Oral evidence to be direct
Section 55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with oral evidence to be direct. Oral evidence shall, in all cases whatever, be direct; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Oral evidence shall, in all cases whatever, be direct; if it refers to,--
(i) a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
(ii) a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
(iii) a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
(iv) an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable:
Provided further that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.
Section 55, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 60 Oral evidence must be direct Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 60, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-7.pdf 2011-01-18. CA 4820 of 2007. J.M. Panchal. DATE-CHECK false positive (election-schedule table 10.3.2006 / 17.3.2006 / 18.3.2006 in the facts); body is the named RP Act 116A reportable. Isolates IEA 60: oral evidence must be direct — only the person who perceived the fact may speak to it; hearsay (what workers told the candidate about voters leaving) is inadmissible; RP Act 87(2) applies the Evidence Act to election petitions, so the hearsay rule is not relaxed when proving that non-compliance ‘materially affected’ the result. Map iea 60 cited; successor-map bsa 55 (mapping.csv near-identical 0.9727) with decided_under `iea 60`.
On this section: BSA 55 (oral evidence to be direct) succeeds IEA 60: hearsay of voters leaving a polling station is inadmissible; oral evidence must be of the person who perceived the fact (Kalyan Kumar Gogoi).
-
Shudhakar vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 60, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a deceased makes multiple contradictory dying declarations in a criminal case, the court must examine each declaration independently on its own merit. The declaration which is corroborated by other prosecution evidence, medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and is shown to be voluntary, truthful, made in conscious state of mind without tutoring or prompting, should be preferred over other contradictory declarations. A dying declaration, if found reliable and corroborated by substantial other evidence, can form the sole basis of criminal conviction without additional corroboration, and the absence of doctor's fitness certificate is not fatal if the person recording the declaration certifies that the deceased was in fit mental state. However, when one declaration is suspicious, made under duress or tutoring by interested parties, and is contradicted by medical and physical evidence, it should be rejected in favor of other declarations which stand corroborated by credible eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and recoveries from place of occurrence.
On this section: General rule that oral evidence must be direct - Section 32 provides exception to this general rule when dealing with dying declarations.
-
Bant Singh vs Niranjan Singh (d) by Lrs.
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 60, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct of a person who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such conduct must be proved by a person who personally witnessed it, and the testimony relating to such conduct is direct evidence within the meaning of Section 60. The High Court erred in rejecting the evidence of witnesses who had special means of knowledge (being family members who had attended family events and had personal knowledge of the family relationships) merely on a technical reading of Section 50 without properly analyzing the substance and admissibility of the evidence. The courts below correctly applied the law in accepting such evidence to establish the family relationship between Nandi and Bakhtawar Singh.
On this section: Section 60 deals with the manner of proving opinions. The Court held that conduct as an external perceptible fact may be proved either by the testimony of the person whose conduct expresses the opinion or by another person acquainted with the fact. The testimony must relate to external facts constituting conduct and be given by persons personally acquainted with such facts, making it direct evidence within the meaning of Section 60. The Court established the interrelation between Section 50 and Section 60.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 55
What have the courts held on Section 55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri (18 Jan 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 60, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BSA 55 (oral evidence to be direct) succeeds IEA 60: hearsay of voters leaving a polling station is inadmissible; oral evidence must be of the person who perceived the fact (Kalyan Kumar Gogoi). Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2012.
How do I find court cases under Section 55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 55, section 55 BSA, section 55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type scouts 55. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri (18 Jan 2011).
What should I read with Section 55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
It carries forward IEA 60 (Oral evidence must be direct), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 55, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.