THE EVIDENCE ACT

This section says the Act may be cited as the Evidence Act.

This Act applies to judicial proceedings in all courts except primary courts when evidence is or may be given, but it does not apply to affidavits or arbitration proceedings.

This section defines key terms used in the Act and sets proof standards for criminal and civil matters.

If a law allows the court to presume a fact, the court may treat it as proved unless disproved or require proof of it.

If this Act or another written law says the court must presume a fact, the court must treat that fact as proved unless it is disproved.

If a fact is declared conclusive proof of another fact, the court must treat the other fact as proved and cannot admit evidence to disprove it.

Evidence may be given in a suit or proceeding about facts in issue and other relevant facts, subject to any other law.

A fact a court judicially notices does not need to be proved.

The court must take judicial notice of specified facts and may use reference books or documents to help, and may refuse judicial notice until necessary material is produced.

In a civil proceeding, admitted facts generally do not need to be proved, but the court may order proof anyway.

A person who asks a court to decide a legal right or liability based on asserted facts must prove those facts.

The burden of proof lies with the person who would lose if neither side produced any evidence.

A person who wants the court to believe a fact must prove it, unless another law puts that burden on someone else.

A person who wants to give evidence must prove any fact needed to allow that evidence to be given.

An accused person must prove any exception, exemption, qualification, or special fact within their knowledge, but may be acquitted if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt.

In civil proceedings, a person must prove a fact if that fact is especially within that person’s knowledge.

If a person says a man is dead, and he was shown to have been alive within the previous 30 years, that person must prove the man is dead.

If a person has not been heard of for five years by people who would naturally have heard from him, the burden of proving that he is alive falls on the person who says he is alive.

Sections 123 and 124 do not apply to proceedings under the Law of Marriage Act.

If someone claims that people are not, or no longer are, partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, that person must prove it after those relationships have been shown by conduct.

If someone in possession of something is questioned as to ownership, the person claiming he is not the owner must prove that claim.

If the good faith of a transaction is questioned and one party is in a position of active confidence, that party must prove the transaction was made in good faith.

A child born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days after it ends while the mother remains unmarried, is presumed to be the legitimate son or daughter of that man, but the presumption can be rebutted.

A court may infer that a fact exists if it thinks the fact is likely, considering natural events, human conduct, and business dealings in the particular case.

This section says most people are competent to testify, child witnesses may give evidence without oath or affirmation, and the court may receive and act on that evidence in the stated sexual-offence case.

A witness who cannot speak may give evidence in another intelligible way, including writing or signs, and the signs must be made in open court.

A judge or magistrate generally cannot be forced to answer questions about conduct in court or information learned there, unless a subordinate court specially orders it.

This section sets when spouses can testify for the prosecution or defence, and when a spouse may not be forced to testify.

In civil proceedings, the parties and a party’s husband, wife, or wives are competent and compellable witnesses.

A document or a copy of it is not admissible if a Minister states on oath that it was examined in official records or official communications and that its production would be against the public interest.

Judges, magistrates, police officers, and revenue officers cannot be forced to reveal information sources about offences.

An advocate must not disclose client communications, related document contents, or advice given in the course of professional employment, unless the client expressly consents or a stated exception applies.

Section 143 says section 142 applies to interpreters and to the clerks or servants of advocates.

A party who gives evidence does not automatically consent to the disclosure covered by section 142; consent is only implied in the witness-questioning scenario described here.

A person generally cannot be forced to tell a court about confidential communications with a lawyer, except when the person testifies and the court needs the communication to explain evidence given.

A witness who is not a party to a suit cannot be forced to produce title-deeds or related documents, unless there is a written agreement to do so.

A witness who is not a party to a suit generally cannot be forced to produce an incriminating document unless there is written agreement.

A person cannot be forced to produce documents in their possession if someone else could refuse to produce those documents, unless that other person consents.

A witness cannot refuse to answer a relevant question in a suit or civil/criminal proceeding because the answer may incriminate them, expose them to a penalty or debt, or show they are subject to a civil suit.

