The Indian

Evidence Act,
1872
(Section 61-90A)

SUBMITTED TO: MS. GUNJAN SHARMA

SUBMITTED BY: SANYA GUPTA

ENROLMENT NO.- A032134721094

COURSE: BA.LLB(2021-2026) ; SECTION :

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1) MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (S.3)
GENERAL PROVISIONS UNDER IEA, 1872
2) (S. 61 – 73A)
3) PRIMARY EVIDENCE UNDER IEA, 1872 (S. 62)
4) SECONDARY EVIDENCE UNDER IEA, 1872(S.63)
5) AMENDMENTS TO THE IEA (S. 65A & 65B)
DOCUMENTS THAT NEED TO BE ATTESTED (S.
6) 67 – 73A)
7) PUBLIC DOCUMENTS (S. 74)
8) PRIVATE DOCUMENTS (S. 75)
9) PROOF OF DOCUMENTS (S.77-78)
PRESUMPTION AS TO DOCUMENTS
10) (S.79 – 90A)
11) CONCLUSION
12) BIBLIOGRAPHY
Meaning of Documentary Evidence

Documentary evidence in the Indian Evidence Act refers to any material object
that is presented to a court or tribunal as proof of a fact. It may include physical
objects such as contracts, invoices, receipts, photographs, videos, audio
recordings, emails, text messages and other types of written or recorded material.
The purpose of documentary evidence in the Indian Evidence Act is to provide
objective and reliable proof of the existence of facts that are relevant to a legal
proceeding.
Documentary evidence is governed by various rules and procedures and its
admissibility is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, such as
authenticity, relevance and probative value. The importance of documentary
evidence in legal proceedings cannot be overstated as it can play a decisive role in
determining the outcome of a case.

Documentary Evidence in Indian Law

Documentary evidence is a crucial part of presenting evidence in court in India. It
is defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and is generally considered to be
more trustworthy than oral evidence.
The Doctrine of Vox AuditaPerit, Literra Scripta Manet, emphasizes the importance
of written evidence, as spoken words can easily be forgotten or misunderstood,
while written words remain. Therefore, when presented with both oral and
documentary evidence, courts give more weight to the latter.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, documentary evidence is divided into three
categories:

General Rules: Sections 61 to 73A deal with the general rules for proving
documentary evidence in various cases.
Public Documents: Sections 74 to 78 cover public documents, which documents
are issued by a public office or a public servant.

Presumptions: Sections 79 to 90A deal with presumptions as to the documents.

Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act outlines the methods for proving the
contents of a document in court. It states that there are two methods for proving
the contents of a document:

Provisions under Indian Evidence Act

The Indian Evidence Act 1872 contains provisions related to documentary
evidence, which are explained below:

Section 3: Interpretation Clauses “Document”

This Section defines the term “document” to include any substance on which
matter is expressed or described by letters, figures, marks or more than one
means and can be used for recording the matter.
The definition of the term is very broad and encompasses various types of records,
including paper documents in different languages, banners, musical compositions,
tattoos, symbols, etc.

Section 61: Proof of Contents of Documents

This Section requires that the contents of documents must be proved by either
primary evidence or secondary evidence. No other methods are allowed to prove
the contents of the document.

Section 62: Primary Evidence

According to this Section, the original document itself produced to the court for
inspection is primary evidence. It is considered the best evidence, providing the
greatest certainty of the fact in issue.

Section 63: Secondary Evidence

This Section states that the copy or certified copy of the original document is
secondary evidence. It also allows for an oral statement given by a person about
the contents of the document after reading it. However, this type of evidence is
only considered under certain conditions.
Section 64: Proof of Documents by Primary
Evidence
This Section outlines the best evidence rule for documentary evidence in the
Indian Evidence Act, stating that the best evidence of the contents of the
document is the original document itself. The contents of the document must be
proved by producing the original in court. Section 65 acts as an exception to this
rule.

Section 65: Cases in Which Secondary Evidence

Relating to Documents May Be Given
Before presenting secondary evidence, the conditions stated in this Section must
be fulfilled and the non-production of the original must be accounted for in a way
that brings it under one of the conditions provided. This Section is meant to
protect the rights of those who are unable to present primary evidence due to
circumstances beyond their control.

