Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 58
Secondary evidence
Secondary evidence includes—
(i) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
(ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(iii) copies made from or compared with the original;
(iv) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it;
(vi) oral admissions;
(vii) written admissions;
(viii) evidence of a person who has examined a document, the original of which consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 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.
Why this exists
Courts generally prefer the 'best evidence' — the original document itself — because copies and accounts can be altered, mistaken, or unreliable. But originals are often lost, destroyed, held by someone unwilling to produce them, or simply too bulky to examine. This provision, carried forward from Section 63 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (itself based on English evidence law), defines exactly what alternatives are acceptable so that justice isn't blocked just because the original is unavailable, while still keeping some quality control on what counts as trustworthy substitute evidence.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872), Indian courts consistently held that photocopies, carbon copies, and similar reproductions must be shown to have been made from or verified against the original to qualify as secondary evidence — a mere copy of a copy, uncompared, was rejected. Courts also clarified that producing secondary evidence is only permitted once a party first proves the original existed and explains why it cannot be produced (a threshold covered elsewhere in the evidence law). This structure and the illustrations were carried forward largely unchanged into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, so existing judicial interpretation is expected to continue guiding courts on what qualifies as reliable secondary evidence.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Any copy of a document is automatically acceptable as evidence.
Fact: Only specific types of copies count — like certified copies, machine copies proven accurate, or copies actually compared with the original. A random or uncompared copy usually doesn't qualify. - Myth: If you can't produce the original, you can just describe a photocopy or photo of it instead.
Fact: Courts have held that describing a copy or photo verbally does not count as secondary evidence of the original — only someone who saw the actual original can give that oral account. - Myth: This section alone lets you skip producing the original whenever convenient.
Fact: This section only defines what qualifies as secondary evidence; separate provisions require you to first prove the original existed and justify why it can't be produced before secondary evidence is even allowed.