In prosecutions for receiving stolen or unlawfully obtained property, evidence may be used to prove guilty knowledge, including recent possession and, with notice and other conditions, a prior conviction for fraud or dishonesty.

An accomplice can be a witness against an accused person, and a conviction is not invalid just because it relies only on an accomplice’s uncorroborated testimony.

No specific number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, unless another written law provides otherwise.

The order of witness production and examination is controlled by the applicable civil or criminal procedure law and practice; if none applies, the court decides.

The court may ask why evidence is relevant and must only admit evidence if the fact would be relevant. In some cases, a related fact must be proved first unless the party gives an undertaking the court accepts.

This section defines three kinds of witness examination: examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination.

Witnesses must be examined-in-chief first, then cross-examined if the adverse party wants, and then re-examined if the calling party wants.

Facts connected with a fact in issue as part of the same transaction are relevant, even if they happened at different times or places.

Facts that are the occasion, cause, effect, or surrounding circumstances of relevant facts or facts in issue are relevant, including motive, preparation, and earlier or later conduct.

Evidence is relevant if it shows motive or preparation, and conduct-related statements may be relevant in the stated circumstances.

Facts are relevant if they are necessary to explain or introduce another fact, support or rebut an inference, establish identity, fix time or place, or show the relation of parties.

Statements, acts, or writings by one alleged conspirator can be treated as relevant evidence against all of them if they refer to or further the common intention.

Facts that would otherwise be irrelevant count as relevant evidence if they conflict with a fact in issue or make a fact in issue highly probable or improbable.

In damages suits, facts that help the court determine the amount of damages are relevant.

If the existence of a right or custom is disputed, certain related transactions and past instances are relevant facts.

Facts showing a person’s state of mind or bodily condition may be treated as relevant evidence when that state is in issue or relevant.

When deciding whether an act was accidental or intentional, evidence that it was part of a series of similar occurrences may be considered relevant.

If it is questioned whether an act was done, the existence of a course of business that would naturally have produced it is a relevant fact.

An admission is a statement (oral, electronic, or documentary) that suggests an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact.

This section says certain statements count as admissions in a suit or proceeding, including statements by parties, authorised agents, some representative parties, and people with a proprietary or pecuniary interest.

Statements made by certain persons are treated as admissions if they relate to their position or liability and are made while they still hold that position or are still subject to that liability.

Statements made by certain persons referred to for information about a disputed matter are treated as admissions.

Admissions may be used against the person who made them, but that person or their representative may only prove them in the listed exceptions.

Oral admissions about a document’s contents are generally not relevant unless the party can show entitlement to give secondary evidence, or the document’s genuineness is disputed.

In civil cases, an admission is not relevant if it was made on an express no-evidence condition or in circumstances showing the parties agreed it should not be used in evidence.

Admissions are not conclusive proof of what they admit, but they may have estoppel effect under this Act.

Facts may be proved by oral evidence, except for the contents of documents.

Oral evidence must be direct, with narrow exceptions and a court power to require inspection of a material thing.

If a person intentionally caused or allowed someone else to believe something was true and act on it, that person and their representative cannot later deny that truth in a dispute between them.

A tenant, and people claiming through the tenant, cannot deny the landlord’s title during the tenancy. A licensee on immovable property also cannot deny the possessor’s title while the licence continues.

An acceptor of a bill of exchange cannot deny the drawer’s authority to draw or endorse the bill, but may deny that the bill was actually drawn or endorsed by the person it names.

A bailee or licensee cannot deny that the bailor or licensor had authority when the bailment or licence started, but a bailee who hands the goods to someone else may prove that person had a better right than the bailor.

A voluntary confession made to a police officer may be used against the accused, and the prosecution must prove that the confession was voluntary.

A confession made freely and voluntarily in the immediate presence of a magistrate or justice of the peace may be proved against the accused person.

A court should not reject a confession just because it may have been prompted by a promise or threat, unless the inducement was likely to produce an untrue admission of guilt.

A confession made after the court thinks the effect of an inducement has been fully removed is relevant and should not be rejected.