Primary Evidence in Indian Evidence Act

Primary Evidence as per Section 62

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides the definition of primary
evidence. It states that primary evidence is the original document in its original
form. For instance, if a person needs to prove that he was a minor when he
entered a contract, then his original birth certificate would be considered primary
evidence.
Primary evidence has a high evidentiary value and is considered to be the best
evidence. It is highly reliable and has a lesser chance of tampering. The primary
evidence should be in its original form.

Importance of Primary Evidence

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, considers primary evidence to be of utmost
importance and gives it a higher status as compared to other evidence. Section 64
of the Act mandates the presentation of primary evidence for proving the contents
of the document.

The reason behind this is that the court considers primary evidence to be more
trustworthy and reliable. However, Section 65 of the Act provides some
exemptions for presenting secondary evidence in certain restricted cases. In cases
where Section 65 does not provide an exemption, primary evidence must be
presented.

Exceptions to Primary Evidence as Documentary

Evidence in Indian Evidence Act
In the case of Prithi Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh, it was held that
carbon copies cannot be considered primary evidence against the original
document, even though they are primary evidence of each other, as they are
brought from the same source and have undergone a uniform process. This case
illustrates the strict application of primary evidence and its importance in legal
proceedings.

Definition of Secondary Evidence

The meaning of secondary evidence is defined in Section 63 of the Indian Evidence
Act of 1872, which lists five different types of evidence that can be accepted as
secondary evidence.
In the case of J. Yashoda vs K. Shobha Rani, the court held that this definition
is exhaustive and includes all types of secondary evidence.

Furthermore, the court established the rule of best evidence, which states that the
highest form of evidence available should be presented in court before any inferior
proof is accepted. This means that if the original document (i.e., primary
evidence) is available, then no secondary evidence will be accepted unless a
proper explanation is provided for the absence of the primary evidence.

Circumstances When Secondary Evidence Can Be

Given
Under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, there are seven specific situations
where secondary evidence can be presented in court. These include proving the
existence, condition or content of a particular document. However, the rule of best
evidence still applies, and primary evidence is preferred over secondary evidence
whenever it is available.

Amendments to the Indian Evidence Act

In 2000, the Indian Evidence Act was amended to include two new Sections: 65A
and 65B. Section 65A states that electronic evidence can be admissible in court
under Section 65B. The admissibility of electronic evidence depends on the
fulfilment of the conditions outlined in Section 65B.

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu

Facts: In this case, the accused was convicted of various offences under the
Indian Penal Code. One of the key pieces of evidence presented against the
accused was their phone call records.
Issue: Can a phone call records be admissible evidence in court?
Judgment: In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Supreme
Court made exceptions to the rules for secondary evidence given under Section
65A. The court held that phone call records are considered secondary evidence
because the primary evidence would be the information stored by the telecom
servers.

Notice to Produce a Documentary Evidence in

Indian Evidence Act
Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act requires a notice to produce when the
possession of the original document is with some other party. This notice must be
given to the person’s attorney or pleader and failure to do so restricts the
presentation of the original document. Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act
states that if a party refuses to produce a document, they cannot produce it later
without the other party’s consent.
Documents That Need to be Attested
Sections 67 to 73A deal with the documents that need to be attested, meaning
that they must be proved genuine in court. Attestation serves as evidence or proof
for something.

Proof of Attested Documents

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the proof of documents that
require attestation. It states that such documents cannot be accepted as evidence
in the court unless they have been attested in the presence of at least one
attesting witness, as required by law.
However, there is an exception to this rule. In cases where a will has been
registered under the Indian Registration Act of 1908, the attesting witness need
not be present in court unless the executor denies executing the will or if there is
evidence of false or tampered execution.
The execution of a document involves two steps – a signature of the person and
their full consent to all the contents of the document. The term “artist” is not
defined in the Indian Evidence Act, but it is defined in the Transfer of Property Act
under Section 3 as a person who has seen the other person executing the
document.

When Attester is Absent

Section 69 deals with cases where the attester is absent. It states that
in situations where the document was executed in the United Kingdom
or when a new witness is available, it must be proved that the
signature and handwriting of the executor and the attesting witness
match.

