Interpretation-clause
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with interpretation-clause. In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context: –– “Court”.––“Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context: –– “Court”.––“Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence. “Fact”.–– “Fact” means and includes –– (1) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
“Relevant”. –– One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts. “Facts in issue”.–– The expression “facts in issue” means and includes –– any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.
Explanation. ––Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure,1 any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue is a fact in issue. Illustrations A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial the following facts may be in issue: –– That A caused B’s death; That A intended to cause B’s death; That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B; That A, at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its nature. “Document”. ––“Document” 2means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. Illustrations A writing is a document; 3Words printed lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document; An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document. “Evidence”. ––“Evidence” means and includes –– (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court;] such documents are called documentary evidence. “Proved”. –– A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court; either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. “Disproved”. –– A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. “Not proved”. –– A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. [“India”. –– “India” means the territory of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir.] [the expressions “Certifying Authority”, “[electronic signature]”, [(Electronic Signature Certificate], “electronic form”, “electronic records”, “information”, “secure electronic record”, “secure digital signature” and “subscriber” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).]
Section 3, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 2 Definitions Close, with changes 64%
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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-16.pdf 2019-11-29. Crl A 1794/2019. Khanwilkar. DATE-CHECK flagged 2017-02-18/17 and 2017-04-17 FIR/report dates (false positive); body is the named reportable. Contents of a memory card are a 'document' (electronic record); the accused is entitled to a cloned copy under CrPC 207, subject to privacy conditions. High Court erred in treating it as a mere material object. Map CrPC 207 + BNSS 230. Do not successor-map IEA 3→BSA 2 (mapping.csv only close 0.6369). Do not map 66E/67A (FIR only).
On this section: Memory-card contents qualify as a 'document' (electronic record) under the s.3 interpretation-clause; they are not a mere material object (Dileep).
-
Roshan vs The State ( Nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the sole eyewitness testimony in a criminal case is that of a stock witness of the police whose credibility is suspect, and such testimony lacks corroboration from any other reliable evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden is not on the accused to prove innocence. Common intention under Section 34 IPC must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as a foundational requirement, and mere presence at the scene of crime without more does not establish common intention. The quality of evidence, not the quantity of witnesses, is the criterion for conviction.
On this section: Definition of 'fact'; the Court noted that reputation is a fact and used this principle to assess the credibility of PW3
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before the accused appears in court cannot be used to frame charges against the accused under Section 246 CrPC without fresh evidence being produced and recorded under Section 244 CrPC in the presence and with the opportunity of cross-examination by the accused. The accused has a fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before charges are framed, as this right is essential for the accused to demonstrate that allegations are groundless and no case exists warranting framing of charges. The scheme and procedure of Chapter XV (dealing with complaints and preliminary inquiry) is distinct from Chapter XIX Part B (dealing with trial of warrant cases on private complaint), and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage cannot substitute for evidence properly recorded under Section 244 in the presence of the accused.
On this section: Definition of evidence including oral and documentary evidence; evidence under Section 244 CrPC must conform to this definition
-
Dehal Singh vs State of H. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When contraband is recovered from a private vehicle in which an accused is traveling, both the driver and passengers are presumed to have conscious possession of such contraband. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove that possession was not conscious. Mere statements under Section 313 CrPC without examination as a witness under oath are insufficient to discharge this burden. Weight discrepancies in forensic samples are immaterial when field weighing is done using non-precision scales (such as grocery shop scales) and laboratory weighing is done using precision scales, provided there is no evidence of tampering with or mishandling of the samples. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (regarding search of persons) is satisfied by offering the accused an option to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate when the primary object of search is a vehicle, and personal search occurs incidentally after arrest at the police station.
On this section: Referenced to define what constitutes evidence; statements under Section 313 CrPC not evidence as not made under oath
-
Vijay Kumar vs State Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dying declaration recorded by a competent judicial officer (magistrate) at the instance of a medical expert who has certified the declarant's fitness to make a statement is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon for conviction, notwithstanding minor procedural defects in compliance with procedural guidelines (such as lack of signature or thumb impression), provided the substantive content of the declaration is proved to be truthful through adequate corroborative material evidence including oral testimony of responsible official witnesses and documentary/circumstantial evidence such as seizure memos, medical records, and independent witness accounts. The guidelines for recording dying declarations are meant to ensure genuineness and test veracity but are not binding preconditions to admissibility; trivial defects do not vitiate otherwise reliable dying declarations that form part of a cohesive web of circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Definition of 'Fact' in evidence. Applied to establish facts not in dispute such as presence of appellants at police station and recovery of kerosene stove from quarters.