Information from an accused person in police custody is relevant if it distinctly relates to the fact discovered.

A confession covered by section 29 does not stop being relevant just because it was obtained by secrecy, deception, intoxication, unanswered questions, or lack of warning.

A court may consider one accused person’s confession against a co-accused in a joint trial, but a conviction cannot rest only on that co-accused confession.

The contents of documents may be proved by either primary evidence or secondary evidence.

Section 69 defines when a document, or parts/counterparts of it, count as primary evidence in court.

A person summoned to produce a document is not a witness just because they produce it, and they cannot be cross-examined unless called as a witness.

Witnesses to character may be cross-examined.

A question is a leading question if it suggests the answer the questioner wants or expects.

Leading questions are generally barred in examination-in-chief and re-examination if the adverse party objects, unless the court अनुमति gives permission. The court must allow leading questions on introductory, undisputed, or already sufficiently proved matters.

Leading questions may be asked during cross-examination.

A witness can be asked about whether a relevant contract, grant, or other property disposition was not in a document, and the adverse party can object until the document is produced or secondary evidence is justified.

A witness may be cross-examined about earlier written statements relevant to the issue, and if the writing will be used to contradict the witness, the witness’s attention must first be drawn to the parts used for contradiction.

A witness being cross-examined may be asked questions testing truthfulness, identity, or character, even if the answers could incriminate the witness or expose the witness to a penalty or forfeiture.

If a question asked under section 164 concerns a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, section 149 applies to that question.

A defence witness who is also an accused person may be questioned in cross-examination even if the answers could incriminate them, and the court decides when questions are asked and when the witness must answer.

The court decides whether a witness must answer a question that is not relevant to the case, and may warn the witness that they do not have to answer.

A person may not ask the section 167 question unless they have reasonable grounds to think the imputation it conveys is well founded.

The court may forbid questions or inquiries it sees as indecent or scandalous, except where they relate to facts in issue or are needed to decide whether those facts exist.

The court must forbid questions meant to insult or annoy, or questions that are needlessly offensive in form.

Evidence cannot be used to contradict a witness on collateral credit questions, except for prior convictions and facts denying impartiality impeachment.

The court may, at its discretion, allow the person calling a witness to ask questions that would otherwise be allowed in cross-examination by the other side.

A witness’s credit may be attacked by the adverse party, and sometimes by the party calling the witness with court consent, using specified kinds of proof.

Certain statements by unavailable persons may be admissible as evidence in listed situations.

Written statements in certain criminal proceedings can be admitted as evidence if the document is produced and the section’s conditions are met.

Written or electronic witness statements can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings if the section’s conditions are met.

In civil proceedings, written statements in documents can be admitted as evidence instead of calling the witness if stated conditions are met.

Witness testimony from earlier judicial proceedings can be used to prove the truth of the facts stated, but only if the listed conditions are met.

This section defines key terms used in this Part, including “bank” or “banker,” “Banker’s books,” “court,” and “legal proceedings.”

A copy of an entry in a banker’s book must be accepted in legal proceedings as prima facie evidence of the entry and related recorded matters.

A copy of an entry in a banker’s book is not admissible unless the ordinary-book, ordinary-course, and custody/control requirements are first proved. A bank partner or officer may give that proof orally or by affidavit.

A bank record printout can be received in evidence if it is accurately produced and backed by the required proof. Entries in a banker’s book are treated as primary evidence.

A copy of a banker’s book entry can only be used as evidence if someone proves it was checked against the original and is correct.

A banker or bank officer cannot be forced to produce certain bank books or testify about their contents in proceedings where the bank is not a party, unless a court orders it for special cause.

A court may let a party in legal proceedings inspect and copy entries in a banker’s book, and the order is normally to be served on the bank three clear days before it must be obeyed unless the court directs otherwise.

The court can decide who pays costs for court applications and court orders, and may make the bank pay costs caused by the bank’s default or delay.

A witness under examination may refresh memory by referring to certain writings.

A witness may refer to a copy of a writing to refresh memory if the court is satisfied the original cannot be produced for sufficient reason and the court permits it.

