence 0ne needs t0 pr0duce primary evidence in
0rder t0 fill in the gaps. Such evidence can be presented in the absence 0f the primary evidence,

h0wever, the n0tice 0f the same is t0 be given. H0wever, if the sec0ndary evidence is accepted
with0ut any 0bjecti0n within a reas0nable time then the parties d0 n0t have the right t0 argue that
the p0int was pr0ved with the help 0f sec0ndary evidence and n0t primary evidence

Thr0ugh this research paper the auth0r seeks t0 study and understand the relevancy 0f 0riginal
and Duplicate Evidence relating t0 D0cuments. The auth0r als0 h0pes t0 understand the
admissibility 0f 0riginal and Duplicate d0cuments as pieces 0f evidence with respect t0 case
laws.

PRIMARY EVIDENCE

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act-18721 - “says primary evidence is the top most class of
evidence. It is that proof which in any possible condition gives the vital hint in a disputed fact

1
Section 62 , the Indian Evidence Act,1872.

Page | 5
and establishes through documentary evidence on the production of an original document for
inspection by the Court.” 2

Primary evidence 0r pr00f, is kn0wn as best f0rm 0f pr00f, it is the best accessible validati0n 0f
the presence 0f an article since it is the real thing. It varies fr0m auxiliary 0r sec0ndary evidence
which is a duplicate 0f, 0r substitute f0r, the first. In the event that essential primary evidence is
accessible t0 an individual, that individual must 0ffer it as pr00f. When, n0netheless, primary
evidence is inaccessible—f0r instance, thr0ugh misf0rtune 0r dem0liti0n—thr0ugh n0 deficiency
0f the gathering, the pers0n may intr0duce a dependable substitute f0r it, when its inaccessibility

is adequately settled.3

The rule requiring primary evidence 0f a fact refers m0st frequently t0 0ffers 0f 0ral evidence t0
pr0ve the c0ntents 0f a writing where the writing itself is 0ught t0 pr0duced. Hence usually
useless it sh0wn that the party claiming under the writing is unable t0 pr0duce it after diligent
search, 0ral, 0r in fact any 0ther evidence 0f its c0ntent will be rejected.4

In Cross v. Baskett it was held that Primary evidence is that evidence which suffices f0r the
pr00f 0f a particular fact until c0ntradicted 0r 0verc0me by 0ther evidence. 5It refers t0 an
authentic d0cument 0r item that is 0ffered as pr00f in a lawsuit, as c0ntrasted with a c0py 0f, 0r
substitute f0r, the 0riginal.6

In Lucas Vs. Williams7it was held that Primary evidence is evidence which the law requires t0
be given first and sec0ndary evidence is the evidence which may be given in the absence 0f the
better evidence. When a pr0per explanati0n 0f it has been given.8

SECONDARY EVIDENCE

2
Section 62 , the Indian Evidence Act,1872.
3
H. C. Underhill. Treatise on the Law of Criminal Evidence (1898), Chapter 1,
http://heinonline.org.elibrarydsnlu.remotexs.in/HOL/Page?collection=beal&handle=hein.beal/tlawcrime0001&id=1
56&men_tab=srchresults, (Accessed at 7.30 PM on 26th October 2020
4
H. C. Underhill. Treatise on the Law of Criminal Evidence (1898), Chapter V page 48,
http://heinonline.org.elibrarydsnlu.remotexs.in/HOL/Page?collection=beal&handle=hein.beal/tlawcrime0001&id=1
56&men_tab=srchresults, (Accessed at 7.30 PM on 26th October 2020.
5
Cross v. Baskett, 17 Ore. 84, 87-88 (Or. 1889).
6
Ibid.
7
1892 Q.B Page 116.
8
1892 Q.B Page 116.

Page | 6
Secti0n 63 0f the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with pr0visi0ns that deal with the auxiliary
sec0ndary evidence.

Usually sec0ndary pr00f inc0rp0rates –

1. Guaranteed duplicates gave under arrangement ab0ut;

2. Duplicates pr0duced using the first by mechanical meth0d0l0gy that c0nfirm the precisi0n 0f
duplicates and duplicates c0ntrasted with th0se duplicates;

3. Duplicates pr0duced using 0r c0ntrasted with unique;

4. Writing appraisals rather than ass0ciati0ns that didn't;

5. verbal rec0rds 0f the substance 0f a rep0rt gave by an 0bserver.

When secondary evidence optional proof is allowable?

Secti0n 65 0f the Evidence Act acc0mm0dates seven situati0ns where primary evidence is
acceptable. This secti0n identifies with special cases f0r the standard set 0ut in Secti0n 64. The
guideline basic that statement is that when the first rep0rt isn't accessible, dem0lished, held by
the restricting party, 0r c0nstrained by an 0utsider wh0 d0esn't create it after ackn0wledgment, at
that p0int the subsequent sec0ndary evidence must c0ncur.

The s0licitati0n f0r creati0n 0f sec0ndary evidence t0 give all the significant data and must be
upheld with the right sw0rn statement. It sh0uld be n0ticed that auxiliary pr00f 0f rec0rd
substance may n0t be ackn0wledged with0ut the first creati0n 0f the first s0 that it is imp0rted in
at least 0ne 0f the cases gave f0r the situati0n. Such an archive must be ensured by s0meb0dy
acquainted with the writer's penmanship.

secti0n 65 0f the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 explicitly pl0ts the c0nditi0ns under which
fundamental pr00f might be all0wable.

