Secondary evidence
Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with secondary evidence. Secondary evidence means and includes –– (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained; 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Secondary evidence means and includes –– (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(3) copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Illustrations (a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original.
(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.
(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original.
(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.
Section 63, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 58 Secondary evidence Text carried over almost unchanged 93%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Kaliya vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dying declaration recorded by qualified medical professionals in fit mental state of the declarant, even when the original document is unavailable and only a secondary evidence in the form of carbon copy is available, is admissible in criminal proceedings under Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided proper foundational evidence is laid establishing the unavailability of the original through no fault of the party offering evidence. The Court need not look for corroboration of a dying declaration unless the declaration suffers from an infirmity. Whether a person with extensive burn injuries can affix a thumb impression and make a credible dying declaration is a question of fact depending on whether the skin of the thumb was burnt and whether ridge marks remained intact. An accused person present at the scene of crime with special knowledge of the circumstances has a burden to explain how and under what circumstances the victim died.
On this section: Relates to primary evidence of document; invoked in context of establishing when secondary evidence becomes necessary
-
Hariom Agrawal vs Prakash Chand Malviya
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A photocopy of an original document which is improperly stamped or insufficiently stamped cannot be admitted in evidence, either as primary evidence or as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The provisions of Sections 33, 35, 36, and 37 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 apply only to original instruments as defined in Section 2(14) and do not extend to copies thereof. The Collector's power under Section 48-B to recover stamp duty deficiency noticed from a copy of an instrument does not authorize the impounding of the copy for purposes of judicial admission of evidence. Therefore, when the original instrument is lost and only a photocopy is available, and the original was improperly or insufficiently stamped, the photocopy cannot be admitted as secondary evidence in any proceeding.
On this section: Secondary evidence - the Court held that secondary evidence of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped original instrument cannot be admitted, as this would circumvent the provisions of the Stamp Act
-
S. R. Srinivasa vs S. Padmavathamma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A will alleged to be executed by a testator can only be proved as valid and enforceable if: (1) At least one attesting witness (if alive and capable) is examined to prove its execution in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act; (2) A scribe's signature on a document, without evidence that the scribe signed 'animo attestandi' (with intention to attest), cannot substitute for attesting witness examination; (3) When a will's execution is surrounded by suspicious circumstances (such as vague property description, beneficiary being present during execution and registration, unexplained procedural irregularities, or unreasonable exclusion of heirs), the propounder bears a heightened burden to remove all reasonable doubts; (4) Mere admissions about the existence of a will (without admissions as to its genuineness) do not dispense with the statutory requirement of formal proof; (5) When a female Hindu dies intestate without issue, and the property was inherited by her from her father or mother, the property shall devolve upon the heirs of the father under Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, not upon strangers.
On this section: Cited for the requirement that a will must be attested as per statutory provisions. Section 63 mandates attestation of wills.
-
State of Gujarat vs Visheshbhai Kali Chhaganbhai Gangavane
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence but a former statement made before a legally competent authority. Such statements can be used for corroboration or contradiction of witness testimony and can be admitted and exhibited without the Magistrate who recorded them being examined as a witness. The correct legal framework for admitting such judicial records is Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a presumption of genuineness and proper recording, not Section 89 which applies only to secondary evidence cases under Sections 65(a) and 66.
On this section: Defines 'secondary evidence' including certified copies and mechanically reproduced copies
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.
-
… ( a ) is only applicable when the original instrument is actually before the court of law and the deficiency in stamp with penalty is paid by the party seeking to rely upon the document. Clearly secondary evidence either by way of oral evidence of the contents of the unstamped document or the copy of it covered by Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act would not fulfil the requirements of the proviso which enjoins upon the authority to receive nothing in evidence except the instrument itself. Section 25 is not concerned with any copy of an instrument and a party can only be allowed to rely on a document which is an instrument for the …
-
… Exhibit-8 stated that PW-5 should at the earliest arrange to have them released. The mobile forensic evidence brought on record during investigation by necessary reports from the telephone authorities in the manner provided for in Section 63(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of the conversation on November 28, 2006 of a call made from the aforesaid number shows that a call was made from it on mobile no. 9934848065 of PW-21, clearly proves that a demand for ransom was in fact made. Even otherwise, it is not the defence of the appellants that there …
-
… The decision in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi (supra) was one wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of law governing the applicability of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The cited case law are distinguishable and supply no legal support to the instant appeals. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is unable to find any illegality, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by the learned Probate Court in passing the impugned judgment …
Questions about Section 63
What have the courts held on Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Kaliya vs State of M. P (23 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Relates to primary evidence of document; invoked in context of establishing when secondary evidence becomes necessary. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2014.
How do I find court cases under Section 63 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 63, section 63 IEA, section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kaliya vs State of M. P (23 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 58 (Secondary evidence), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 63, 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.