If an attesting witness cannot be found, the document automatically becomes invalid or unprovable.

The law provides an alternative: proving the genuineness of the witness's handwriting and the executant's signature through other evidence, such as handwriting comparison.

This provision lets anyone skip calling witnesses whenever convenient.

It applies only when an attesting witness genuinely cannot be found (courts read this to mean, e.g., dead, untraceable despite effort, or incapable) — not merely because calling them is inconvenient.

Proving handwriting under this rule is a mere formality that automatically validates the document.

Courts, especially in will disputes, still examine the overall genuineness and surrounding circumstances of the document even after handwriting is proved.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 68

Proof where no attesting witness found

If no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.§

Why this exists

Some legal documents—like wills and certain deeds—are only valid in law if witnessed (attested) by people who saw them signed. Normally, to prove such a document in court, you must call one of those attesting witnesses to testify. But witnesses die, move away, go missing, or become impossible to trace over time, especially years after a will is made. This rule (carried forward from Section 69 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872) gives courts a fallback: instead of insisting on an impossible task—producing a witness who cannot be found—the law allows proof through independent evidence of handwriting, so that genuine documents are not defeated merely because a witness has vanished.

How courts read it

Indian courts, interpreting the identical predecessor provision (Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872), have held that 'cannot be found' is understood broadly to include witnesses who are dead, untraceable despite reasonable search, incapable of giving evidence, or in some situations those who have turned hostile or deny attestation. In will cases, such as the Supreme Court's guidance in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, courts have stressed that even when relying on this handwriting-proof route, the propounder of a will must still satisfy the court that the document was validly executed and attested, given the suspicion that surrounds wills where the primary witnesses cannot appear.

Common misconceptions

Myth: If an attesting witness cannot be found, the document automatically becomes invalid or unprovable.
Fact: The law provides an alternative: proving the genuineness of the witness's handwriting and the executant's signature through other evidence, such as handwriting comparison.
Myth: This provision lets anyone skip calling witnesses whenever convenient.
Fact: It applies only when an attesting witness genuinely cannot be found (courts read this to mean, e.g., dead, untraceable despite effort, or incapable) — not merely because calling them is inconvenient.
Myth: Proving handwriting under this rule is a mere formality that automatically validates the document.
Fact: Courts, especially in will disputes, still examine the overall genuineness and surrounding circumstances of the document even after handwriting is proved.