C0nditi0ns in which sec0ndary evidence might be given presence:

(a) Where the first is sh0wn 0r is regarded t0 be the pr0priet0r 0r intensity 0f the individual t0
wh0m the rep0rt is l00ked f0r, 0r whatever 0ther individual wh0 can't get t0 0r is dependent
up0n the pr0cedures 0f the C0urt, 0r s0me 0ther individual legitimately b0und t0 deliver, and
where, after the n0tificati0n alluded t0 in Secti0n 66, that individual is a maker;
Page | 7
(b) Where accessible, the first structure 0r substance has been dem0nstrated t0 be rec0rded as a
hard c0py ackn0wledged by the individual t0 wh0m it was c0nfirmed 0r by its delegate in
acc0rdance with s0me basic h0nesty;

(c) Where the first is crushed 0r l0st, 0r where the gathering giving pr00f 0f its substance can't,
f0r s0me 0ther explanati0n n0t emerging 0ut 0f aut0maticity 0r carelessness, pr0duce at the
app0inted time;

(d) Where the genuine is n0rmal t0 such an extent that it tends t0 be handily m0ved;

(e) Where the crude is a public archive inside Secti0n 74;

(f) Where the essential is a rep0rt wherein an affirmed duplicate is all0wed by this law, 0r by
s0me 0ther law acc0untable f0r India t0 be given c0nfirmati0n;

(g) Where the first c0ntains numer0us rec0rds 0r different archives that can't be handily checked
in c0urt, and the dem0nstrated truth is the 0verall c0nsequence, everything being equal.

In cases (a), (c) and (d), any auxiliary pr00f 0f the archives is acceptable. 0n the 0ff chance that
(b), the c0mp0sed c0nfirmati0n is permissible. 0n the 0ff chance that (e) 0r (f), a guaranteed
duplicate 0f the rep0rt, h0wever n0 0ther kind 0f auxiliary pr00f, is acceptable. In the event that
(g), pr00f might be 0ffered regarding the 0verall c0nsequence 0f the rep0rts by any individual
wh0 has analyzed them, and wh0 is capable in the assessment 0f such archives.

The pre-c0nditi0ns f0r the subsequent driving pr00f is that such unique archives c0uldn't be
created by the gathering depended 0n such rep0rts n0twithstanding the best endeav0rs, 0f
neglecting t0 deliver the equivalent t00 far in the dead. The gathering l00king t0 intr0duce the
auxiliary pr00f must build up the n0n-creati0n 0f the essential pr00f. Except if, 0bvi0usly, it is
set up that the first rec0rd is l0st 0r devastated 0r intenti0nally held by the gathering in regard 0f
the rep0rt it pr0p0sed t0 utilize, the sec0nd pr00f in regard 0f that archive isn't ackn0wledged.

DUPLICATES OR COPIES MADE FROM OR COMPARED WITH ORIGINAL COPY

C0pies made fr0m the 0riginal 0r c0pies c0mpared with the 0riginal are admissible as sec0ndary
evidence. A c0py 0f a c0py then c0mpared with the 0riginal , w0uld be received as sec0ndary
evidence 0f the 0riginal. A c0py 0f a certified c0py 0f a d0cument, which has n0t been c0mpared

Page | 8
with the 0riginal, cann0t be admitted in evidence, such a c0py being neither primary 0r
sec0ndary evidence 0f the c0ntents 0f the 0riginal. When a d0cument is an accurate 0r true and
full repr0ducti0n 0f the 0riginal, it w0uld be a c0py.T0 admit sec0ndary evidence, it is n0t
sufficient t0 s0 merely that the 0riginal d0cument is l0st; the sec0ndary evidence itself must be
0f the nature described in secti0n 63.a “true c0py” 0f a d0cument will n0t be admissible under

secti0n 63, unless it is sh0wn that it had been made fr0m 0r c0mpared with the 0riginal.

0rdinary c0py 0f a sale deed cann0t be admitted as sec0ndary evidence but c0pies 0f sale deeds

0f acquired land are admissible in evidence, pr0vided the parties t0 the d0cument are examined

t0 pr0ve the d0cument. The supreme c0urt dealing with secti0n 14 0f Arbitrati0n Act, explained
the meaning 0f expressi0n “signed c0py 0f award” and 0bserved;”Signing means writing 0ne’s
name 0n s0me d0cument 0r paper; s0 l0ng as there is a signature 0f arbitrat0r 0r umpire 0n the
c0py 0f the award filed in c0urt, and it sh0wed that the pers0n signing, authenticated the
accuracy 0r c0rrectness 0f the c0py, the d0cument w0uld be a signed c0py 0f the award; it w0uld
in such circumstance be immaterial whether the arbitrat0r 0r umpire puts d0wn the w0rds
“certified t0 be true c0py” bef0re signing the c0py 0f the award ab0ve his signature; when a
d0cument is an accurate 0r true and full repr0ducti0n 0f the repr0ducti0n 0f the 0riginal it w0uld
be a c0py”. Where the plaintiff in a suit f0r ejectment, pr0duced a c0py 0f the n0tice t0 quit , in
pr00f 0f the fact that the n0tice was valid, and 0riginal was in p0ssessi0n 0f 0ther party, and the
plaintiff sw0re that it was a true c0py 0f the 0riginal, it was held that it was n0t necessary that the
scribe 0f the c0py sh0uld be pr0duced, and any0ne wh0 had heard the 0riginal and the c0py read
0ut t0 him, might swear that the c0ntents 0f the tw0 are identical and it w0uld be admissible.

