Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases: –– (a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power –– of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, of any person out of reach of, or not subject 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases: –– (a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power –– of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to be given in evidence;
(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
Section 65, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 60 Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents maybe given 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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
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.
-
H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-7.pdf 2011-03-04. CA 6956/2004. Sathasivam/Chauhan. DATE-CHECK flagged 2004-02-03 HC / 1981 / 1979 agreement dates (false positive); body is the named 4 Mar 2011 reportable. s.65 secondary evidence is inadmissible unless non-production of the original is accounted for under the section; mere admission of a signature on a photocopy is not proof of contents. CPC O41 R31 is not an IndiaCode section (skip like Dahiben O7R11). IEA 66 mentioned but not isolated — map 65 only.
On this section: s.65 secondary evidence is inadmissible unless non-production of the original is accounted for; a signature on a photocopy does not prove contents (H. Siddiqui).
-
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs New Era Fabrics P. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an agreement for sale is contingent upon obtaining labour union consent as an essential condition, and the labour union refuses consent, the agreement stands frustrated and the seller is not bound to complete the sale. A buyer cannot unilaterally waive a condition that is for the mutual benefit of both parties, and such waiver cannot revive a terminated and frustrated contract. When a contingent condition cannot be fulfilled, the appropriate remedy is return of earnest money with stipulated interest, not specific performance.
On this section: Court examined admissibility of secondary evidence and photocopies of documents. Court noted that secondary evidence is inadmissible unless non-production of original is accounted for and foundational evidence is laid
-
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: Provides for secondary evidence when original document is destroyed, lost, or cannot be produced for any reason not arising from party's default or neglect; extensively analyzed in judgment; found applicable to permit carbon copy of dying declaration as secondary evidence
-
Muzzamil Alias Akhil Abdul Kadir Murumkar vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When original documents and expert examination reports are lost or misplaced during criminal prosecution despite relentless efforts to recover them, the lower court does not commit an error of law by permitting secondary evidence to be led under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act. The court's permission to lead secondary evidence is a procedural matter distinct from the substantive evaluation of the contents of such evidence, and the absence of an opinion on the merits of the document contents does not vitiate the order permitting secondary evidence.
On this section: Section 65(c) permits the use of secondary evidence when primary evidence is lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced. The court applied this section to permit secondary evidence in place of the lost original documents and expert examination report in the criminal prosecution.
-
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: Specifies exceptional cases where secondary evidence may be given; includes clauses (a) to (g) for different circumstances
-
STATE vs HARJINDER SINGH
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent, and convincing evidence. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit from weaknesses in the defense. When the main eyewitness (complainant) turns hostile and does not support the prosecution version, and when there is no other credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Disclosure statements obtained during custodial interrogation under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act cannot be used against the accused and have no evidentiary value. The burden of proof always rests on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused.
On this section: Certificate for computerized records from RTA Office regarding vehicle ownership
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 65
What have the courts held on Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act?
H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam (04 Mar 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.65 secondary evidence is inadmissible unless non-production of the original is accounted for; a signature on a photocopy does not prove contents (H. Siddiqui). Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 65 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 65, section 65 IEA, section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam (04 Mar 2011).
What should I read with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 66 (Rules as to notice to produce), section 74 (Public documents), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 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 60 (Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents maybe given), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 65, 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.