Section 70 – Admission by Party to Attested

Document
Section 70 deals with a situation where a party admits to having executed the
attested document, even if it was required to be attested according to the law.
Admission under Section 70 is not the same as admission under Section 22. If a
person admits to executing a sale deed and to having signed the document but
denies the presence of any witnesses, the attesting witnesses must be called
under Section 68 to prove the bond.

Section 71 – Proof when Attesting Witness

Denies or Forgets
Section 71 deals with situations where the attesting witness denies or forgets
having executed a document. In such cases, the document can be proved by other
evidence.

Section 72 – Proof of Unattested Documents

Section 72 states that even if a document is attested when it does not require
attestation, it can still be proved as unattested. To prove an attested document, it
is necessary to prove that it is attested and that the signature matches. However,
to prove an unattested document, only execution needs to be proved.

Section 73 – Proof of Signature, Writing or Seal

Section 73 states that when there is a question about proving a signature, writing
or seal of a particular person, it may be proved with the help of any written
matter, signature, writing or seal of that particular person which has already been
admitted or proved in the court to be valid. The court may also direct a person to
write certain words or figures to compare such a signature, writing or seal under
the Section. The court has discretionary power in this matter.

Relevant Case Laws on Documentary Evidence in

Indian Evidence Act
K.S. Mohan v. Sandhya Mohan AIR 1993 Mad 59

In this case, the Madras High Court held that a tape-recorded statement can be
admissible as secondary evidence if the accuracy of the recording is proved by the
maker of the record and the possibility of tampering with the record is ruled out.
Kripa Shankar v. Gurudas AIR 1995 SC 2152

The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal in this case and ruled that an ex-
parte affidavit cannot be considered documentary evidence without affording an
opportunity to the other party to cross-examine the deponent.

J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani AIR 2007 SC 1721

The Supreme Court of India held that a duplicate document cannot be admitted as
secondary evidence if the conditions prescribed in Section 65 of the evidence act
are not satisfied. In this case, the original document was not retrieved for
comparison with the duplicates and clause (a) of Section 65 was not followed, thus
the apex court upheld the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.

Public Documents
As per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the following constitute as
public documents –

1. Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts—

(i) of the sovereign authority – An example for this would be Legislations that
are made by both the Parliament and State Legislature

(ii) of official bodies and tribunals- This refers to other statutory bodies
such as labor tribunals, Central Administrative tribunals etc.

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of

India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country

2. Public records kept in any State of private documents- For instance,

Electoral rolls are documents that consist of a list of people who are entitled to
vote in a particular jurisdiction along with their personal information. However,
such documents are kept with the State thereby making them public records.
Similarly, Birth and Death registers etc.

In the case of Shri Keshav Gupta v Coal India Limited the court held that
originally registered deeds with regard to land, sales, medico-legal records with
the exclusion of post mortem reports, school records, records of nationalized
banks, etc. are considered public documents.

In another case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance v Gunasekaran The court

held that certified copies of the orders of the civil court and First Information
reports are public reports.

Thus, it can be said that a public document is one such document which is
prepared by a public servant in the capacity of his official duty and is made
available to the public at large. However, in some exceptional cases, certain
private documents can be considered as public documents when it involves the
interests of the public and is prepared by a public servant.

In Adarsh Cooperative Society v Union of Indian and Others the share

certificates of the members of the Adarsh housing society that would in normal
circumstances be considered as a private document was regarded to be a public
document as the members of the housing society were involved in illegal,
fraudulent activities and such documents were considered to be in record of public
interest.

Private Documents
Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act states that all other documents that are not
public are private documents. For example, Mortgage deeds, contracts etc. are
private documents.

Private documents refer to those documents which are prepared between

individuals for their own personal interest that do not concern the public at large.
Such documents are kept in the custody of the individual concerned and certified
copies of the private documents are usually not considered as evidence unless
proof of the original copy is provided.
Certified Copies of Public Documents and Its
Admissibility as Evidence
Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act states the following –

“Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person
has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of
the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy
that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be and
such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and
his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to
make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.”