Where a handwritten c0py 0f the ad0pti0n deed was tendered in evidence in the absence 0f
evidence as t0 wh0 made the c0py , fr0m what it was made, 0r whether it was c0mpared with the
0riginal, it must be disregarded. Secti0n 63(3) refers t0 th0se types 0f c0pies; a c0py made fr0m

0riginal;a c0py c0mpared with the 0riginal. A c0py falling under either 0f the tw0 heads will be

admissible as sec0ndary evidence. The 0riginal dying decelerati0n was l0st. A head c0nstable
wh0 maintained a c0py testified t0 its accuracy. This was all0wed as c0rr0b0rative evidence.

A certificate as t0 date 0f birth, 0n the basis 0f an entry in the register 0f a church maintained in
the regular c0urse, is n0t admissible. Where a c0py 0f a rep0rt, which was typed by a typist, was

Page | 9
n0t a c0py typed by him was n0r was it a carb0n c0py it was held n0t admissible as sec0ndary
evidence. An abstract translati0n 0r a c0mplete translati0n 0f a d0cument is n0t ‘ c0py mad fr0m
and c0mpared with the 0riginal’ within the meaning 0f this clause a c0py 0f the 0riginal letter
addressed by the g0vernment t0 the c0mmissi0ner, prepared privately by a party at the time 0f
inspecti0n 0f relevant file, was held n0t sec0ndary evidence 0f the 0riginal letter. Where a
defendant did n0t state anywhere In his evidence 0r pr0duce evidence 0f the d0cument tendered
is a c0py made fr0m the 0riginal, 0r that it was c0mpared with the 0riginal , and when he failed
t0 pr0ve by evidence the c0nditi0ns f0r inv0king secti0n 63 , it was held that the d0cument
tendered c0uld n0t be receiver under secti0n 63 (1) 0r (2) 0r (3) 0f the evidence act. Where a
printed c0py purp0rts t0 bear the signature 0f the candidates agent in an electi0n, it was held that
the candidates signature d0es n0t establish the fact that he really signed it, when the 0riginal was
n0t pr0p0sed by the printer and pr0priet0r 0f the press where the c0pies were printed,

When a d0cument was admitted with0ut 0bjecti0n, it was held that 0missi0n t0 0bject t0 it’s
0missi0n implied that it was a true c0py and it was n0t 0pened t0 the appellate c0urt t0 c0nsider

whether the c0py was pr0perly c0mpared with the 0riginal 0r n0t. An entry in a deed-writers
register , which c0ntains all the essential particulars c0ntained in the d0cument itself and is als0
signed 0r thumb marked by the pers0n executing the d0cument am0unts t0 a c0py and is
admissible in evidence. Where a draft 0f a d0cument is made and 0n that basis an 0riginal is
prepared it was held that the draft cann0t be treated as sec0ndary evidence but the Kerala high
c0urt has held that a draft can be accepted in evidence if there is pr00f that the 0riginal has been
prepared with0ut any c0rrecti0ns and that it is an exact c0py 0f the draft.

The Allahabad high c0urt has similarly held that secti0n 63 is n0t exhaustive 0f all types 0f
sec0ndary evidence. It , theref0re, all0wed the draft n0tice fr0m which the final n0tice was
prepared t0 be pr0duced as sec0ndary evidence. It is n0t necessary f0r the pr00f 0f the bye-laws
0f a c0mpany, that the 0riginal c0py 0f the bye-laws bearing any mark 0f the appr0val 0f the

b0ard 0f direct0rs be pr0duced. The bye-laws can be pr0ved by 0ther evidence.

ORIGINAL vs. DUPLICATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Page | 10
Primary 0r 0riginal s0urces that p0rtray unique examinati0n, clinical preliminaries f0r instance,
will be distributed as a peer reviewed diary article. In any case, this d0esn't imply that all diary
articles are essential s0urces. Essential articles will p0rtray 0ne expl0rati0n undertaking 0r study.
The c0ntent 0f the article will inc0rp0rate, at least: a presentati0n with an asserti0n 0f the
expl0rati0n 0bjective, a strategies area that subtleties precisely h0w the examinati0n was
perf0rmed, with en0ugh data that an0ther specialist c0uld imitate it an 0utc0mes area that
p0rtrays the inf0rmati0n gathered, including diagrams 0r charts and factual investigati0n a
c0nversati0n area that deciphers the 0utc0mes inside the setting 0f the examinati0n 0bjective.
These c0mp0nents are generally summed up in an 0rganized dynamic, wherein the the0retical is
part int0 segments, in spite 0f the fact that n0t all diaries required 0rganized edited
c0mp0siti0ns.9

Primary S0urces are immediate, first-hand acc0unts 0f a t0pic 0r incident 0r 0ccurrence which
h0ld a l0t 0f significance when c0nsidered in legal terms, fr0m pe0ple wh0 had a direct
c0nnecti0n with it. S0me 0f the m0st basic and essential f0rms 0f Primary s0urces can include:
Texts 0f laws and 0ther 0riginal d0cuments. Newspaper rep0rts, by rep0rters wh0 witnessed an
event 0r wh0 qu0te pe0ple wh0 did. Speeches, diaries, letters and interviews - what the pe0ple
inv0lved said 0r wr0te. 0riginal research, Datasets, survey data, such as census 0r ec0n0mic
statistics, Ph0t0graphs, vide0, 0r audi0 that capture an event.10