An expert may refresh his memory by referring to professional treatises.

A witness may testify to facts in a referred document even without remembering the facts, if the witness is sure the document recorded them correctly.

If a writing is referred to in section 177 or 178, it must be produced and shown to the adverse party on request, and that party may then cross-examine the witness.

A witness summoned to produce a document must bring it to court if it is in the witness’s possession or power, even if someone objects. The court may inspect the document or take other evidence, and a translator may be ordered to keep translated contents secret unless the document will be given in evidence.

If a document was requested after notice to produce, produced, and inspected, the other party must give it as evidence when the producing party պահանջs it.

If a party refuses to produce a document after notice to produce, that party may not later use it as evidence unless the other party consents or the court orders it.

The court may ask questions and order documents or things to be produced to find or prove relevant facts.

Entries in regularly kept business books can be used as relevant evidence on matters the court must inquire into, but they are not enough by themselves to make someone liable.

An entry in a public or official record can count as a relevant fact if it states a fact in issue or another relevant fact and was made by the proper official or by a person performing a legally required duty.

Facts stated in certain published maps, charts, or government-made maps and plans count as relevant facts.

A court may treat a statement about a public fact as relevant if it appears in a recital in an Act, a duly promulgated law of the United Republic, or a Government notification in the Gazette.

A court may treat certain books and reports as relevant when deciding a question about the law of another country.

In criminal proceedings, certain electronically obtained information and recordings may be admitted as evidence.

This section says which documents count as public documents.

Documents that are not public documents are private.

A public officer who holds a public document that someone has a right to inspect must provide a copy on demand, if the legal fees are paid, and add a true-copy certificate.

Certified copies of public documents may be used to prove the contents of the documents, or the parts they copy.

This section says certain public documents can be proved by specified certified records, published copies, journals, Gazette copies or extracts, or other certified copies depending on the document type.

In cases tried with assessors, assessors may ask a witness questions, but only through or with leave of the court and only if the questions are proper.

When a statement is part of a longer statement, conversation, document, book, or series of letters or papers, only the part needed for full understanding should be given in evidence.

A court must presume certain certified documents are genuine and presume the certifying officer held the official capacity claimed.

Courts must presume certain signed evidence records are genuine and true, and in specified terrorism-related criminal proceedings, such documents are admissible without proof of signature or authority.

A court must presume a document is genuine when it fits the listed categories and is kept in the required form and proper custody.

A court must presume that maps or plans said to be made by Government authority were made by that authority and are accurate.

A court must presume genuine certain law books and court decision reports from any country if they appear to be officially published.

A court must presume a private document executed outside the United Republic was properly executed and authenticated if it meets the listed authentication conditions.

A court must presume a qualifying power of attorney document was properly executed and authenticated.

A court may presume a foreign judicial record copy is genuine and accurate if its certification is shown to be the form commonly used in that country.

A court may presume a qualifying book, map, or chart was written and published by the person, time, and place it appears to come from.

A court may presume one thing about a telecommunications message, but it must not presume who delivered it for transmission.

A court must presume that a document called for but not produced after notice to produce was properly attested, stamped, and executed.

A court may presume a document under twenty years old was properly signed, written, executed, and attested if it comes from proper custody.

A prior judgment, order, or decree that legally blocks a court from hearing a suit or trial is a relevant fact when deciding whether the court should hear the suit or hold the trial.

A final judgment, order, or decree from a competent court in probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency matters is relevant when legal character or title to a thing is relevant, and it is conclusive proof of the matters stated in subsection (2).

A final criminal judgment becomes conclusive evidence of guilt or innocence after the appeal period ends or after the appeal is decided, whichever is later.

Judgements, orders, or decrees other than those in section 47 are relevant if they concern a public matter relevant to the inquiry, but they are not conclusive proof of what they say.

Certain judgements, orders, and decrees are generally irrelevant unless their existence is directly in issue or another provision makes them relevant.

A party to a suit or other proceedings may show that a relevant judgement, order, or decree was made by an incompetent court or obtained by fraud or collusion.