Explanation –

Simply put, this section states that in the ordinary course of official duty if an
officer is authorized to inspect a particular document and determine its truth on
the demand of its copy by an individual who has paid the required legal fees, it will
be deemed that such officer has custody to do so and thus, the certificate will have
the name and official title of such officer and will be sealed and considered as
certified copy. Such requested documents must be public in nature and in the
custody of a public officer. The public document is given to an individual who –

a. Has the right to inspect such a document

b. Has made a demand for a copy
c. Has made the payment of the legal fee required

Once the above-mentioned criteria are met the public officer while providing the
certificates has to mention that –

a. Such document is a true copy

b. The date of issue
c. Name of the officer in charge and his official title
d. Sign of such officer
e. Seal of the office, if any.
In the case of Rasipuram Union Motor Service v Commissioner of Income
Tax the court held that the right to inspect a document is an important factor to
consider. If such a right exists, then there is an entitlement to get a copy of the
public document but when there is a lack of such right there also exists no
entitlement to inspect public documents.

Hence, as per section 76 the mere certification of a public document is enough to

consider it as admissible evidence as the court presumes that every certified public
document issued by an officer is done so in his official capacity when his sign and
seal is present. However, the genuineness of such documents can be challenged
by the opposing party to the dispute. Thus, certified copies of public documents
are admissible as evidence in court and no further evidence needs to be
entertained with regard to such matters once the documents are submitted, as
certified copies of public documents are considered to be proof of facts.

Proof of Documents by Certified Copies

Section 77 deals with proof of documents by production of certified copies. This
section states that “such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents
of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to
be copied.”

In order to establish proof and provide validity of the same, original public
documents cannot be taken away from the custody of the public officer every time
there is a need, thus copies of such public documents or parts of the public
documents that are to be used as evidence will be considered valid and sufficient.
For example, in the case of Seema v Ashwani Kumar the court held that a
Marriage certificate is sufficient evidentiary proof of the marriage.

Proof of Other Official Documents

Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 mentions the various ways in which
different public documents can be proved. They are as follows –
1. Central Acts, orders or notifications – Can be proved by records certified by
the Heads of the departments concerned.

2. Proceedings of the Legislatures – Can be proved by proceedings, Journals or

copies published by the Government.

3. Proclamations, orders or regulations issued by Her Majesty or Privy

Council – Proved by copies of Gazette notification from London.

4. The acts of the executives or proceedings of the foreign legislatures –

Can be proved by official journals published by concerned authorities.

5. Municipal body’s proceedings –Can be proved either by publications of such

body certified by their legal keeper or through a published book by an authority.

6. Public documents of some other class in a foreign country – Can be

proved by the original or certified copy issued by the legal keeper of the document
with a certificate and seal of a notary public, Indian counsel or diplomatic agent
based on the laws of the respective country.

Public Documents
The interpretation clause of the Indian evidence act defines the term document.
According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, document means any matter
expressed or described upon any substance and it can be in various 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 particular information or
matter. There are various examples given for documents in the act like map, plan,
caricature and letters. Any words which are printed and lithographed are
considered to be documents according to the Indian Evidence Act. Section 74 of
the Indian evidence act provides the definition of the term public document.
According to this Section, the following documents are considered public
documents:

 The documents forming the acts or records of acts of sovereign authority;

  The documents forming the acts or records of acts of official bodies and
tribunals;
 The documents forming the acts or records of acts of various officers like
public officers, legislative, judicial officers and executive working in any part
of India;
 The public records which are kept in the state of private documents also
come under this category.

Every other document which does not come under the above-mentioned category
is considered as private documents according to Section 75 of the Indian Evidence
Act. Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act provides the power to public officers to
provide certified copies of public documents when it is necessary and when the
person has the right to demand copies and ask for the copy of the document.

Presumption as to Documents
Section 79 to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act provides various presumptions
as to the documents. There are certain presumptions regarding the documentary
evidence in this act. According to the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption is of
two types. There are certain cases in which the Court “shall presume” and in
certain cases, it “may presume”. The terms are defined in Section 4 of the IEA.
According to this Section,

 “May presume” means whenever it is mentioned by this Act that the Court
may presume a fact, it may either consider such fact as proved, unless and
until it is disproved or may call for proof of it.
 “Shall presume” means whenever it is mentioned in this Act that the Court
shall presume a fact, it shall consider such fact as proved, unless and until it
is disproved.