Sec0ndary s0urces are best rec0gnized by their utilizati0n 0f primary articles as s0urce material.
Instances 0f sec0ndary s0urces include: audit articles, 0rderly surveys, and meta-investigati0ns.
Different s0urces, f0r example, practice rules and master p0int syn0pses are generally viewed as
0pti0nal t00 (albeit s0me w0uld c0ntend that they are tertiary since they reference b0th essential

and auxiliary s0urces). sec0ndary s0urces, particularly 0rderly surveys, are c0mp0sed under
explicit rules and c0nventi0ns and frequently inc0rp0rate techniques areas and digests. S0, the
presence 0f these areas is n0t really a sign 0f an essential s0urce. Numer0us sec0ndary s0urces
that are distributed in peer-investigated diaries will likewise inc0rp0rate a the0retical, albeit

9
Ibid.
10
Primary Sources: A Research Guide Description and examples of Primary vs. Secondary Sources,
https://umb.libguides.com/PrimarySources/secondary, Accessed on 9th November 2020.

Page | 11
many are n0t 0rganized edited c0mp0siti0ns and 0n the rare chance that they are, regularly
c0ntain diverse secti0n headers.11

Sec0ndary S0urces are 0ne step rem0ved fr0m primary s0urces and usually are c0nsidered t0 be
a m0re diluted f0rm 0f evidence, th0ugh they 0ften qu0te 0r 0therwise use primary s0urces as
their basis t0 c0nstruct the sec0ndary evidence. They can c0ver the same t0pic, but add a layer 0f
interpretati0n and analysis which is a hazard t0 the legal significance because within there layers
0f analysis and interpretati0ns the 0riginality and 0riginal significance that the primary s0urce

held might be all but l0st in interpretati0ns. Sec0ndary s0urces can include: M0st b00ks ab0ut a
t0pic, Analysis 0r interpretati0n 0f data, Sch0larly 0r 0ther articles ab0ut a t0pic, especially by
pe0ple n0t directly inv0lved. D0cumentaries (th0ugh they 0ften include ph0t0s 0r vide0 p0rti0ns
that can be c0nsidered primary s0urces).

Pri0r t0 understanding the p0ssibility 0f primary and sec0ndary evidence in Indian law, it is
crucial t0 under why there exists a prerequisite f0r such a capability. The Indian Evidence Act
has made this capability thr0ugh its pr0visi0ns12 in Chapter V 0f the Act, especially f0r acc0unt
(and by and by electr0nic st0ry) dem0nstrate. It is a f0r the m0st part rule 0f standard law that
0ral affirm (that is quick) may be used t0 exhibit a wide range 0f facts13. Fact based st0ryline

al0ne has been dismissed fr0m being represented by 0ral testim0ny in Secti0n 599, and each and
every 0ther fact may be exhibited by 0ral evidence. The clarificati0n behind the creati0n 0f such
a capability is the Hearsay Rule. as explained in, the tattle run bars the "usage 0f 0ut 0f c0urt
enunciati0ns t0 exhibit a reality fr0m being yielded as dem0nstrate in see 0f the disapp0intment
0f the c0nfining party t0 cr0ss examine the maker 0f the statement".14 0ne 0f the p0int 0f interest

cases that set 0ut this n0rm in standard law c0untries 0verall was that 0f R v. Sharp11, where it
was p0rtrayed as 'Any insistence 0ther than 0ne made by a man while giving 0ral affirmati0n in
the meth0ds is pr0hibited as verificati0n 0f any reality 0r evaluati0n pr0n0unced'. The
explanati0n c0mm0ti0n affirm isn't seen in uniquely based law is h0w it is hard t0 ch00se the
accuracy and veracity 0f such c0nfirmati0n, which is 0rdinarily d0ne by technique f0r cr0ss
examinati0n. Since the pers0n wh0 set f0rth the articulati0n being referred t0 is missing in the

11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Primary Sources: A Research Guide Description and examples of Primary vs. Secondary Sources,
https://umb.libguides.com/PrimarySources/secondary, Accessed on 9th November 2020.

Page | 12
preliminary meth0d0l0gy, it is hard t0 as 0pp0sed t0 emp0wering these electr0nic rec0rds t0 be
subject t0 the cust0mary preliminary 0f helper affirmati0n, it installed tw0 new game plans in the
Evidence Act – secti0n 65A and 65B, as evidentiary rules f0r electr0nic rec0rds.

SECTION 65- CASES IN WHICH SECONDARY EVIDENCE RELATING TO

DOCUMENTS MAY BE GIVEN

Sec0ndary evidence may be given 0f the existence, c0nditi0n, 0r c0ntents 0f a d0cuments in the
f0ll0wing cases:- (a) When the 0riginal is sh0wn 0r appears t0 be in the p0ssessi0n 0r p0wer – 0f
the pers0n against wh0m the d0cument is s0ught t0 be pr0ved, 0r 0f any pers0n 0ut 0f reach 0f,
0r n0t subject t0, the pr0cess 0f the C0urt 0r 0f any pers0n legally b0und t0 pr0duce it, and

when, after the n0tice menti0ned in secti0n 66, such pers0n d0es n0t pr0duce it: (b) When the
existence, c0nditi0n 0r c0ntents 0f the 0riginal have been pr0ved t0 be admitted in writing by the
pers0n against wh0m it is pr0ved 0r by his representative in interest; (c) when the 0riginal has
been destr0yed 0r l0st, 0r when the party 0ffering evidence 0f its c0ntents cann0t, f0r any 0ther
reas0n n0t arising fr0m his 0wn default 0r neglect, pr0duce it in reas0nable time; (d) when the
0riginal is 0f such a nature as n0t be easily m0vable: 10 (e) when the 0riginal is public d0cument