This section says that where a contract, grant, or other property disposition is in writing, or the law requires a matter to be in writing, the document itself is generally the proof, subject to secondary evidence where allowed.

If a contract or similar document has been properly proved, oral evidence cannot be used to change its terms, but several stated exceptions allow proof of certain facts or separate oral agreements.

If a document’s language is ambiguous or defective on its face, evidence cannot be given to show its meaning or fix the defect.

If document language is plain and fits the existing facts, evidence cannot be used to show it was meant to apply differently.

If a document’s language is clear on its face but does not make sense when applied to existing facts, evidence may be used to show it was meant in a special sense.

Evidence may be used to show which person or thing a disputed phrase was intended to apply to.

Evidence may be given to show which of two possible sets of facts the document was meant to apply to.

Evidence may be given to explain the meaning of unclear or unusual characters, abbreviations, and words used in a special sense.

People who are not parties to a document, or their interested representatives, may give evidence about facts suggesting a contemporaneous agreement that changes the document’s terms.

This section says the Part does not change other written laws on how wills or other testamentary dispositions are interpreted.

In cases involving foreign law, science, art, or identifying handwriting or other impressions, expert opinions on those points are treated as relevant facts.

Facts that are otherwise irrelevant can still matter if they support or conflict with expert opinions, when those opinions are relevant.

A court may treat the opinion of a person familiar with someone’s handwriting as a relevant fact when deciding who wrote or signed a document.

A court may treat the opinions of people likely to know a general custom or right as relevant evidence when deciding whether that custom or right exists.

If a court must decide certain questions, opinions from people with special knowledge on those matters are relevant facts.

An opinion about a person’s relationship to another person can be relevant if it comes from someone with special knowledge of the family or subject, but it is not enough by itself to prove a marriage.

If a living person's opinion matters, the reasons for that opinion also matter.

In civil cases, character evidence is generally irrelevant to whether conduct is likely, unless it comes from otherwise relevant facts; character is relevant if it affects damages.

In criminal proceedings, a defendant’s good character is relevant.

In criminal proceedings, bad character evidence about the accused is generally irrelevant, with exceptions for good character evidence, facts in issue, previous convictions, and certain witness situations.

This section defines “character” to include reputation and disposition.

Electronic evidence is admissible in proceedings.

This section defines what counts as secondary evidence.

Documents must be proved by primary evidence unless the Act provides otherwise.

Section 73 allows secondary evidence of a document in specified cases, and in some cases limits admissibility to a certified copy or written admission.

Secondary evidence of certain documents cannot be given unless notice to produce has first been given, unless one of the listed exceptions applies.

If a document is said to be signed or written by someone, the relevant signature or handwriting must be proved to be that person’s.

An attested document cannot be used as evidence until one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution, if such a witness is alive and able to give evidence.

If no attesting witness can be found, is outside court process, or cannot give evidence, the document’s attestation and the signer’s signature must be proved by handwriting evidence.

A party’s own admission that they executed an attested document is enough proof against that party, even if the document must be attested by law.

If the attesting witness denies or cannot remember executing the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.

A document that is attested, but not required by law to be attested, may be proved as if it were unattested.

The court may compare signatures, writing, seals, words, figures, and finger impressions for identification purposes.

A witness may be questioned about other circumstances they observed near the time or place of the relevant fact if the court thinks those circumstances would corroborate the witness’s testimony.

A witness’s former written or oral statement may be proved to support that witness’s testimony if it concerns the same fact and was made at about the same time as the fact or before a legally competent investigating authority.

If a statement relevant under sections 34 or 38 is proved, other matters may also be proved for contradiction, corroboration, or to test the maker’s credit, as if that person had testified and denied it in cross-examination.

Improper admission or rejection of evidence does not by itself justify a new trial or reversal if the court finds the decision was still supported by sufficient evidence, or would not have changed even if the rejected evidence had been received.

This section says the Act does not override other written laws about evidence unless the Act expressly says otherwise.

This section is titled “Repeal and saving of laws.”