Presumption as to the Genuineness of Certified

Copies
The certified copies are the copies of public documents that are provided by the
authorized officer when it is necessary for inspection. Section 79 of the Indian
Evidence Act provides the presumption as to the genuineness of these certified
copies. According to this Section, the court presumes the certified copy to be
genuine when it comes with a valid certificate. The court also presumes that the
officer who has signed the documents holds the official character of the
designation mentioned in the certificate. The certified copy of the public document
must contain a certificate which is provided by the authorized officer that has to
mention that it is the true copy of the document and the officer has to sign the
certificate with their name and they also have to mention the date and
designation. The certificate should also be sealed whenever it is necessary by the
authorized officer.

Presumption as to Documents produced as

Records of Evidence
Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act provides the various presumptions regarding
the documents which are provided as evidence. The Court presumes that the
documents which are produced for inspection are genuine. The court also
presumes that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken,
considered to be made by the person signing it, are true and that such evidence,
statement or confession was duly taken by following all the procedures. The
documents provided for inspection can be a record or memorandum of the
evidence that is provided by a witness during the judicial proceeding before the
officer authorized by law to take evidence or it can be a statement or confession
that is provided by any prisoner or person who is accused, which taken in
accordance with the law and the confession must be signed by the magistrate or
any other officer authorized by law.

Presumption as to Gazettes, Newspapers, Private

Acts of the Parliament and other Documents
Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the presumption regarding
Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of the Parliament. The court presumes the
following documents to be genuine, according to this Section:

 The document professed to be the London Gazette, or any Official Gazette,

or the Government Gazette of any colony;
 The documents which are a dependency of possession of the British Crown;
 Newspaper or journal;
  Copy of a private Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which is printed
by the Queen’s Printer.
The documents must be kept in the substantial form mentioned in the law and also
it must be produced from proper custody. The Court also presumes the Official
gazettes kept in the electronic form is genuine if it is kept in the substantial form
mentioned in the law.

Presumption as to Maps and Plans made by

Government authorities
The maps and plans are also a recognized type of documentary evidence. Section
83 of the Indian Evidence Act provides the various presumptions regarding maps
and plans made by the authorities of the government. According to this Section,
the maps and plans are presumed to be genuine and accurate if it is made by the
authority of the Central or State government.

Presumption as to a Collection of Laws and

Reports
Section 84 of the Indian Evidence Act provides various presumptions regarding the
laws and reports. According to this Section, the court presumes every book which
contains laws and reports of the decisions of the Courts of the country to be
genuine if the book is printed or published by the authority of the government.

Presumption as to the Power-of-Attorney

Section 85 of the Evidence Act provides various
of attorney. According to this Section, the
document that is considered to be the power
before the authorized officer or Notary Public or
is executed and authenticated.
presumptions regarding the power
court shall presume that every
of attorney, and that is executed
any court or before any Magistrate
Presumption as to Books, Maps and Charts
Section 87 of the Indian Evidence Act provides various presumptions regarding the
books, maps and charts. The Court presumes that any book which contains any
information which contains matters of public or general interest, or any published
chart that are in relation with the case or any statements that contain relevant
facts which are produced for inspection is written and published by the person
mentioned in the book. The court also presumes that the time and place of
publication which is mentioned in the book or chart to be true.

Presumption as to Telegraphic Messages

Section 88 provides various presumptions regarding the telegraphic messages.
According to the Section, the court presumes “that telegraphic messages to be
that a message, which is forwarded from a telegraph office to the person to whom
such message which claims to be addressed, is in relation with a message that is
delivered for transmission at the office from which the message purports to be
sent”. The Section also mentions that the Court does not make any presumption
regarding the person by whom such a message was delivered for transmission.
The Section is not of any use now as the telegraph services have been stopped by
the Indian Government.