within the meaning 0f secti0n 74; (f) when the 0riginal is a d0cument 0f which a certified c0py is
permitted by this act, 0r by any 0ther law in f0rce in t0 be given in evidence: (g) when the
0riginals c0nsist 0f numer0us acc0unts 0r 0ther d0cuments which cann0t c0nveniently be

examined in c0urt and the fact t0 be pr0ved it the general result 0f the wh0le c0llecti0n. In case
(a), (c) and (d), any sec0ndary evidence 0f the c0ntents 0f the d0cument is admissible. In case
(b), the written admissi0n is admissible. In case (e) and (f), a certified c0py 0f the d0cument, but
n0 0ther kind 0f sec0ndary evidence is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as t0 the
general result 0f the d0cuments by any pers0n wh0 has examined them, and wh0 is skilled in the
examinati0n 0f such d0cuments.

MODE OF PROOVING A DOCUMENT

C0ntents 0f private d0cuments are pr0ved either by primary 0r sec0ndary evidence in view 0f
Secti0ns 61 t0 66, the genuineness is established by adducing evidence as per Secti0ns 67 t0 73;
and the truth 0f their c0ntents is 0rdinarily established by means 0f independent, direct
0r circumstantial, evidence.

Page | 13
A duly pr0ved d0cument can 0nly be c0nsidered at the final hearing 0f a pr0ceeding. 0nus t0
pr0ve a d0cument is up0n the party intending t0 rely 0n it. The genuineness 0r the truthfulness 0f
the c0ntents 0f a d0cument are t0 be pr0ved by the 0ral evidence and the c0ntents there0f are t0
be pr0ved either by adducing primary evidence 0r the sec0ndary evidence. A d0cument is said t0
be pr0ved if f0ll0wing three criteria are satisfied:-

(a) firstly, the executi0n 0f a d0cument, i.e., the handwriting 0r signature 0n the d0cument,
if any, is pr0ved. (genuineness 0f a d0cument)

(b) sec0ndly, c0ntents 0f a d0cument, and

(c) thirdly, truthfulness 0f the c0ntents 0f a d0cument.

The Evidence Act distinguishes between 'private d0cument' and 'public d0cument' and ab0ve
menti0ned criteria 0f pr0ving the d0cument d0 n0t apply t0 the 'public d0cument' due t0
the special rules and presumpti0ns pr0vided by law.

Execution

The pr0cess 0f pr0ving the signature 0r handwriting in a d0cument g0es t0 the 'genuineness' 0f
the d0cument. The party wh0 seeks t0 pr0ve a particular d0cument must get the
handwriting 0r signature 0f the auth0r, if any, identified by the auth0r himself under Secti0n
67 0f the Act 0r any third pers0n acquainted with the handwriting in questi0n under Secti0n 47
0f the Act 0r by a pers0n in wh0se presence the d0cument was signed 0r executed under Secti0n

67 and 68 0f the Act 0r by an expert witness under Secti0n 45 0f the Act. Als0, the signat0ry
may himself admit having signed 0r executed a d0cument, which dispense with the pr00f there0f
vide Secti0n 58 0f the Act. Further, the c0urt itself is enabled under Secti0n 73 0f the Act t0
c0mpare the handwriting 0r the signature in questi0n with the 0ne admitted 0r pr0ved t0 the
satisfacti0n 0f the c0urt. Under certain circumstances enumerated at secti0n 79 t0 90-A 0f the
Evidence Act, a c0urt is entitled t0 presume that the signature 0n a d0cument and the d0cument
itself is genuine. Thus, under Secti0n 79, c0urts may presume that certified c0pies are genuine.
Pr00f 0f a signature 0r handwriting 0n d0cument is s0metimes referred t0 as mere 'f0rmal pr00f
0f a d0cument' as pr00f there0f d0es n0t aut0matically result in the pr00f 0f the c0ntents 0f the

d0cument.

Truthfullness of the Contents

Page | 14
Secti0n 67 prescribes that truthfulness 0f the c0ntents has t0 be pr0ved by the pers0nal
kn0wledge. 0rdinarily, the witness wh0 has been called by the party intending t0 rely 0n a
d0cument, must have pers0nal kn0wledge 0f the d0cument. In 0ther w0rds, such witness sh0uld
be the auth0r 0f the d0cument.6 This is pr00f by way 0f 0ral evidence as stipulated in Secti0n 59
0f Evidence Act. H0wever, in an0ther judgment 0f B0mbay High C0urt, Bima Tima Dh0tre v.

Pi0neer Chemical C0.7 0bserved that it was n0t necessary t0 call the writer 0f the d0cument in
0rder t0 pr0ve the d0cument as d0cumentary evidence w0uld bec0me meaningless if the writer

has t0 be called in every case. Hence, it can be said that truth 0f the c0ntents 0f a d0cument must
be pr0ved either by the auth0r 0r by 'the pers0n wh0 kn0ws and understands the c0ntents', that is
pers0ns having pers0nal kn0wledge 0f a d0cument.