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused has an indefeasible right to fair trial and equal opportunity to prove his innocence. Electronically recorded conversations are admissible as documentary evidence under the amended Indian Evidence Act and Information Technology Act 2000 when: (1) the conversation is relevant to matters in issue; (2) the voice is properly identified; and (3) the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of tampering, erasure, addition or manipulation. Courts must exercise their powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act to examine witnesses and elicit evidence essential to just decision, taking a participatory role in trials to arrive at truth. When a witness has not been cross-examined on material evidence that subsequently emerges, courts should grant opportunity for re-examination to ensure fair trial.
On this section: Court examined the definition of 'document' and 'evidence' to determine whether electronically recorded conversations fall within these definitions. The amended definition of 'evidence' now includes 'electronic records' produced for inspection of Court.
-
Jagdish Chandra vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Hard discs on which intercepted telephone conversations have been recorded are electronic records and therefore documents within the meaning of Section 173(5)(a) read with Section 207(v) CrPC. The prosecution is obliged to furnish to the accused copies of only such documents that it proposes to rely upon as indicated in the charge sheet or of those already sent to the court during investigation. At the pre-charge stage, the trial court cannot direct the prosecution to furnish copies of documents other than those which it proposes to rely upon. However, where the charge sheet indicates that the prosecution is relying upon certain documents, the accused must be given access to those documents. In the instant case, the scope of the APFSL examination was to certify that the hard discs were properly functioning and that the calls copied on to the CDs were true copies of the original recordings in the hard discs. Only to this extent can it be said that the hard discs are being relied upon by the prosecution. The certification in terms of Section 65B(4) EA does not obviate the statutory requirement under Section 207(v) of providing to the accused access to the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephone conversation as a relied upon document. Therefore, the accused should be permitted to listen to the original recordings of the relevant intercepted telephonic conversations relied upon by the prosecution by having the said original recordings played directly from the hard discs in the presence of the accused or their representatives, their counsel and the learned Judge.
On this section: Defines document and evidence; amended to include electronic records
-
Oinam Lukhoi Singh vs The State of Manipur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an accused to be prosecuted under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for harboring a terrorist, there must be: (1) Knowledge that the person is a terrorist; (2) Intention to help the person evade apprehension; and (3) Actual harboring, concealment, or attempt to harbor or conceal. Merely giving a lift to an unknown person without knowledge of their terrorist connections and without any attempt to help them evade apprehension does not constitute the offense. Similarly, for Section 39 of UAPA to apply, the support must be within the meaning of clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 39(1) and must be done with the intention to further the activities of a terrorist organization. Confessional statements made to police without the presence of a Magistrate are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot form the basis of prosecution. The confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused unless the other evidence adduced by the prosecution is satisfactory and the co-accused's confession is used only as corroborative evidence. When no prima facie case is made out and the proceedings have been pending for an unreasonable period without progress, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.
On this section: Defines 'evidence' in the Act. The court held that a co-accused's confession does not constitute evidence as defined by Section 3.
-
KESHAV NATH vs STATE
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act takes a defence that the cheque was stolen or lost, the accused must establish this defence by cogent evidence and by demonstrating conduct consistent with that of a prudent person who would have immediately reported the theft/loss to police and his banker, sought return of the cheque, and taken appropriate legal action. Mere denial of liability or inconsistent statements regarding the defence are insufficient to rebut the mandatory statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused and cannot be discharged by bare explanation or reasonable probability; it must be supported by proof that the court either believes to exist or considers so probable that a prudent man would act upon the supposition that it exists.
On this section: Definition of 'proved' - A fact is proved when the court believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Whether ten persons would be able to even fit in with five others in the same room and then go on attacking all of them requires to be appreciated in this context. 53. Understandably, therefore, learned counsel for the Appellants harped upon the definition of "proof" in terms of Section 3 Indian Evidence Act ("IEA"). It is emphasized that the proof has to be that which a prudent man would understand as probably happening in the circumstances. As rightly pointed out, there was perhaps not even enough room if indeed fifteen persons were present in such a small cramped place, as shown in the rough site …
Questions about Section 3
What have the courts held on Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act?
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala (29 Nov 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Memory-card contents qualify as a 'document' (electronic record) under the s.3 interpretation-clause; they are not a mere material object (Dileep). Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 3, section 3 IEA, section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala (29 Nov 2019).
What should I read with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 2 (Definitions), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 3, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts654 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.