Presumption as to Electronic Messages

This is a very important Section as a lot of information are transferred in the
electronic form in the modern days. Section 88A of the Indian Evidence Act
provides various presumptions regarding electronic messages. According to this
Section, the Court presumes that an electronic message, which is forwarded by
the originator by means of an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the
message claims to be addressed, corresponds with the message as fed into his
computer for transmission. According to the Section, the terms “addressee” and
“originator” has the same meaning as mentioned in the clauses (b) and (za) of
sub-section (1) of Section 2 Information Technology Act,2000”.
Presumption as to due Execution of Documents
not produced
Section 89 of the Indian Evidence Act provides various presumptions regarding the
due execution of documents not produced. The Court presumes that every
document that is called for inspection and the documents are not produced even
after the notice period, it is presumed that the documents are attested, stamped
and executed in the manner which is prescribed by law.

Presumption as to Documents Thirty years old

Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the presumption as to documents
that are thirty years old. The Court presumes that any document which is
produced for investigation is from proper custody and the signature corresponds to
the signature of the person whose custody the document was in. The Court also
presumes that any handwriting in the document is the handwriting of the person
who has the custody of the document. It is also presumed by the Court that in
case if the document attested or executed, that it was duly executed and attested
by the persons by whom it professes to be executed and attested. The term
proper custody means that the document is with the care of the person and in a
place where it would naturally be. For example, ‘A’ has been in possession of a
certain property for a long time. He produces from his custody deeds the various
documents relating to the land showing his titles to it and the custody is held to be
proper.

Presumption as to the Electronic Record of Five

years old
Section 90A of the Indian Evidence Act provides the various presumptions
regarding electronic records of five years old. According to this Section, the Court
presumes that when any electronic record that is above five years old is procured
from the proper custody for investigation. It is presumed that the digital signature
corresponds to the particular person whose custody the record is, or the signature
belongs to the person who has authorized it. The term proper custody means that
the electronic record is with the care of the person and in place where it would
naturally be. It is also mentioned in the Section that no custody is improper if it is
proved that the custody is of legitimate origin in the particular case to render such
origin possible.
Conclusion

Documentary evidence plays a crucial role in the legal system and is widely used
in courts to prove facts and establish truth. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
provides for various provisions related to the admissibility and proof of
documentary evidence.

From Sections 61 to 73, the Act covers different aspects of documentary evidence,
such as proof of handwriting, attestation, admission by parties and exceptions to
the rule of attestation It is important to note that documentary evidence has to be
properly authenticated and the accuracy of the record must be established for it to
be admissible in court.
The case laws discussed above also demonstrate the importance of complying with
the conditions and requirements for the admissibility of documentary evidence. In
conclusion, the admissibility and weight of documentary evidence depend on
various factors, including its relevance, authenticity and reliability and the courts
carefully evaluate these factors before admitting it as evidence.

The distinction between a private and public document is an important one to

make. The former is used by an individual in a personal capacity and the latter is
concerned with the larger public interest. Moreover, Public documents as
secondary evidence are admissible as evidence in court and are presumed to be
genuine based on the sign and seal of the official involved in inspecting such a
document and no further proof is required. On the contrary, with private
documents, there is no presumption of genuineness, and such documents are
subject to rigorous scrutiny. The division of public and private documents as
provided by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ensures that that case there is no
ambiguity and confusion in matters relating to documentary evidence.

The Sections regarding presumptions is a very important part of the Indian

Evidence Act as they help in the investigation. The presumptions make the
investigation easier and faster. The Court has to follow all the presumptions and it
can only change its notion on presumptions only when it is necessary. The
documents have a lot of evidentiary value, and it is important to investigate them
properly and also save the Court’s valuable time at the same time. Thus, the
presumption regarding the documents is a very essential part of the Indian
Evidence Act.
Bibliography

1) MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (S.3)

2) GENERAL PROVISIONS UNDER IEA, 1872 (S. 61 – 73A)
3) PRIMARY EVIDENCE UNDER IEA, 1872 (S. 62)
4) SECONDARY EVIDENCE UNDER IEA, 1872(S.63)
5) AMENDMENTS TO THE IEA (S. 65A & 65B)
6) DOCUMENTS THAT NEED TO BE ATTESTED (S. 67 – 73A)
7) PUBLIC DOCUMENTS (S. 74)
8) PRIVATE DOCUMENTS (S. 75)
9) PROOF OF DOCUMENTS (S.77-78)
10) PRESUMPTION AS TO DOCUMENTS (S.79 – 90A)