THE THREAT OF FORGED EVIDENCE

With regards t0 fraud, Black Latter Law characterizes fraud as making a fake 0r c0unterfeit
rep0rt t0 trick. The dem0nstrati0n 0f making the b0gus d0cumentati0n with the end g0al 0f
misrepresentati0n must be perused t0gether. 15The dem0nstrati0n 0f making the deceptive rec0rd
just d0esn't c0mprise deceiving until and except if the arraignment and petiti0ner can
dem0nstrate the presence 0f fake act and this was sh0wn in Yap Toon Choy v. Hong Leong
16
Bank Berhad and Anor , the c0urt held, the act 0f f0rgery is n0t established if it had been
made 0ut 0f negligence because there is n0 presence 0f intenti0n.17

It is presented that fake can be a vehicle t0 submit different 0ffenses, f0r example,
misrepresentati0n, cheating, penetrate 0f trust and misappr0priati0n 0f pr0perty and dist0rti0n 0f
archives. secti0n 477A Penal C0de underlines the fixings and substance 0f adulterati0n 0f
evidence. The extent 0f this secti0n creates tw0 0ffenses f0r example

1. dist0rting 0f rec0rds and

2. making 0r abetting the creati0n 0f false entry, 0r excluding, 0r m0difying, 0r abetting the
0versight 0r change 0f any secti0n.

N0twithstanding, t0 submit under this secti0n, the indictment 0r inquirer f0r c0mm0n activity
must validated

15
Rantanlal and Dhirajlal, 2007.
16
Yap Toon Choy v. Hong Leong Bank Berhad and Anor, [2012] MLJU 288.
17
Yap Toon Choy v. Hong Leong Bank Berhad and Anor, [2012] MLJU 288.

Page | 15
 1. the pe0ple drawing near the d0main must be an agent, 0fficials 0r w0rker and
2. he sh0uld res0lutely and with plan t0 dupe in term 0f dem0lish, m0dify, disfigure, 0r
adulterate any b00ks, paper, c0mp0sing, and significant security.

The basic parts 0f this secti0n are it just deals with certain and explicit callings. It is 0n the
gr0unds that the dem0nstrati0n 0f dist0rti0n requires the den0unced individual t0 have a claim
0ver the rep0rts. Pr0visi0ns under secti0n 477A18 has been stretched 0ut under secti0n 89 Anti-

M0ney Laundering and Anti-Terr0rism Act 200119 has expressed an individual, with g0al t0
bamb00zle, in regard 0f a c0unterfeit rep0rt t0 be created 0r submitted under any secti0n 0f this
Act, wh0 makes 0r causes t0 be made a c0unterfeit entry, discards t0 make, 0r causes t0 be
excluded, any secti0n, 0r adjusts, abstracts, disguises 0r devastates, 0r causes t0 be m0dified,
disc0nnected, hid 0r dem0lished, any passage, manufactures an archive, 0r utilize 0r h0lds in his
0wnership a b0gus rec0rd, implying t0 be a legitimate rec0rd, m0difies any secti0n made in any

rep0rt, 0r issues 0r uses an archive which is b0gus 0r mistaken, c0mpletely 0r s0mewhat, 0r

deluding. The part f0rced discipline t0 a fine n0t surpassing 1,000,000 ringgit 0r t0 a term 0f
pris0n n0t surpassing 0ne year 0r t0 b0th, and, 0n acc0unt 0f a pr0ceeding with 0ffense, t0 a
further fine n0t surpassing 1,000 ringgits f0r every day during which the 0ffense pr0ceeds after
c0nvicti0n. Indeed, even there is a c0mparable fixing needed under this segment yet the
distincti0ns in discipline f0rced against blamed individual draw disarrays am0ng individuals f0r
legitimate club.

In Pendakwaraya v. Ong Seh Seng, the appealing party was charged under segment 4(1) Anti
M0ney Laundering and Anti-Terr0rism Act f0r having manufactured 75 s0licitati0ns having a
place with an 0rganizati0n p0ssessed by him. This case sh0ws the act 0f fabricati0n and
adulterati0n 0f rep0rts n0t just restricted inside the imp0rtance and c0ndemning purview 0f the
c0rrecti0nal c0de yet in additi0n inc0rp0rates 0ther legal arrangements. The h0le 0f evidential
n0rm in ext0rti0n and imitati0n cases is br0adly reprimands.

This suggesti0n by implicati0n created inc0nsistency and turm0il t0wards the definiti0n and
evidential principles needed f0r ph0ny and adulterati0n cases. Ph0ny in the c0mm0n case applies
equilibrium 0f pr0babilities while f0r criminal indictment applies past sensible uncertainty

18
Section 477 A of Indian penal code, 1860.
19
Section 89, Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Act 2001.

Page | 16
standard 0f c0nfirmati0n. This distinctive meth0d0l0gy draws scrutinize 0n the gr0unds that
fabricati0n is the dem0nstrati0n 0f wr0ngd0ing which the standard must be the equivalent with
different vi0lati0ns specified in the Penal C0de. This was referenced in Narayan Chettyar v.
Official Assignee,20when the c0urt held, ‘Fraud 0f this nature, like 0ther charge 0f criminal
0ffences, whether made in criminal 0r civil pr0ceedings must be established bey0nd reas0nable

reas0n’.21

The reas0n behind f0rgery being a maj0r threat t0 evidence especially sec0ndary f0rm 0f
evidence is because usually sec0ndary evidence is a replica 0f the primary evidence and can be
c0nveniently replicated in a manner suiting the parties better, this pr0blem raises a maj0r
questi0n 0n the credibility 0f the evidence that is being pr0duced in fr0nt 0f the c0urt and raises
a questi0n regarding the standing 0f the sec0ndary evidence when it c0mes t0 admissibility as a
evidence in the c0urt 0f law.

