Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 55
Oral evidence to be direct
Oral evidence shall, in all cases whatever, be direct; if it refers to,—
(i) a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
(ii) a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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 further 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.
Why this exists
This is India's version of the classic 'rule against hearsay,' inherited from English common law and originally codified as Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Courts rely on live, first-hand testimony because it can be tested through cross-examination, the witness's demeanour can be observed, and the risk of distortion through repeated retelling is avoided. Allowing second-hand accounts ('X told me that Y saw...') would let unreliable, unverifiable claims into trials, so the law insists evidence come directly from the person who perceived the fact or holds the opinion.
How courts read it
Indian courts have consistently treated this as the foundational hearsay-exclusion rule, holding that testimony about what someone else said they saw or heard is normally inadmissible unless it falls under a recognised statutory exception, such as dying declarations, admissions, or facts forming part of the same transaction (res gestae). Courts have also read the section's two provisos as narrow exceptions — allowing published expert treatises to be produced when the author cannot testify, and empowering judges to demand physical inspection of an object described in oral testimony rather than relying solely on a witness's description.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Any secondhand story ('someone told me...') is fine as evidence if it sounds believable.
Fact: Such hearsay is generally not admissible; the law requires the actual witness who perceived the fact to testify, except in specific recognised exceptions like dying declarations. - Myth: Written reports or documents can always substitute for a witness's oral account.
Fact: Oral evidence must be direct testimony from the person who perceived the fact; documents and treatises are allowed only in narrow situations, like when an expert author is dead or unavailable.