Oral evidence must be direct
Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with oral evidence must be direct. Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct; 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct; that is to say –– if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; if it refers to 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; if it refers to 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 also 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. CHAPTER V. –– OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 60, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 55 Oral evidence to 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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
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: IEA 60 requires oral evidence to be direct; hearsay of voters leaving a polling station is inadmissible in an election petition, because RP Act 87(2) applies the Evidence Act in full (Kalyan Kumar Gogoi).
-
Bant Singh vs Niranjan Singh (d) by Lrs.
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.
-
Shudhakar vs State of M. P
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.
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.
-
… At this stage, it will be proper to keep in mind that where a party and other party do not get the opportunity to lead evidence or to cross-examine his statements to ascertain a truth, then in such a condition this parties statement is not evidence." (Emphasis supplied) 39. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines oral evidence. The evidence must be direct. In this case, defendant Nos.1, 6 and 7 have not led any evidence. Even though there is no proof of the contents of the socalled power of attorney by the defendants as required under the provisions …
-
… Deceased received injuries when she fell down on the earth. PW-10 Galiram deposed that he met with PW-2 and she told me that the appellant had inflicted blow of lathi on the person of the deceased. The evidence of PW-10 is not sufficient to convict the appellant in view of Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under: "60. Oral evidence must be direct.—Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say— > If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; If it refers to a fact which could be …
-
… S. The fact that P.W.5 received a telephone call from his wife on 31.12.2014 and heard from her after reaching the house of the convict is admissible in evidence under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The FIR was lodged by P.W.4 on 31.12.2014 itself who states that on 21.12.2014 he received information about the incident from one Lady (not examined), grandmother of Ms. S about rape having been committed by the convict on both Ms. S and Ms. R. P.W.4 further goes to state that on …
Questions about Section 60
What have the courts held on Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri (18 Jan 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IEA 60 requires oral evidence to be direct; hearsay of voters leaving a polling station is inadmissible in an election petition, because RP Act 87(2) applies the Evidence Act in full (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 60 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 60, section 60 IEA, section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 55 (Oral evidence to be direct), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 60, 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
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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.