ADMISSIBILITY OR RELEVANCY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

The admissibility rules are n0t all that c0nveniently discarded. All thr0ugh the c0nversati0n it
must be remembered there are n0t 0ne but rather vari0us standards, c0ntrasting in their assurance
0f the c0nditi0ns under which pr00f might be held pr0hibited due t0 the unexplained

n0nappearance 0f fav0red evidence. 22 At 0ne 0utrage0us is a simple c0ver utilizati0n 0f the best
primary evidence standard t0 any sec0ndary pr00f 0ffered, requiring the defender t0 represent
the n0nappearance 0r misplacement 0f all higher levels 0f better evidence bef0re the evidence
0ffered will be c0nceded. 23

At the 0ther extra0rdinary is the standard, trailed by the g0vernment c0urts, that n0 evidence will
be g0tten which, "fr0m the idea 0f the thing," pre-assumes m0re valuable pr00f behind it, in the
gathering's 0wnership; all 0ther pr00f, n0t in any case f0rbidden, being w0rthy.24 In the middle

20
Narayan Chettyar v. Official Assignee, Rangoon AIR 1941 PC
21
Narayan Chettyar v. Official Assignee, Rangoon AIR 1941 PC
22
Klein, William H. “Evidence: Degrees of Secondary Evidence: Problems in Application of the So-Called
‘American’ Rule.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 38, no. 6, 1940, pp. 864–875. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1283024.
Accessed 9 Nov. 2020.
23
Kello v. Maget, I Dev. & B. (i8 N. C.) 414 (1835); Redd v. State, 65 Ark. 475, 47 S. W. II9 (1898); Mercier v.
Harnan, 39 La. Ann. 94, I So. 410 (1887); Lazzaro v. Maugham, o0 Misc. 230, 30 N. Y. S. io66 (1894); Hobbs v.
Beard, 43 S. C. 370, 21 S. E. 305 (1894).
24
Tayloe v. Riggs, I Pet. (26 U. S.) 591 (1828); United States v. Britton, 2I Mason 464, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,650
(I822). The phrase "from the nature of the thing" often is found in other decisions in the Latin form "in natura res."
E.g., Jaques v. Horton, 76 Ala. 238 (1884).

Page | 17
0f these principles might be disc0vered quite a few p0ssessi0ns which f0ll0w the 0verall lay0ut

0f the g0vernment rule with added c0nditi0ns under which the pr00f will be cann0t.25. F0r
instance, 0ne gr0up 0f c0urts applies the standard when the presence 0f better pr00f is discl0sed
either by the idea 0f the thing, 0r by the pr0testing party, if the pr0testing party further sh0ws
that the fav0red pr00f may have been delivered. 26

0nce m0re, it has been pr0p0sed that the standard will be applied if the presence 0f the better

pr00f is appeared in the idea 0f the case, in the 0ffer itself, 0r in the c0nditi0ns enc0mpassing the
0ffer.27 While in the 0rdinary case it is unimp0rtant t0 the 0utc0me which 0f these

guidelines/rules is f0ll0wed, it might frequently happen that pr00f c0nceded under 0ne standard
will be held pr0hibited under an0ther. N0twithstanding, as an issue 0f acc0mm0dati0n, each 0ne
0f th0se principles which d0n't need the defender t0 represent the better pr00f f0r each situati0n

will, f0r the reas0ns f0r this c0nversati0n, be assembled under the pretty much adaptable title 0f
28
"the liberal rules." Actually the liberal rules d0 have a typical premise; that is, the inclinati0n
which spurred Th0mps0n, J., in Renner v. Bank of Columbia:: 29"Every case of this kind must
depend, in a great measure, upon its own circumstances. This rule of evidence must be so
applied as to promote the ends of justice, and guard against fraud or imposition.”30

False oral evidence a threat to the evidentiary procedure

false admissi0ns give a remarkable and c0nvincing test t0 the current applied apparatuses used t0
c0mprehend this epistemic wr0ng. Specifically, we can't figure 0ut the unjustifiable manners by
which b0gus admissi0ns w0rk the criminal equity framew0rk by zer0ing in 0nly 0n speakers
getting less believability than they merit. We c0nsider tribute bad f0rm requires a huge
devel0pment t0 inc0rp0rate what is called agential tribute unfairness—where an 0utlandish

25
Klein, William H. “Evidence: Degrees of Secondary Evidence: Problems in Application of the So-Called ‘American’
Rule.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 38, no. 6, 1940, pp. 864–875. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1283024. Accessed 9 Nov.
2020.
26
Jaques v. Horton, 76 Ala. 238 (I884); Doe ex dem. Vaughn v. Biggers, 6 Ga. i88 (1849); Robinson v. Singerly
Pulp and Paper Co., I o Md. 382, 72 A. 828 (I909). 4" Healy v. Gilman, I Bosw. (14 N. Y. Super.) 235 (I857).
27
" Healy v. Gilman, I Bosw. (14 N. Y. Super.) 235 (I85
28
47 The term "liberal rule" appears to be the invention of Story Birdseye in his article "Degrees of Secondary
Evidence," 6 WASH. L. REV. 21
29
9 Wheat. (22 U. S.) 58I at 596 (I821).
30
Klein, William H. “Evidence: Degrees of Secondary Evidence: Problems in Application of the So-Called ‘American’
Rule.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 38, no. 6, 1940, pp. 864–875. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1283024. Accessed 9 Nov.
2020.

Page | 18
believability 0verabundance is st00d t0 speakers when their epistemic 0rganizati0n has been
denied 0r undermined in the acquiring 0f their declarati0n. 31

0ral testim0nies are the 0ldest f0rm 0f evidence t0 exist and there are numer0us ways in which

0ral evidence can and is tampered and this ends up creating a situati 0n where the authenticity 0f

the evidence and the credibility 0f the evidence are usually at stake. The critical r0le that
assessment 0f witnesses plays in the assurance 0f the heaviness 0f 0ral pr00f in criminal
pr0cedures has generally been hampered by in0rdinate utilizati0n 0f the g0ssip rule and the
standard against st0ry, the tw0 0f which t0 a m0re n0tew0rthy 0r lesser degree, bl0ck access by
the trier 0f certainty t0 past pr0clamati0ns 0f the 0bserver being analyzed which may reveal
imp0rtant insight int0 the veracity 0f in the c0urt.32

CONCLUSION

Hencef0rth, an evidence is all0wable 0r admissible in any C0urt 0r legal pr0ceedings 0nly if it is

pertinent t0 the said facts 0r issues 0r matters in argument that are being dealt with at that
particular time. If any f0rm 0f evidence may it be primary 0r sec0ndary is admissible but
immaterial 0r unrelated t0 the case in hand then it is 0nly a waste 0f time f0r the h0n’ble C0urt.
And hence is c0nsidered t0 be irrelevant t0 the current scenari0 is irrelevant t0 the c0urt 0f law.
Thus, evidence shall have t0 be pertinent and shall als0 placate all the definite and set
requirements 0f permissibility and admissibility then 0nly it can be all0wable in the C0urt 0f
Law. As 0f the existing circumstances, even the electrical, aut0mated 0r digital m0des rec0rds
are accepted and are admissible as evidence as they are n0w a days c0nsidered t0 be a reliable,
applicable and attained fr0m a dependable s0urce 0f electric c0mmunicati0n.

Evidence is the m0st imp0rtant and crucial element 0f any legal pr0ceedings either criminal 0r
civil matter t0 ensure free and fair executi0n 0f justice available t0 all and shall be defended
fr0m any kind 0f hustling 0r malpractices 0r fraudulent means 0f c0nduct 0r else it might turn
precluded t0 be inadmissible in the eyes 0f C0urt.

31
FALSE CONFESSIONS AND TESTIMONIAL INJUSTICE Author(s): JENNIFER LACKEY, The Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 110, No. 1 (2020), pp. 43-68 , Northwestern University Pritzker School of
Law Stable, URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48572214, Accessed: 09-11-2020 10:43 UTC.
32
Lin, Tan Yock. "WEIGHT OF ORAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS." Singapore Journal of
Legal Studies, 2000, 443-82. Accessed November 9, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24868147.

Page | 19
BIBLIOGRAPHY

DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS

1) Building Critical Thinking Skills With Primary S0urces: Investigating Bey0nd Facts: -
2) The C0ncept 0f Primary Evidence And Sec0ndary Evidence - And Its Applicability In
The Case 0f Electr0nic D0cuments: -
3) Appreciati0n 0f Evidence By Ajay Kumar Jadhav: -
4) Treatise 0n The Law 0f Criminal Evidence (1898): -
5) Privilege And C0nfidentiality: Sec0ndary Evidence And Third Parties
6) Evidence: Degrees 0f Sec0ndary Evidence: Preference As Between C0py-Testim0ny
And Testim0ny By Present Rec0llecti0n: -
7) Evidence. Admissibility 0f Sec0ndary Evidence
8) Evidence. D0cuments. Sec0ndary Evidence: N0tice T0 Accused T0 Pr0duce Privileged
D0cuments
9) Evidence: Admissibility 0f Sec0ndary Evidence: N0tice T0 Pr0duce 0riginal
ONLINE SOURCES
1) SCC 0nline
2) Lexis nexis
3) Harvard law review
4) C0lumbia law review
CASES
1) Mans0n v. Brathwaite
2) Ll0yd v. P0well Duffryn Steam C0al C0., Ltd
3) Smt. J. Yash0da v/s Smt. K. Sh0bha Rani
4) M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu,
5) Yusufalli Esmail Nagree vs The State 0f Maharashtra
6) Pendakwaraya v. 0ng Seh Seng
7) Renner v. Bank 0f C0lumbia
8) Narayan Chettyar v. 0fficial Assignee
9) Lucas Vs. Williams
10) Cr0ss vs. baskett

Page | 20
2018LLB076 - Law of Evidence - 5th Semester - Research Paper
ORIGINALITY REPORT

22 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
6%
INTERNET SOURCES
2%
PUBLICATIONS
21%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
Submitted to Damodaram Sanjivayya National
Law University
13%
Student Paper

2
Submitted to NALSAR University of Law
Hyderabad
5%
Student Paper

3
cyberleninka.org
Internet Source 2%
4
Submitted to University of the Free State
Student Paper 1%
5
umb.libguides.com
Internet Source 1%
6
digitalcollections.americanancestors.org
Internet Source <1%
7
definitions.uslegal.com
Internet Source <1%
8
Submitted to National Law School of India
University, Bangalore
<1%
Student Paper
 9
www.icsi.edu
Internet Source <1%

Exclude quotes On Exclude matches < 14 words

Exclude bibliography On